throbber
Filed on behalf of:
`Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
`By: Craig S. Summers
`Brenton R. Babcock
`Christy G. Lea
`Cheryl T. Burgess
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Tel.: (949) 760-0404
`Fax: (949) 760-9502
`Email: BoxEdwards@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-00072
`Patent 6,915,560
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ........................ 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD FOR REHEARING .................................................. 2
`
`III. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ...................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Rejections based on AAPA and Whitesell .......................................... 3
`
`Rejections based on Wilhelm and Tuberman...................................... 4
`
`IV. DETAILED REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF ....................... 5
`
`A.
`
`The Office Previously Failed to Combine the AAPA with
`Sabbaghian (or Baker) ......................................................................... 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Board misapprehended or overlooked that the
`AAPA and Sabbaghian (or Baker) is a new
`combination ............................................................................... 6
`
`The Board misapprehended or overlooked that the
`AAPA and Sabbaghian (or Baker) combination is not
`substantially similar to any combination applied
`during prosecution .................................................................... 6
`
`The Board should not defer to the Examiner’s original
`patentability determination when the Petition sets
`forth substantially different prior art combinations .................. 9
`
`B.
`
`The Office Previously Did Not Combine the AAPA and
`Sabbaghian (or Baker) with Morales ................................................ 12
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 13
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page No.
`
`10x Genomics, Inc. v. The University Of Chicago,
`Case IPR2015–01157, slip op. (PTAB Nov. 16, 2015.) ....................................... 9
`
`Arnold P’ship v. Dudas,
`362 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 2
`
`Comcast Cable Commc’ns LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.,
`Case IPR2017-0027, slip op. (PTAB May 15, 2017) ......................................... 10
`
`Excelsior Med. Corp. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`Case IPR2014-00880, slip op. (PTAB Nov. 25, 2014) ...................................... 10
`
`In re Gartside,
`203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 2
`
`Gen. Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Corp.,
`Case IPR2016–01304, slip op. (PTAB Jan. 5, 2017) ......................................... 13
`
`Glob. Tel-Link Corp. v. Securus Techs.,
`Case IPR2015-01219, slip op. (PTAB Dec. 10, 2015) ....................................... 10
`
`Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Lab Co.,
`Case IPR2013-00064, slip op. (PTAB Apr. 30, 2013) ....................................... 10
`
`Medtronic PLC v. Masimo Corp.,
`Case IPR2016-00056, slip op. (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) ....................................... 10
`
`Netflix, Inc. v. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC,
`Case IPR2017-00122, slip op. (PTAB Apr. 26, 2017) ......................................... 9
`
`O’Keefe v. U.S. Postal Service,
`318 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 2
`
`SAP Am. Inc. v. Clouding IP, LLC,
`Case IPR2014-00308, slip op. (PTAB July 10, 2014) ......................................... 9
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`SAP Am. Inc. v. Clouding IP, LLC,
`Case IPR2014-00308, slip op. (PTAB July 10, 2014) ......................................... 9
`
`Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States,
`393 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 2
`
`Tandus Flooring, Inc. v. Interface, Inc.,
`Case IPR2013–00333, slip op. (PTAB Dec. 9, 2013) .......................................... 9
`
`TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.,
`Case PR2014-00261, slip op. (PTAB June 26, 2014) ........................................ 13
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325 .................................................................................................passim
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71 ................................................................................................... 1, 2
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00072
`Edwards v. Boston Scientific
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`I.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Petitioner Edwards Lifesciences
`
`respectfully requests rehearing of the Board’s April 21, 2017 Decision Denying
`
`Institution of Inter Partes Review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (“Decision,” Paper 8).
`
`Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the denial because the Board was led astray by
`
`Patent Owner to find erroneously that the Petition raises “the same or substantially
`
`the same prior art or arguments as those previously presented to the Office.”
`
`Decision at 11. As a result, the Board misapprehended or overlooked that the
`
`Petition raises new prior art combinations, arguments, and facts that were not
`
`previously considered by the Office.
`
`As explained below, the Board was led astray by Patent Owner to believe
`
`that new prior art raised in the Petition was substantially the same as prior art
`
`before the Office. To the contrary, the Petition prior art combinations disclose
`
`claim limitations not disclosed by the Office prior art combinations. Those claim
`
`limitations formed the basis for the Examiner’s allowance of the claims. As such,
`
`the Board’s findings cannot be supported by substantial evidence and amount to an
`
`abuse of discretion necessitating rehearing. Thus, Petitioner respectfully requests
`
`that the Board reconsider its Decision denying institution.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00072
`Edwards v. Boston Scientific
`
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR REHEARING
`A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party
`
`believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each
`
`matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or reply.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, the panel will review the
`
`decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion
`
`may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a
`
`factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision
`
`represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits
`
`S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v.
`
`Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305,
`
`1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The Board necessarily abuses its discretion when it
`
`rests its decision on factual findings unsupported by substantial evidence.”
`
`O’Keefe v. U.S. Postal Service, 318 F.3d 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`III. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`In its Preliminary Response, the Patent Owner superficially argued to the
`
`Board that “the Examiner thoroughly considered the alleged AAPA” and “later
`
`allowed the application claims over the teachings of the alleged AAPA.” POPR at
`
`15. Those conclusory arguments do not accurately represent the prosecution
`
`history and appear to have misled the Board to deny institution. Accordingly,
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00072
`Edwards v. Boston Scientific
`
`Petitioner provides a brief explanation of the relevant prosecution history and the
`
`Examiner’s limited, one-time application of the AAPA at the beginning of the
`
`prosecution. The Petition provides a more detailed discussion of the prosecution
`
`history, and relevant excerpts of the prosecution history were included as Exhibit
`
`1002 thereto. Petition at 22-29. The discussion here emphasizes the portions of
`
`the prosecution history which, when considered in their appropriate context,
`
`demonstrate that the Board misapprehended or overlooked that the Petition raises
`
`new prior art combinations, arguments, and facts that were not previously
`
`considered by the Office.
`
`A. Rejections based on AAPA and Whitesell
`During prosecution, the Examiner initially rejected the claims based on the
`
`AAPA in view of Whitesell. According to the Examiner, the AAPA taught most
`
`of the limitations of the claims, but did not teach dies disposed about an aperture
`
`with a substantially regular polygonal shape. The Examiner found that Whitesell
`
`taught this limitation. Ex. 1002 at 72-73. In response, the Applicant amended the
`
`claims to recite dies with straight or flat sides facing a substantially polygonal
`
`aperture when moved to open or close the aperture (the “straight-sided
`
`die/polygonal aperture limitation”). Ex. 1002 at 57–60. The Applicant explained
`
`that Whitesell’s dies did not have a flat side facing the aperture, and did not form a
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00072
`Edwards v. Boston Scientific
`
`polygonal shape, when closed. Id. at 63-64; compare Ex. 1003 (Whitesell), Figs. 2
`
`and 4.
`
`Examiner found Whitesell’s
`dies formed a substantially
`regular polygonal shape
`
`Applicant amended claims and
`explained that Whitesell did
`not have flat sides and did not
`have a substantially polygonal
`shape when closed
`
`
`
`B. Rejections based on Wilhelm and Tuberman
`After
`the Applicant added
`the straight-sided die/polygonal aperture
`
`limitation, the Examiner rejected many of the claims as anticipated by Wilhelm or
`
`Tuberman. The Examiner found that both references disclosed dies arranged to
`
`form an iris with angles that remain substantially the same when the dies move to
`
`open or close. Ex. 1002 at 45-46.
`
`To overcome this rejection, the Applicant amended the claims again. This
`
`time the Applicant added a limitation directed to dies disposed “between stationary
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00072
`Edwards v. Boston Scientific
`
`end-walls substantially centered about the longitudinal axis” (the “stationary end-
`
`walls limitation.”) Id. at 29-33.
`
`The Applicant distinguished Tuberman based on the newly added limitation,
`
`explaining that Tuberman did not teach stationary end-walls substantially centered
`
`about the longitudinal axis. Id. at 35. The Applicant also distinguished Wilhelm
`
`based on the newly added limitation, explaining that Wilhelm taught an open face
`
`apparatus without end-walls. Id. at 36. As a result, the Examiner allowed the
`
`claims without ever rejecting the amended claims in view of the AAPA.
`
`IV. DETAILED REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`The Board declined to institute inter partes review of the ’560 patent
`
`because it found that the Petition raises “the same or substantially the same prior
`
`art or arguments as those previously presented to the Office.” Decision at 11. As a
`
`result of the Patent Owner’s arguments, the Board misapprehended or overlooked
`
`that the Petition raises prior art combinations, arguments, and facts that were never
`
`presented to the Office. Specifically, the Petition combines the prior art in an
`
`entirely new way that the Office never considered during prosecution.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00072
`Edwards v. Boston Scientific
`
`
`A. The Office Previously Failed to Combine the AAPA with
`Sabbaghian (or Baker)
`1.
`
`The Board misapprehended or overlooked that the AAPA
`and Sabbaghian (or Baker) is a new combination
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1, 2, 6, 8–10, 14, 15, 18, 23,
`
`25, 27, 28, 31, 33, 37, and 40 on the following two grounds:
`
`(1) AAPA and Sabbaghian; and
`
`(2) AAPA and Baker.
`
`As discussed in the Petition, Sabbaghian and Baker were not before the Examiner
`
`during prosecution. Petition at 37, 41. Thus, the combination of the AAPA with
`
`Sabbaghian is a new prior art combination, as is the combination of the AAPA
`
`with Baker.
`
`2.
`
`The Board misapprehended or overlooked that the AAPA
`and Sabbaghian (or Baker) combination is not substantially
`similar to any combination applied during prosecution
`
`The Office has never considered a substantially similar combination to the
`
`AAPA and Sabbaghian (or Baker) combination applied against the challenged
`
`claims.
`
`The Board’s Decision states:
`
`Although Sabbaghian and Baker were not considered,
`Petitioner notes that during examination Whitesell was applied as
`disclosing a crimper with a “substantially regular polygonal shape.”
`Similarly, Tuberman was considered during prosecution as teaching a
`device with “an aperture of a substantially regular polygonal shape.”
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00072
`Edwards v. Boston Scientific
`
`Decision at 10-11 (internal citation omitted). The Decision thus suggests that
`
`Sabbaghian and Baker are substantially similar to Whitesell and Tuberman. This
`
`conclusion is incorrect, and misapprehended or overlooked how the disclosure in
`
`Sabbaghian and Baker, and the combination of Sabbaghian or Baker with the
`
`AAPA, differs from Whitesell and Tuberman.
`
`In particular, the Board misapprehended or overlooked that Sabbaghian and
`
`Baker expressly disclose the straight-sided die/polygonal aperture limitation of the
`
`claims, whereas Whitesell does not. See Petition at 25, 48-49, 52-53, 85-88.
`
`Therefore, Sabbaghian and Baker cannot be substantially similar to Whitesell
`
`because they expressly disclose a claim limitation that Whitesell does not.
`
`Moreover, the Board misapprehended or overlooked that the Petition does
`
`not apply Sabbaghian and Baker in the same manner that the Examiner applied
`
`Whitesell or Tuberman during prosecution. As explained in the Petition, the
`
`Examiner applied Whitesell both alone and in combination with the AAPA. Id. at
`
`22-25. The Applicant distinguished Whitesell—and the combination of the AAPA
`
`with Whitesell—because neither the AAPA nor Whitesell taught the straight-sided
`
`die/polygonal aperture limitation. Id. at 25. The Examiner never applied a new
`
`combination of the AAPA with another reference that discloses the straight-sided
`
`die/polygonal aperture limitation. Id. at 26-29. However, as set forth in the
`
`Petition, both Sabbaghian and Baker expressly disclose this limitation (id. at 48-49,
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00072
`Edwards v. Boston Scientific
`
`52-53, 85-88), and the resultant combination of the AAPA with either Sabbaghian
`
`or Baker therefore presents a substantially different combination than anything
`
`previously presented to, or considered by, the Office.
`
`
`
`Moreover, after further claim amendments, the Examiner applied Tuberman
`
`individually as an anticipatory reference. Id. at 26. The Applicant distinguished
`
`Tuberman because it did not teach the newly added stationary end-walls limitation.
`
`Id. at 27. The Examiner never applied a new combination of Tuberman with
`
`another reference that discloses the stationary end-walls limitation. Id. at 28-29.
`
`However, as set forth in the Petition, the AAPA expressly discloses this limitation
`
`(id. at 46-47), and the resultant combination of the AAPA with either Sabbaghian
`
`or Baker therefore presents a substantially different combination than anything
`
`previously presented to, or considered by, the Office.
`
`Although the AAPA and Tuberman were separately before the Examiner,
`
`the Examiner only applied the AAPA in a single combination—with Whitesell.
`
`The Examiner did not combine the AAPA with Tuberman or any other reference
`
`teaching the straight-sided die/polygonal aperture limitation. Similarly, the
`
`Examiner did not combine Tuberman with the AAPA or any other reference that
`
`discloses the stationary end-walls limitation of the challenged claims.
`
`Thus, the Board’s finding that the Petition relies on “the same or
`
`substantially the same prior art or arguments as those previously presented to the
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00072
`Edwards v. Boston Scientific
`
`Office” (Decision at 11) is not supported by substantial evidence. The Board
`
`overlooked or misapprehended that the AAPA and Sabbaghian (or Baker) is a new
`
`combination not substantially similar to any combination previously considered by
`
`the Office.
`
`3.
`
`The Board should not defer to the Examiner’s original
`patentability determination when the Petition sets forth
`substantially different combinations
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the Board, in deciding whether to institute inter
`
`partes review, is not required to defer to a prior determination in the Office, even
`
`one that considered the same prior art and arguments. SAP Am. Inc. v. Clouding
`
`IP, LLC, Case IPR2014-00308, slip op. at 22 (PTAB July 10, 2014) (Paper 8).
`
`Where, as here, Petitioner presents different arguments and new supporting
`
`evidence that were not before the Office, the Board has often not deferred to the
`
`prior determination and has instituted review. See, e.g., 10x Genomics, Inc. v. The
`
`University Of Chicago, Case IPR2015–01157, slip op. at 13-14 (PTAB Nov. 16,
`
`2015.) (Paper 14); SAP Am. Inc. v. Clouding IP, LLC, Case IPR2014-00308, slip
`
`op. at 23 (PTAB July 10, 2014) (Paper 8); Tandus Flooring, Inc. v. Interface, Inc.,
`
`Case IPR2013–00333, slip op. at 6 (PTAB Dec. 9, 2013) (Paper 16).
`
`In particular, the Board has instituted review where, like here, the Examiner
`
`did not consider the same art in the same manner applied in the petition. See, e.g.,
`
`Netflix, Inc. v. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, Case IPR2017-00122, slip op. at 15
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00072
`Edwards v. Boston Scientific
`
`(PTAB Apr. 26, 2017) (Paper 10) (“[A]lthough Treyz and Fuller were both before
`
`the Examiner during prosecution, and although Petitioner relies upon similar
`
`reasoning as to why the two references would be combined by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art, we are directed to insufficient evidence that the Examiner ever
`
`considered the exact same . . . arguments, set forth by Petitioner in this proceeding,
`
`as Patent Owner contends.”); Medtronic PLC v. Masimo Corp., Case IPR2016-
`
`00056, slip op. at 20 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (Paper 8) (instituting IPR where
`
`unclear whether Examiner considered the references as part of the specific
`
`combinations at issue in the Petition); Glob. Tel-Link Corp. v. Securus Techs., Case
`
`IPR2015-01219, slip op. at 14-15 (PTAB Dec. 10, 2015) (Paper 18); Excelsior
`
`Med. Corp. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., Case IPR2014-00880, slip op. at 9-12
`
`(PTAB Nov. 25, 2014) (Paper 12) (prior art not considered in same combination or
`
`against same claim); Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Lab Co., Case
`
`IPR2013-00064, slip op. at 6-7 (PTAB Apr. 30, 2013) (Paper 11) (“Absent a
`
`showing of ‘substantially the same . . . arguments,’ and considering the expert
`
`declaration and other factors, Patent Owner does not show that the inter partes
`
`review would be improper under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).”); Comcast Cable Commc’ns
`
`LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc., Case IPR2017-0027, slip op. at 20-21 (PTAB May 15,
`
`2017) (Paper 18) (instituting review where Examiner relied on a different reference
`
`than Petition for disclosure of claim limitation).
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00072
`Edwards v. Boston Scientific
`
`
`There is good cause for reconsidering the instant Petition. The Examiner did
`
`not have the benefit of the new arguments set forth in the Petition, namely (as
`
`discussed above) the AAPA discloses the stationary end-walls limitation and can
`
`readily be combined with a reference disclosing the straight sided/polygonal die
`
`limitation to render the claims obvious. Indeed, the Examiner never combined the
`
`AAPA with a reference disclosing the straight sided die/polygonal aperture
`
`limitation, like Sabbaghian or Baker.
`
`It is irrelevant to speculate why the Examiner did not make a combination
`
`that is so readily apparent; the simple fact is that he did not do so. The Examiner
`
`applied the AAPA early in the prosecution process, in October 2003, to reject
`
`claims that did not then have the stationary end-walls limitation. Ex. 1002 at 69-
`
`80. Over a year later, and in response to a later Office Action, the Applicant
`
`amended the claims to include the stationary end-walls limitation. Ex. 1002 at 29-
`
`39. The Examiner never thereafter applied the AAPA as part of a new
`
`combination to address those later-amended claims. Apparently, by the time the
`
`Applicant amended the claims to include the stationary end-wall limitation, so
`
`much time had passed since the Examiner had cited the AAPA that he overlooked
`
`revisiting that prior art in a new combination to address the amended claims.
`
`While perhaps understandable, this type of Examiner oversight is precisely the
`
`situation inter partes review is designed to address.
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00072
`Edwards v. Boston Scientific
`
`
`The Examiner also lacked the benefit of Neil Sheehan’s expert opinion on
`
`how to apply the prior art of record. Ex. 1013. Mr. Sheehan’s declaration explains
`
`how a POSITA would have understood the AAPA to disclose the stationary end-
`
`walls limitation, how a POSITA would have understood Sabbaghian or Baker to
`
`disclose the straight sided/polygonal die limitation, and why it would have been
`
`obvious to combine the AAPA with Sabbaghian or Baker. The Board now has the
`
`benefit of both the Petition and declaration. The new arguments and facts
`
`available to the Board help cast the prior art in a new light, illuminating how the
`
`available references render the challenged claims obvious.
`
`For these reasons, Petitioner requests that the Board reconsider its Decision
`
`denying institution.
`
`B.
`
`The Office Previously Did Not Combine the AAPA and
`Sabbaghian (or Baker) with Morales
`
`Petitioner challenged the patentability of claims 11, 17, 19, 26, 34, 35, and
`
`39 on the following two grounds:
`
`(3) Applicant Admitted Prior Art, Sabbaghian, and Morales; and
`
`(4) Applicant Admitted Prior Art, Baker, and Morales.
`
`If the Board reconsiders its decision not to institute on Grounds 1 and 3, it
`
`should also reconsider its decision on Grounds 2 and 4 for the same reasons.
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00072
`Edwards v. Boston Scientific
`
`Grounds 2 and 4 are similar to Ground 1 and 3, but include Morales for the
`
`disclosure of several dependent claim limitations.
`
`Though Applicant identified Morales in an IDS, there is no indication that
`
`the Examiner applied Morales against any of the challenged claims. The Board
`
`has declined to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) where references were
`
`identified in an IDS during prosecution, but the Examiner did not apply the
`
`references to reject the claims. See Gen. Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Corp., Case
`
`IPR2016–01304, slip op. at 7-8 (PTAB Jan. 5, 2017) (Paper 8) (“Although
`
`Spadaccini and Wilmot were identified on an IDS during prosecution, Patent
`
`Owner has not demonstrated that the same arguments set forth in the Petition were
`
`ever considered by the Examiner or that the combination of Spadaccini and
`
`Wilmot was ever applied by the Examiner to reject any claims.”); TRW Auto. US
`
`LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc., Case PR2014-00261, slip op. at 11-12 (PTAB June 26,
`
`2014) (Paper 19) (“Although the Examiner presumably was aware of Yanagawa,
`
`there is no evidence that Yanagawa was applied in any manner to any of the
`
`claims.”). The Board should similarly institute review here.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`the Board misapprehended or overlooked new prior art
`
`Because
`
`combinations, arguments, and facts identified in the Petition and not previously
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00072
`Edwards v. Boston Scientific
`
`before the Office, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board reconsider the
`
`Decision not to institute under 35 U.S.C § 325(d).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
`
`
`By: /Craig S. Summers/
`Craig S. Summers (Reg. No. 31,430)
`Brenton R. Babcock (Reg. No. 39,592)
`Christy G. Lea (Reg. No. 51,754)
`Cheryl T. Burgess (Reg No. 55,030)
`Customer No. 20,995
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORP.
`(949) 760-0404
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 22, 2017
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00072
`Edwards v. Boston Scientific
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.71(d) is being served on May 22, 2017, via electronic mail pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and with the consent of Patent Owner’s counsel, to counsel for
`
`Patent Owner’s at the addresses below:
`
`Wallace Wu (Reg. No. 45,380)
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
`Tel: (213) 243-4000
`Fax: (213) 243-4199
`Wallace.Wu@aporter.com
`
`Jennifer A. Sklenar (Reg. No. 40,205)
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
`Tel: (213) 243-4000
`Fax: (213) 243-4199
`Jennifer.Sklenar@aporter.com
`
`Nicholas M. Nyemah (Reg. No. 67,788)
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Telephone: (202) 942-5000
`Nicholas.Nyemah@aporter.com
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Craig S. Summers/
`Craig S. Summers (Reg. No. 31,430)
`Brenton R. Babcock (Reg. No. 39,592)
`Christy G. Lea (Reg. No. 51,754)
`Cheryl T. Burgess (Reg No. 55,030)
`Customer No. 20,995
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORP.
`
`
`
`Dated: May 22, 2017
`
`25893415
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket