`Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
`By: Craig S. Summers
`Brenton R. Babcock
`Christy G. Lea
`Joshua Stowell
`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-4@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. IPR2017-00444
`Patent 6,915,560
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00444
`Edwards v. Boston Scientific
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a) and the Scheduling Order (Paper 10),
`
`Petitioner Edwards Lifesciences Corporation requests that the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board hear oral argument on the instituted grounds of unpatentability for
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,915,560 (“the ’560 Patent”) and associated issues, including:
`
`1.
`
`Proper construction of the relevant claim terms of the ’560 Patent.
`
`2. Whether Claims 1, 2, 6, 8-11, 14, 15, 17-19, 23, 25-28, 31, 33-35, 37,
`
`39, and 40 of the ’560 Patent would have been obvious over Yasumi,
`
`as taught in the embodiment of Figure 8, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`3. Whether Claims 11, 17, 19, 26, 34, 35, and 39 of the ’560 Patent
`
`would have been obvious over Yasumi, as taught in the embodiment
`
`of Figure 8, and Morales under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`4.
`
`Responses to any issues raised by Patent Owner in its Request for
`
`Oral Argument, or any issues raised at the oral argument.
`
`5.
`
`Any other issues the Board deems necessary for issuing a final written
`
`decision.
`
`The Board has previously scheduled the oral argument for March 15, 2018,
`
`see Paper 10.
`
`Petitioner believes 45 minutes of argument time for each party, including
`
`rebuttal by Petitioner, should be sufficient to address the issues in this IPR.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00444
`Edwards v. Boston Scientific
`
`Petitioner anticipates that approximately 4–7 people will attend the oral argument
`
`on its behalf.
`
`Dated: February 9, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`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)
`Joshua Stowell (Reg. No. 64,096)
`Cheryl T. Burgess (Reg No. 55,030)
`Customer No. 20,995
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORP.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of PETITIONER’S REQUEST
`
`FOR ORAL ARGUMENT is being served on February 9, 2018, 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:
`
`
`
`Nicholas M. Nyemah
`Nicholas.Nyemah@aporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
`601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`
`Wallace Wu
`Wallace.Wu@aporter.com
`Jennifer A. Sklenar
`Jennifer.Sklenar@aporter.com
`xEDW_BSC_IPR201700444@aporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
`777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
`
`
`
`Dated: February 9, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`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)
`Joshua Stowell (Reg. No. 64,096)
`Cheryl T. Burgess (Reg No. 55,030)
`Customer No. 20,995
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORP.
`
`27540721
`
`1
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
