Wallace Wu (State Bar No. 220110)
`wallace.wu@apks.com
`Allen Secretov (State Bar No. 301655)
`allen.secretov@apks.com
`Scott D. Dubois (State Bar No. 307110)
`scott.dubois@apks.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street, Forty-Fourth Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`Tel.: (213) 243-4000; Fax: (213) 243-4199
`
`Marty Koresawa (State Bar No. 291967)
`marty.koresawa@apks.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`3 Embarcadero Center, Tenth Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Tel.: (415) 471-3100; Fax: (415) 471-3400
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
`Case No. 8:16-cv-0730-CJC-GJS
`and
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.
`
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC
`CORPORATION’S AND BOSTON
`SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.’S
`SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO
`EDWARDS’S INTERROGATORY
`NOS. 1-16
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES
`CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs
`Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. (collectively,
`“Boston Scientific”) hereby serves these supplemental objections and response to
`Interrogatory Nos. 1-16 served by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (“Edwards”).
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 1-16
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 1 of 59
`
`Edwards Lifesciences v. Boston Scientific
`U.S. Patent No. 6,915,560
`IPR2017-00444 EX. 2024
`
`

`

`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Boston Scientific’s investigation, discovery, and analysis are ongoing, and
`Boston Scientific’s response to each of these interrogatories is based on information
`and documents presently available to Boston Scientific after a reasonable
`investigation. Boston Scientific reserves the right to supplement or amend these
`responses in the event that further information and/or documents are disclosed or
`discovered.
`Specific objections to Interrogatory Nos. 1-16 are made on an individual basis
`in the response below. In addition to these specific objections, Boston Scientific
`makes certain continuing objections (“General Objections”) to Edwards’s
`“Definitions” and “General Instructions” for interrogatories. These General
`Objections are hereby incorporated by reference into the responses made to each
`separate interrogatory. For particular emphasis, Boston Scientific has, from time to
`time, expressly included one or more of the General Objections in certain of its
`responses below. Boston Scientific’s response to each individual interrogatory is
`submitted without prejudice to, and without in any respect waiving, any General
`Objections not expressly set forth in that specific response. Accordingly, the
`inclusion of any specific objection in a response to an interrogatory below is neither
`intended as, nor shall in any way be deemed to be, a waiver of any General
`Objections or of any other specific objection made herein or that may be asserted at a
`later date. In addition, the failure to include at this time any continuing or specific
`objection to an interrogatory is neither intended as, nor shall in any way be deemed to
`be, a waiver of Boston Scientific’s right to assert that or any other objection at a later
`date.
`
`No incidental or implied admissions are intended by the responses herein. Any
`response and/or objections to a particular interrogatory shall not be taken as an
`admission that Boston Scientific accepts or admits the existence of any “fact” set
`forth in or assumed by that request.
`
`- 1 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 1-16
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 2 of 59
`
`

`

`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`The General Objections set forth in Boston Scientific’s Second Supplemental
`Objections and Responses to the Interrogatories Nos. 13 and 14, served on July 19,
`2017, are incorporated into the supplemental response provided below as if fully set
`forth therein.
`
`SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1: For each Accused Product, describe in detail, on a
`limitation-by-limitation basis (e.g., in the form of a claim chart), all factual and legal
`bases for Your contention that the Patents-In-Suit are infringed either literally or
`under the doctrine of equivalents.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`Boston Scientific objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
`protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or any other
`applicable privilege or immunity. Boston Scientific further objects to this
`interrogatory as containing multiple subparts. Boston Scientific further objects to this
`interrogatory as premature because (1) Edwards has not provided any information,
`documents, or physical samples relating to any of the accused products, (2) Edwards
`has not proposed any claim construction, (3) the Court has not construed any claim
`terms, and (4) expert discovery has not yet begun.
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Boston Scientific
`responds as follows.
`Boston Scientific contends that Edwards has directly infringed, and continues
`to directly infringe, at least the patent claims identified in Table I below in violation
`of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling in the United
`States, and/or importing into the United States certain catheter products or crimpers,
`used in Sapien, Sapien XT, and Sapien 3 products, for example and without
`limitation, the products (and representative models and versions thereof) identified in
`Table II below.
`
`- 2 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 1-16
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 3 of 59
`
`

`

`Table I Asserted Claims Of The Patents-In-Suit
`Patents-In-Suit
`Asserted Claims
`6,007,543 (the ’543 patent) (Ex. A)
`1-3, 6-12, 19-21, 24-29
`6,203,558 (the ’558 patent) (Ex. B)
`1-2, 9, 14, 20-22
`6,371,962 (the ’962 patent) (Ex. C)
`1-3, 6-13, 20-22, 25-30, 35-36
`6,712,827 (the ’827 patent) (Ex. D)
`1-3, 5-20
`6,915,560 (the ’560 patent) (Ex. E)
`1-2, 6, 8-11, 14-15, 17-19, 23, 25-28, 31,
`33-35, 37, 40
`1-3, 5-8, 13, 15, 18-20
`5-6, 9-12
`1-26
`
`7,749,234 (the ’234 patent) (Ex. F)
`7,828,767 (the ’767 patent) (Ex. G)
`8,709,062 (the ’062 patent) (Ex. H)
`
`Table II Accused Products, Their Exemplary Models/Version, And
`Asserted Claims
`
`Accused Products
`
`Commander
`Delivery System
`
`Exemplary
`Models/Versions
`9600LDS20,
`9600LDS23,
`9600LDS26,
`9600LDS29,
`9610TF23,
`9610TF26,
`9610TF29
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`’543 patent: 1-2, 6-8, 11-12, 19-20,
`24-25, 28-29
`
`’558 patent: 1-2, 9, 14, 20-22
`
`’962 patent: 1-2, 6-8, 11-13, 20-21,
`25-26, 29-30, 35-36
`
`’827 patent: 1-2, 5-14, 16-18, 20
`
`’234 patent: 1-3, 5-8, 13, 15, 18-20
`
`’767 patent: 5-6, 9-12
`
`Ascendra Delivery
`System (or Balloon
`Catheter)
`
`Ascendra+: 9355AS23,
`9355AS26, 9355AS29
`
`’062 patent: 1-26
`’962 patent: 1-3, 8, 11-13, 20-22,
`29-30, 35-36
`
`’827 patent: 1-3, 13-14, 16-20
`
`’767 patent: 5-6, 9-12
`
`Ascendra:
`9120BCL23,
`9120BCL26,
`9100BCL23,
`9100BCL26
`9620TA23, 9620TA26,
`- 3 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 1-16
`
`Certitude Delivery
`
`’062 patent: 1-12
`’543 patent: 1-3, 8-12, 19-21, 26-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 4 of 59
`
`

`

`System
`
`9620TA29
`
`29
`
`’962 patent: 1-3, 8-13, 20-22, 27-
`30, 35-36
`
`’827 patent: 1-3, 13-20
`
`’767 patent: 5-6, 9-12
`
`’062 patent: 1-12
`’543 patent: 1-3, 8, 11-12, 19-21,
`28-29
`
`’962 patent: 1-3, 8, 11-13, 20-22,
`29-30, 35-36
`
`’827 patent: 1-3, 13-14, 16-20
`
`’767 patent: 5-6, 9-12
`
`’062 patent: 1-12
`’543 patent: 1-3, 8, 11-12, 19-21,
`28-29
`
`’962 patent: 1-3, 8, 11-13, 20-22,
`29-30, 35-36
`
`’827 patent: 1-3, 13-14, 16-20
`
`’767 patent: 5-6, 9-12
`
`NovaFlex Delivery
`System
`
`NovaFlex+: 9355FS20,
`9355FS23, 9355FS26,
`9355FS29
`
`NovaFlex: 9350FS23,
`9350FS26
`
`RetroFlex Delivery
`System (or Balloon
`Catheter)
`
`RetroFlex 3: 9120FS23,
`9120FS26
`
`RetroFlex II:
`9100HDSLT23,
`9100HDSLT26
`
`RetroFlex: 9120BC20,
`9120BC23
`
`’062 patent: 1-12
`’560 patent: 1-2, 6, 8-11, 14-15,
`17-19, 23, 25-28, 31, 33-35, 37, 40
`
`Edwards Crimper
`
`9100CR23, 9100CR26,
`9340CR23, 9340CR26,
`9350CR, 9600CR
`The claim charts attached herein as Exhibits A-H identify where each
`limitation of the asserted claims of the Patents-In-Suit is found within one or more
`accused products. Boston Scientific contends that each element of each asserted
`claim is literally present in the accused products unless otherwise indicated. But to
`
`- 4 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 1-16
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 5 of 59
`
`

`

`the extent that any claim element is found not to be literally embodied in the accused
`products, Boston Scientific contends that the accused products embody such claim
`elements under the doctrine of equivalents because there are no substantial
`differences for each claim element, and the accused products perform substantially
`the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same
`result. To date, Edwards has not provided non-infringement contentions in this case.
`Boston Scientific reserves the right to supplement its infringement contentions,
`including doctrine of equivalents contentions, in response to Edwards’s non-
`infringement contentions.
`Where a claim element is implemented in the same or substantially the same
`way for each product of an accused product family, Boston Scientific provides an
`exemplary illustration or description setting forth specifically where the limitation is
`found in the accused products, without repeating the same illustration or description
`for each product in the family.
`These preliminary infringement contentions are based upon information
`reasonably and presently available to Boston Scientific to date. Boston Scientific
`provides these preliminary infringement contentions before fulsome discovery and
`before the Court’s claim construction ruling. Specifically, to date, Edwards has not
`provided any information, documents, or physical samples relating to any of the
`accused products. Boston Scientific reserves the right, consistent with the Federal
`Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules to modify, amend, retract, and/or
`supplement its infringement contentions as additional evidence and information
`becomes available. Further, Boston Scientific’s preliminary infringement contentions
`are not an admission, adoption, or waiver of any particular claim construction.
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.1:
`See June 16, 2017 Letter from Wallace Wu to Brian Horne.
`
`- 5 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 1-16
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 6 of 59
`
`

`

`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.1:
`Boston Scientific incorporates its previous objections and responses to this
`interrogatory as if fully set forth herein. Subject to its general and specific objections,
`Boston Scientific supplements and amends its response as follows:
`In light of the discovery to date (including Edwards’s positions and arguments
`in its Inter Partes Review Petitions against the asserted patents), Boston Scientific
`hereby further revises its asserted claims and accused products as follows:
`Accused Kits (including
`Asserted Claims And Accused Products (including
`all models)
`all models)
`Sapien 3 - Commander kit Commander Delivery System:
`’543 patent: 1, 6-8, 11-12, 19-20, 24-25, 28-29
`’558 patent: 1-2, 9, 14, 20-22
`’962 patent: 1, 6-8, 11-13, 20-21, 25-26, 29-30, 35-36
`’827 patent: 1-2, 5-14, 16-18, 20
`’062 patent: 1-4, 7-26
`Crimper:
`’560 patent: 1-2, 6, 8-11, 14-15, 17-19, 23, 25-28, 31,
`33-35, 37, 40
`Certitude Delivery System:
`’767 patent: 5-8, 12, 14, 16, and 17
`
`Sapien 3 - Certitude kit
`
`Sapien XT - Transfemoral
`kit
`
`Crimper:
`’560 patent: 1-2, 6, 8-11, 14-15, 17-19, 23, 33-35, 37,
`40
`NovaFlex (also known as Retroflex 4) and NovaFlex+
`Delivery Systems:
`’543 patent: 1-3, 8, 11-12, 19-21, 28-29
`’962 patent: 1-3, 8, 11-13, 20-22, 29-30, 35-36
`- 6 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 1-16
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 7 of 59
`
`

`

`’827 patent: 1-3, 13-14, 16
`’062 patent: 1-4, 7-26
`
`Crimper:
`’560 patent: 1-2, 6, 8-11, 14-15, 17-19, 23, 25-28, 33-
`35, 37, 40
`Sapien XT - Ascendra+ kit Crimper:
`’560 patent: 1-2, 6, 8-11, 14-15, 17-19, 23, 33-35, 37,
`40
`Crimper:
`’560 patent: 1-2, 6, 8-11, 14-15, 17-19, 23, 33-35, 37,
`40
`
`Sapien - kit (for all
`RetroFlex Delivery
`Systems and Ascendra
`Delivery Systems)
`
`In comparison to the June 16, 2017 letter, claim 2 of the ’543 patent and the
`’234 patent are no longer asserted against Sapien 3 (Commander kit). Claims 17-20
`of the ’827 patent are no longer asserted against Sapien XT (Transfemoral kit).
`The supplemental claim charts attached herein as Exhibits Supp. A - E, G, H-1,
`and H-2 identify where each limitation of the asserted claims of the Patents-In-Suit is
`found within one or more accused products. Boston Scientific contends that each
`element of each asserted claim is literally present in the accused products unless
`otherwise indicated. But to the extent that any claim element is found not to be
`literally embodied in the accused products, Boston Scientific contends that the
`accused products embody such claim elements under the doctrine of equivalents
`because there are no substantial differences for each claim element, and the accused
`products perform substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to
`achieve substantially the same result. To date, Edwards has not provided sufficient
`non-infringement contentions in this case. Boston Scientific reserves the right to
`- 7 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 1-16
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 8 of 59
`
`

`

`supplement its infringement contentions, including doctrine of equivalents
`contentions, in response to Edwards’s non-infringement contentions.
`Where a claim element is implemented in the same or substantially the same
`way for each product of an accused product family, Boston Scientific provides an
`exemplary illustration or description setting forth specifically where the limitation is
`found in the accused products, without repeating the same illustration or description
`for each product in the family.
`Boston Scientific provides these infringement contentions before expert
`discovery and before the Court’s claim construction ruling. Boston Scientific
`reserves the right, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local
`Rules to modify, amend, retract, and/or supplement its infringement contentions as
`additional evidence and information becomes available. Further, these infringement
`contentions are not an admission, adoption, or waiver of any particular claim
`construction.
`Discovery is ongoing. Boston Scientific reserves the right to supplement its
`response.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2: For each claim of the Patents-In-Suit that You
`contend Edwards infringes indirectly through induced infringement under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 271(b), specifically state all facts and bases for Your contention, including
`identifying the direct infringer and any evidence that Edwards knowingly induced the
`infringing acts with a specific intent to encourage infringement by that person.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`Boston Scientific objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
`protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or any other
`applicable privilege or immunity. Boston Scientific further objects to this
`interrogatory as containing multiple subparts. Boston Scientific further objects to this
`interrogatory as premature because (1) Edwards has not provided any information,
`- 8 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 1-16
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 9 of 59
`
`

`

`documents, or physical samples relating to any of the accused products, (2) Edwards
`has not proposed any claim construction, (3) the Court has not construed any claim
`terms, and (4) expert discovery has not yet begun. Boston Scientific incorporates its
`responses to Interrogatory No. 1.
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Boston Scientific
`responds as follows.
`Boston Scientific contends that Edwards has induced, and continues to induce,
`the infringement of the ’543, ’558, ’962, ’827, ’560, ’234, and ’062 patents in
`violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). At all relevant times, Edwards actively, knowingly,
`and intentionally induced others, including without limitation Edwards’s customers,
`to use, make, sell, offer for sale, and/or import the accused products identified in
`Table II above, in a way that Edwards knew or should have known infringes the
`asserted claims of the ’543, ’558, ’962, ’827, ’560, ’234, and ’062 patents identified
`in Table II above. Specifically, Edwards has induced, and continues to induce, its
`customers to use the accused products in the manner designed and instructed by
`Edwards with the knowledge and intent that the customers’ use of the accused
`products directly infringes the asserted claims of the ’543, ’558, ’962, ’827, ’560,
`’234, and ’062 patents in Table II above. For example, Edwards provides
`promotional materials, instructional materials, videos, training, and other technical
`information to its customers to encourage and facilitate their infringement. There is
`no reasonable or intended way to use the accused products other than in a manner that
`infringes the asserted claims of the ’543, ’558, ’962, ’827, ’560, ’234, and ’062
`patents.
`Boston Scientific continues to investigate the information sought by this
`interrogatory. To date, Edwards has not provided any information, documents, or
`physical samples relating to any of the accused products. Boston Scientific reserves
`the right, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules to
`
`- 9 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 1-16
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 10 of 59
`
`

`

`modify, amend, retract, and/or supplement its contentions as additional evidence and
`information becomes available.
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.2:
`Boston Scientific incorporates its previous objections and responses to this
`interrogatory as if fully set forth herein. Subject to its general and specific objections,
`Boston Scientific supplements and amends its response as follows:
`Edwards has induced, and continues to induce, its customers to use the accused
`products in the manner designed and instructed by Edwards with the knowledge and
`intent that the customers’ use of the accused products directly infringes the asserted
`claims of the ’543, ’558, ’962, ’827, ’560, and ’062 patents. For example, Edwards
`provides promotional materials, instructional materials, videos, training, and other
`technical information to its customers to encourage and facilitate their infringement.
`See, e.g., EWL 00008866, EWL 00006359, EDWARDS 01494236, EDWARDS
`01512330, EWL 00006253, EWL 00255912, EWL 00590306, EDWARDS
`01575005. There is no reasonable or intended way to use the accused products other
`than in a manner that infringes the asserted claims of the ’543, ’558, ’962, ’827, ’560,
`and ’062 patents.
`Boston Scientific further incorporates by reference the deposition testimony of
`Timothy Ulrich, Tri Tran, Antonio Vidal, Ronaldo Cayabyab, Zachary O’Ferrell,
`Nathan Tenzer, Teo Jimenez, Zachery Hampton, Timothy Shum, Trey Bobo, David
`Loos, Larry Wood, Sean Chow, Assaf Bash, and Yaron Keidar, and the exhibits cited
`thereto.
`Discovery is ongoing. Boston Scientific reserves the right to supplement its
`response.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3: For each claim of the Patents-In-Suit You contend
`Edwards infringes indirectly through contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. §
`271(c), specifically state all facts and bases for Your contention, including identifying
`- 10 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 1-16
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 11 of 59
`
`

`

`the direct infringer and any evidence that Edwards knew its components were
`designed for a combination that was both patented and infringing, that the
`components have no substantial non-infringing use, and that the components are a
`material part of the combination.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`Boston Scientific objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
`protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or any other
`applicable privilege or immunity. Boston Scientific further objects to this
`interrogatory as containing multiple subparts. Boston Scientific further objects to this
`interrogatory as premature because (1) Edwards has not provided any information,
`documents, or physical samples relating to any of the accused products, (2) Edwards
`has not proposed any claim construction, (3) the Court has not construed any claim
`terms, and (4) expert discovery has not yet begun. Boston Scientific incorporates its
`responses to Interrogatory No. 1.
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Boston Scientific
`responds as follows:
`Edwards has contributed to, and continues to contribute to, infringement by
`others, including Edwards’s customers, of at least the following claims in violation of
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c):
` ’543 patent: 8
` ’962 patent: 8
` ’827 patent: 1-3, 5-20
` ’560 patent: 11, 17, 19, 26, 34-35
` ’234 patent: 13
` ’062 patent: 1-26
`In particular, each of the accused catheter delivery systems in Table II above is
`a component of a patented apparatus and constitutes a material part of the invention
`in at least claim 8 of the ’543 patent, claim 8 of the ’962 patent, claims 1-3 and 5-20
`- 11 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 1-16
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 12 of 59
`
`

`

`of the ’827 patent, claim 13 of the ’234 patent, and claims 1-26 of the ’062 patent.
`Each of the crimpers in Table II above is a component of a patented apparatus and
`constitutes a material part of the invention in at least claims 11, 17, 19, 26, and 34-35
`of the ’560 patent.
`Edwards has sold, offered for sale, or imported within the United States, and
`continues to sell, offer for sale, and import within the United States, the accused
`products, knowing that they are especially made or especially adapted for use in an
`infringement of above claims, and that the accused products are not staple articles or
`commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. For example,
`Edwards has provided, and continues to provide, promotional materials, instructional
`materials, videos, training, and other technical information to its customers to
`contribute to their infringement.
`Boston Scientific continues to investigate the information sought by this
`interrogatory. To date, Edwards has not provided any information, documents, or
`physical samples relating to any of the accused products. Boston Scientific reserves
`the right, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules to
`modify, amend, retract, and/or supplement its contentions as additional evidence and
`information becomes available.
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.3:
`Boston Scientific incorporates its previous objections and responses to this
`interrogatory as if fully set forth herein. Subject to its general and specific objections,
`Boston Scientific supplements and amends its response as follows:
`Edwards has sold, offered for sale, or imported within the United States, and
`continues to sell, offer for sale, and import within the United States, the accused
`products, knowing that they are especially made or especially adapted for use in an
`infringement of the above claims, and that the accused products are not staple articles
`or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. For example,
`Edwards has provided, and continues to provide, promotional materials, instructional
`- 12 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 1-16
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 13 of 59
`
`

`

`materials, videos, training, and other technical information to its customers to
`contribute to their infringement. See, e.g., EWL 00008866, EWL 00006359,
`EDWARDS 01494236, EDWARDS 01512330, EWL 00006253, EWL 00255912,
`EWL 00590306, EDWARDS 01575005.
`Boston Scientific further incorporates by reference the deposition testimony of
`Timothy Ulrich, Tri Tran, Antonio Vidal, Ronaldo Cayabyab, Zachary O’Ferrell,
`Nathan Tenzer, Teo Jimenez, Zachery Hampton, Timothy Shum, Trey Bobo, David
`Loos, Larry Wood, Sean Chow, Assaf Bash, and Yaron Keidar, and the exhibits cited
`thereto.
`Discovery is ongoing. Boston Scientific reserves the right to supplement its
`response.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4: For each claim of the Patents-In-Suit that You
`contend Edwards infringes under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (f)(1), specifically state all facts
`and bases for Your contention, including identifying the specific components that
`represent all or a substantial portion of the components of the patented invention, and
`all evidence that Edwards supplies or causes to be supplied the components in such a
`manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the
`United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred
`within the United States.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`Boston Scientific objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
`protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or any other
`applicable privilege or immunity. Boston Scientific further objects to this
`interrogatory as containing multiple subparts. Boston Scientific further objects to this
`interrogatory as premature because (1) Edwards has not provided any information,
`documents, or physical samples relating to any of the accused products, (2) Edwards
`has not proposed any claim construction, (3) the Court has not construed any claim
`- 13 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 1-16
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 14 of 59
`
`

`

`terms, and (4) expert discovery has not yet begun. Boston Scientific incorporates its
`responses to Interrogatory No. 1.
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Boston Scientific
`responds as follows.
`In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1), Edwards has supplied and/or caused to be
`supplied in or from the United States, and it continues to supply and/or cause to be
`suppled in or from the United States, the accused products in Table II above, which
`constitute all or a substantial portion of the components of the inventions claimed in
`at least the asserted claims of the ’543, ’558, ’962, ’827, ’560, ’234, and ’062 patents
`identified in Table II above, where such components are uncombined in whole or in
`part, and in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components
`outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe if such combination
`occurred within the United States. For example, Edwards provides promotional
`materials, instructional materials, videos, training, and other technical information to
`its customers to actively induce foreign combination of components supplied from
`the United States.
`Boston Scientific continues to investigate the information sought by this
`interrogatory. To date, Edwards has not provided any information, documents, or
`physical samples relating to any of the accused products. Boston Scientific reserves
`the right, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules to
`modify, amend, retract, and/or supplement its contentions as additional evidence and
`information becomes available.
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.4:
`Boston Scientific incorporates its previous objections and responses to this
`interrogatory as if fully set forth herein. Subject to its general and specific objections,
`Boston Scientific supplements and amends its response as follows:
`Edwards provides promotional materials, instructional materials, videos,
`training, and other technical information to its customers to actively induce foreign
`- 14 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 1-16
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 15 of 59
`
`

`

`combination of components supplied from the United States. See, e.g., EWL
`00008866, EWL 00006359, EDWARDS 01494236, EDWARDS 01512330, EWL
`00006253, EWL 00255912, EWL 00590306, EDWARDS 01575005, EDWARDS
`01071143, EDWARDS 01082736.
`Boston Scientific further incorporates by reference the deposition testimony of
`Timothy Ulrich, Tri Tran, Antonio Vidal, Ronaldo Cayabyab, Zachary O’Ferrell,
`Nathan Tenzer, Teo Jimenez, Zachery Hampton, Timothy Shum, Trey Bobo, David
`Loos, Larry Wood, Sean Chow, Assaf Bash, and Yaron Keidar, and the exhibits cited
`thereto.
`Discovery is ongoing. Boston Scientific reserves the right to supplement its
`response.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 5: For each claim of the Patents-In-Suit that You
`contend Edwards infringes under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (f)(2), specifically state all facts
`and bases for Your contention, including identifying the specific component that is
`part of a patented invention that is especially made or especially adapted for use in
`the invention and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for
`substantial noninfringing use and any evidence that Edwards knew that such
`component was so made or adapted and intended that such component would be
`combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if
`such combination occurred within the United States.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`Boston Scientific objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
`protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or any other
`applicable privilege or immunity. Boston Scientific further objects to this
`interrogatory as containing multiple subparts. Boston Scientific further objects to this
`interrogatory as premature because (1) Edwards has not provided any information,
`documents, or physical samples relating to any of the accused products, (2) Edwards
`- 15 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 1-16
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 16 of 59
`
`

`

`has not proposed any claim construction, (3) the Court has not construed any claim
`terms, and (4) expert discovery has not yet begun. Boston Scientific incorporates its
`responses to Interrogatory No. 1.
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Boston Scientific
`responds as follows.
`In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2), Edwards has supplied and/or caused to be
`supplied in or from the United States, and it continues to supply and/or cause to be
`suppled in or from the United States, the accused products in Table II above,
`(i) which are especially made or especially adapted for use in the inventions in at
`least the claims identified in the response to Interrogatory No. 3, (ii) which are not
`staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use,
`and (iii) where such component is uncombined in whole or in part, knowing that such
`component is so made or adapted and intending that such component will be
`combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe at least the
`claims identified in the response to Interrogatory No. 3 if such combination occurred
`within the United States. For example, Edwards has provided, and continues to
`provide, promotional materials, instructional materials, videos, training, and other
`technical information to its customers outside the United States to contribute to their
`infringement outside the United States.
`Boston Scientific continues to investigate the information sought by this
`interrogatory. To date, Edwards has not provided any information, documents, or
`physical samples relating to any of the accused products. Boston Scientific reserves
`the right, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules to
`modify, amend, retract, and/or supplement its contentions as additional evidence and
`information becomes available.
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.5:
`
`- 16 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 1-16
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 17 of 59
`
`

`

`Boston Scientific incorporates its previous objections and responses to this
`interrogatory as if fully set forth herein. Subject to its general and specific objections,
`Boston Scientific supplements and a