`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`
`NEVRO CORP.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC NEUROMODULATION CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00147
`U.S. Patent No. 8,650,747
`_____________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR
`REHEARING OF INSTITUTION DECISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “Patent Board”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00147
`U.S. Patent No. 8,650,747
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Relief Requested .............................................................................................. 2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Standard of Review .......................................................................................... 2
`
`IV. Argument ......................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Board’s finding that Stolz does not fill an unoccupied
`portion of its conductor lumen is not supported by substantial
`evidence. ................................................................................................ 3
`
`The Board’s rejection of Nevro’s motivation to modify Stolz
`lacks substantial evidence. .................................................................... 5
`
`The Board’s finding that Black does not show filling the
`unoccupied portions of a conductor lumen lacks substantial
`evidence. ................................................................................................ 9
`
`The Board has used the wrong standard for finding
`obviousness. ........................................................................................ 13
`
`V.
`
`The Board should reconsider its institution decision and institute trial
`for claims 1-19. .............................................................................................. 14
`
`VI. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief .................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00147
`U.S. Patent No. 8,650,747
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The Board denied institution because, in its view, the Petition did not
`
`sufficiently show that a particular claimed feature—namely, a “solid, non-
`
`conductive material…filling [an] unoccupied portion of at least one [ ] conductor
`
`lumen[ ]”—would have been obvious over the cited art, accompanying expert
`
`declaration, and arguments presented in the Petition. Inst. Dec. at 11, quoting the
`
`’747 patent, claim 1 (emphasis Board’s).1 The denial is predicated on three
`
`subsidiary factual findings for which there is no substantial evidence, combined
`
`with legal error in the Board’s evaluation of obviousness.
`
`First, the Board’s finding that “Stolz does not disclose filling an ‘unoccupied
`
`portion’ of the conductor lumen, as claimed” lacks substantial evidence. Second,
`
`the Board’s rejection of Nevro’s motivation to modify Stolz lacks substantial
`
`evidence. Third, the Board’s finding that Black does not disclose filling an
`
`unoccupied portion of the conductor lumen when it melts its oversized spacers into
`
`unoccupied portions of the lumen lacks substantial evidence.
`
`Finally, the Board used the wrong standard in considering obviousness.
`
`Specifically, the Board seeks to find in a single reference a disclosure of the feature
`
`at issue, and individually attacks the references without considering what their
`
`teachings—taken as a whole—would have suggested to a POSA. But the absence
`
`1 See also Inst. Dec. at 20, quoting language from the ’747 patent’s
`independent claim 11.
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00147
`U.S. Patent No. 8,650,747
`of a single express teaching of a particular feature does not make impossible a
`
`sound prima facie case of obviousness. And an obviousness analysis “need not
`
`seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
`
`claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” See KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex
`
`Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007).
`
`With a correct understanding of the argument set forth in the Petition and
`
`accompanying declaration, and because there is no evidence to the contrary,
`
`Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that this feature, and the
`
`challenged claims as a whole, are obvious. The Board should thus reconsider its
`
`institution denial.
`
`II. Relief Requested
`Petitioner Nevro Corp. respectfully requests that the Board reconsider its
`
`decision denying institution of inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,650,747.
`
`See IPR2018-00147, Paper No. 7 (PTAB May 3, 2018).
`
`III. Standard of Review
`The burden of showing that a prior decision should be modified lies with
`
`Petitioner Nevro, the party challenging the decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`When rehearing a decision on petition, the Board will review the decision for an
`
`abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs if the
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00147
`U.S. Patent No. 8,650,747
`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.” Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338,
`
`1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters
`
`the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where
`
`each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`IV. Argument
`The Board denied institution because it concluded that Nevro did not
`
`sufficiently prove that it would have been obvious to modify Stolz to fill the
`
`“unoccupied portions” of its conductor lumens. Inst. Dec. at 18–20. That
`
`conclusion was based on subsidiary findings regarding the Stolz, Ormsby, and
`
`Black references that lack substantial evidence.
`
`A. The Board’s finding that Stolz does not fill an unoccupied portion
`of its conductor lumen is not supported by substantial evidence.
`
`In one embodiment, described by Stolz’s FIG. 13, “the coupling 112 has a
`
`conductor coupling 500 and a contact coupling 502.” Ex. 1005, [0045].
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00147
`U.S. Patent No. 8,650,747
`In this embodiment, “[t]he conductor coupling 500 is placed over the
`
`conductor 34 and attached to the conductor 34 mechanically,” and “contact
`
`coupling 502 exits the lead body and has a weld 504 to connect the contact
`
`coupling 502 to the contact 36.” Id. “An isolation space 506 is created between the
`
`conductor 34 and the contact 36 to prevent directly welding the conductor 34 to the
`
`contact 36.” Id., [0046].
`
`Importantly, all of this described structure—the coupling 112 with its
`
`conductor coupling 500, contact coupling 502, and isolation space 506—is
`
`disposed within a conductor lumen 102 that extends from the proximal to the distal
`
`end of the lead. And contact coupling 502 and isolation space 506 are
`
`unambiguously in a portion of the lumen that is not occupied by conductor wire 34,
`
`which stops short of isolation space 506. That contact coupling 502 may have a
`
`barrier that prevents completely filling conductor lumen 102 is irrelevant. What is
`
`important, and what the Board may have failed to recognize,2 is that Stolz discloses
`
`2 It is unclear from the Institution Decision itself whether the Board
`
`understood Stolz to not fill any part of the unoccupied portion of the conductor
`
`lumen 102 by virtue of contact coupling 502 providing a barrier between the epoxy
`
`in isolation space 506 and the rest of the lumen. But from the Board’s Institution
`
`Decision in related IPR2018-00148, Paper 7 at 11–12, that appears to be the
`
`Board’s interpretation.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00147
`U.S. Patent No. 8,650,747
`filling at least part of the unoccupied portion of the conductor lumen with non-
`
`conductive material, both radially underneath the conductive contact at isolation
`
`space 506, and at the distal end. Ex. 1005, [0046], [0035], [0036]; Pet. at 4, 24, 36–
`
`38. As explained next, the other references would have motivated a POSA to
`
`modify Stolz and to fill the remainder of the unoccupied portion of the conductor
`
`lumen.
`
`B.
`
`The Board’s rejection of Nevro’s motivation to modify Stolz lacks
`substantial evidence.
`Nevro acknowledged that Stolz may not fully fill (Pet. at 25) the unoccupied
`
`portions of the conductor lumens. Nevro relied on the testimony of its expert, with
`
`confirmation of that testimony by the Ormsby, Verness and Rock references, to
`
`provide the motivation to fully fill the unoccupied portion of Stolz’s conductor
`
`lumen 102. Pet. at 25. The Board’s rejection of Nevro’s motivation to combine the
`
`references is not supported by substantial evidence.
`
`The Board rejected Nevro’s use of Ormsby primarily because “Petitioner has
`
`not shown that Ormsby discloses a material filling an unoccupied portion of a
`
`conductor lumen as claimed.” Inst. Dec. at 15; see also id. at 17-18. But Nevro did
`
`not rely on Ormsby to show the claimed feature. It relied on Ormsby to provide a
`
`motivation to modify Stolz. And the fact that Ormsby discloses filling a conductor
`
`lumen that has wires disposed in it, but is otherwise empty, is of no moment. As
`
`Nevro explained, Ormsby “teaches that it is desirable to fill lumen spaces to
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00147
`U.S. Patent No. 8,650,747
`prevent kinking or crushing, if stressed.” Pet. at 25. That teaching is not impacted
`
`in any way by the fact that Ormsby has wires in its otherwise empty conductor
`
`lumen. The wires do not impact one iota the reasons Ormsby gives for filling the
`
`conductor lumen. Ormsby’s thin wires do not provide radial or axial stability, and
`
`they thus cannot prevent crushing, or perforation, or kinking. Neither the Board nor
`
`the Petitioner have provided evidence to the contrary.
`
`The Board also complained that “Ormsby alone is insufficient as a basis for
`
`finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art ‘would recognize that having long
`
`portions of a conductor lumen remain empty … can be an undesirable condition.’”
`
`Inst. Dec. at 18. The Board further complained that Nevro’s expert’s motivation to
`
`combine is “not supported with underlying facts or data.” Id. at 18. Neither
`
`statement is true.
`
`Nevro did not rely on Ormsby alone. Nevro’s expert testified that: “[A]
`
`POSA would recognize that having long portions of a conductor lumen remain
`
`empty (as opposed to a specifically designed, empty, non-conductor lumen) can be
`
`an undesirable condition, depending on the application. For example, a long and
`
`empty conductor lumen would be more susceptible to perforation, kinking, or other
`
`material damage, such as during insertion into the human body. Further, having
`
`empty conductor lumens of varying lengths could cause variations in the flexibility
`
`of the implantable lead.” Ex. 1003, ¶140; see Pet. at 25. To support his testimony,
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00147
`U.S. Patent No. 8,650,747
`Nevro’s expert expressly relied on Ormsby’s disclosure, which fills its conductor
`
`lumen expressly to reduce kinking, to confirm his opinion. Ex. 1003, ¶¶141-144,
`
`see Pet. at 25.
`
`Beyond Ormsby, Nevro’s expert also expressly and extensively relied on the
`
`Verness reference (Ex. 1007) to support the motivation modify Stolz. Ex. 1003,
`
`¶¶145-148; see Pet. at 25, 41. As Nevro’s expert testified, “Verness summarizes
`
`reasons why a POSA would specifically want to fill lumen spaces in the area of
`
`implantable medical leads, particularly in the context of implantable medical leads
`
`for applying electrical stimulation to the body. (See Ex. 1007 at [0001], [0006]-
`
`[0010], [0012]-[0015].)” Ex. 1003, ¶45. Nevro’s expert also relied on the Rock
`
`(Ex. 1017) reference. Ex. 1003, ¶¶149; see Pet. at 25, 41. The Board did not
`
`address Verness or Rock.
`
`It is entirely appropriate for an expert to rely on other references that are not
`
`part of the ground to “document the knowledge that skilled artisans would bring to
`
`bear in reading the prior art identified as producing obviousness.” Genzyme
`
`Therapeutic Prod. Ltd. P’ship v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016). And it is thus manifestly untrue that Nevro’s declarant’s statements
`
`“are not supported with underlying facts or data” as the Board alleged. Inst. Dec. at
`
`18. They are amply supported by the cited art.
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00147
`U.S. Patent No. 8,650,747
`Nevro thus did exactly what a petitioner is supposed to do—rely on expert
`
`testimony that is, in turn, supported by substantial evidence such as Ormsby
`
`(which is part of the ground), and Verness and Rock (which confirm the state of
`
`the art), to provide a reasonable motivation to modify the primary Stolz reference.
`
`The Patent Owner responded with nothing but pure attorney argument. To the
`
`extent that there is a factual debate about the applicability of Ormsby’s teachings
`
`(or Verness or Rock), or the merits of Nevro’s proposed motivation to combine, it
`
`should be resolved at the pre-trial phase in Nevro’s favor. See 37 C.F.R. 42.108(c)
`
`(“[A] genuine issue of material fact created by such testimonial evidence will be
`
`viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for the purposes of
`
`deciding whether to institute an inter partes review.”) While the testimonial
`
`evidence referred to in Rule 108(c) refers to evidence submitted with the
`
`preliminary response, it cannot be the case that pure attorney argument is treated
`
`differently. Shenzhen Kean Silicone Prod. Co., Ltd. v. PKOH NYC, LLC, No.
`
`IPR2017-01327, Paper No. 14 at 25 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2017) (instituting inter
`
`partes review and stating Patent Owner’s “attorney arguments do not outweigh
`
`Petitioner’s evidence and supporting expert testimony”).
`
`The Federal Circuit agrees. It is well settled that unsworn “[a]ttorney
`
`argument is not evidence,” Icon Health and Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d
`
`1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017), and it “cannot rebut . . . other admitted evidence . . . ,”
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00147
`U.S. Patent No. 8,650,747
`Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009). It
`
`was thus legal error for the Board to credit Patent Owner’s attorney argument over
`
`the sworn testimony of Petitioner’s expert regarding how a POSA would have
`
`understood Ormsby’s disclosure in view of Stolz and Black.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`It is precisely the purpose of a trial (1) to test the parties contentions
`
`regarding what references like Ormsby (and Verness and Rock) would have
`
`suggested to a POSA, (2) to evaluate the credibility of Nevro’s expert, and (3) to
`
`test merits of Nevro’s motivation to combine. It is not appropriate for the Board to
`
`exercise its judgment to resolve intensely factual disputes against a petitioner at the
`
`pre-trial phase. See e.g., Coherus Biosci., Inc. v. Abbvie Biotech. Ltd., No.
`
`IPR2016-00188, Paper 8, at 14, 18 (June 13, 2016) (“Patent Owner’s arguments in
`
`this regard, at best, create genuine issues of material fact .... We find these factual
`
`disputes best resolved during trial when we are able to assess Petitioner’s and
`
`Patent Owner’s evidence and arguments upon review of the entire record.”) And to
`
`do so without substantial evidence, as the Board did here, is an abuse of discretion.
`
`C. The Board’s finding that Black does not show filling the
`unoccupied portions of a conductor lumen lacks substantial
`evidence.
`
`Black discloses reflowing its spacers into the conductor lumen spaces to
`
`stabilize and strengthen the structural elements therein within “a fused matrix of
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00147
`U.S. Patent No. 8,650,747
`material” that is “free of gaps and spaces.” See Pet. at 45; Ex. 1008, 6:19-34, 7:11-
`
`24, 7:29-34, FIG. 5; see also Ex. 1003, ¶¶160-161. Figure 3 below illustrates
`
`Black’s conductor lumen as reproduced on page 41 of the Petition.
`
`Ex. 1008, FIG. 3.
`
`The conductors 20 are disposed around a center stylet 100, and stylet tubing
`
`24. Pet. at 42-43; Ex. 1008, 5:28-45, 6:5-10, 7:12-23. The conductor lumen is thus
`
`the cylindrical (toriodal- or donut-shaped) space between the stylet tubing 24 and
`
`the outer tubing 22, 23 in which the conductors 20 are disposed. Pet. at 42-43. As
`
`one moves towards the distal end of Black’s lead, the number of conductors in the
`
`lumen will progressively drop. Pet. at 42-43; Ex. 1008, 5:28-45. Thus, at each
`
`connection, serially along the lead, there exists a space where the respective
`
`conductor ends, and the unoccupied portion of the lumen continues, all the way to
`
`the distal end. Although Black does not show a cross section at this section of the
`
`lead, it would look like this:
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00147
`U.S. Patent No. 8,650,747
`
`Ex. 1008, FIG. 3 (Edited).
`
`When the electrode and terminal spacers are placed into a state of flow,
`
`especially at the end of Black’s lead, the unoccupied portions of Black’s toriodal
`
`lumen are filled with non-conductive material—i.e., “supported by a fused matrix
`
`of material,” Ex. 1008, 7:17-18. See also Pet. at 42-43; Ex. 1008, 5:28-45, 6:5-10,
`
`7:12-23; see also Ex. 1003, ¶¶151-156. The result, as Black explains: “an
`
`isodiametric lead is obtained, which is further free of any gaps or spaces between
`
`insulative material and conductive material that may otherwise exist in
`
`conventional devices.” Ex 1008, 7:29-33; see Pet. at 26, 42–43. The Board failed
`
`to appreciate that Black thus teaches complete filling of its conductor lumen,
`
`including the unoccupied portions of Black’s toroidal lumen where there are no
`
`conductor wires—e.g., at the far distal end where only one conductor wire remains
`
`because the rest have been progressively attached to their respective electrodes.
`
`Pet. at 42-43; Ex. 1008 at 7:29-33. In the modified version of Black’s FIG. 3
`
`below, the area shown in green below is representative of the “fused matrix of
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00147
`U.S. Patent No. 8,650,747
`material,” “free of any gaps or spaces between insulative material and conductive
`
`material.”
`
`Ex. 1008, FIG. 3 (Edited and Annotated).
`
`These facts, as described in the Petition, are at least sufficient to institute
`
`trial. Even the Patent Owner did not dispute this view of Black. The Patent
`
`Owner’s counter argument (not adopted by the Board) centered on an unclaimed
`
`requirement that the spacer material be disposed radially underneath the
`
`conductive contacts before it is heated. Prelim. Resp. at 27. But the claim imposes
`
`no such requirement on how the non-conductive material is “disposed” in the
`
`lumen. Indeed, the ’747 patent itself discloses an embodiment just like Black: “In
`
`one embodiment of the invention, the connector contact spacers 45 may be
`
`oversized—that is, the spacers may have an initial diameter that is larger than the
`
`final lead diameter.” Ex. 1001, 6:54-57. Then, the lead is heated “to create a
`
`continuous reflow of material between the spaces not occupied by the connector
`
`contacts 40 and conductor wires 122.” Ex. 1001, 6:62-64.
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00147
`U.S. Patent No. 8,650,747
`The Board was thus correct to reject Patent Owner’s counter argument for
`
`why Black does not disclose this feature. But it was not free to jump into Patent
`
`Owner’s shoes and advocate for arguments the Patent Owner never made. Cf. In re
`
`Magnum Oil, 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e find no support for the
`
`PTO’s position that the Board is free to adopt arguments on behalf of petitioners
`
`that could have been, but were not, raised by the petitioner during an IPR.”)
`
`In sum, the Board failed to fully appreciate the full scope of Black’s
`
`teachings, as set forth in the Petition. What a reference teaches is a question of fact,
`
`In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted).
`
`And at a minimum, there is a viable, disputed, material issue of fact of how a
`
`POSA would have understood Black’s disclosure in view of Stolz. Such disputed
`
`issues of fact are, again, precisely what the trial is for. It is highly prejudicial to
`
`resolve such factual issues, against a petitioner, at the pre-trial phase.
`
`D. The Board has used the wrong standard for finding obviousness.
`One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
`
`where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642
`
`F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`
`Throughout the Institution Decision, the Board separately attacks each reference
`
`without considering what the teachings, taken in their totality, would have
`
`suggested to a POSA. However, even the absence of a single express teaching of a
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00147
`U.S. Patent No. 8,650,747
`particular feature does not necessarily defeat a sound prima facie case of
`
`obviousness. See In re Beattie at 1312.
`
`The Supreme Court confirmed this axiom in KSR, stating that an
`
`obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
`
`subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
`
`inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`employ.” See KSR at 1741. Thus, where a POSA has good reason to pursue the
`
`known options within his or her technical grasp, if this would lead to an anticipated
`
`success in solving a particular design problem, it is likely the product not of
`
`innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See id. at 1742; see also id. at
`
`1739 (rejecting the rigid approach used by the court below).
`
`Nevro’s Petition easily meets the KSR standard. By separately attacking each
`
`reference without considering what the teachings, taken in their totality, would
`
`have suggested to a POSA, and by effectively (but wrongly) requiring a single
`
`express teaching of “filling [an] unoccupied portion of at least one [ ] conductor
`
`lumen[ ],” the Board here misapplies the obviousness calculus.
`
`V. The Board should reconsider its institution decision and institute trial
`for claims 1-19.
`
`The Board abuses its discretion when it denies institution based on factual
`
`findings that lack substantial evidence. See Merial Limited v. VIRBAC, IPR2014-
`
`01279, Paper 18, p. 8 (PTAB April 15, 2015) (“In our view, when we recognize
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00147
`U.S. Patent No. 8,650,747
`that we have misapprehended or overlooked a significant fact, the necessary abuse
`
`of discretion required by Rule 42.71(c) has been established.”) The Board also
`
`abuses its discretion where its decision is “based on an erroneous interpretation of
`
`law.” Arnold P’ship, 362 F.3d at 1340. Here, the Board denied institution solely
`
`because it was not persuaded that the prior art discloses, or renders obvious, filling
`
`an unoccupied portion of a conductor lumen. But that conclusion is not supported
`
`by any evidence, let alone substantial evidence, while there is substantial and
`
`unrebutted evidence on Nevro’s side.
`
`VI. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief
`Because the Board’s sole reason for denying Petitioner Nevro Corp.’s
`
`Petition was based on a misunderstanding of Nevro’s argument for one claimed
`
`feature, Nevro respectfully requests that the Board reconsider its decision denying
`
`institution of inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,650,747.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`/Jon E. Wright/
`
`
`
`Jon E. Wright, Reg. No. 50,720
`Attorney for Petitioner Nevro Corp.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 4, 2018
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C.20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00147
`U.S. Patent No. 8,650,747
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING OF INSTITUTION
`
`DECISION was served in its entirety electronically via e-mail on June 4, 2018 to
`
`the following counsel of record for Patent Owner:
`
`David A. Caine (Lead Counsel)
`Wallace Wu (Back-up Counsel)
`
`David.Caine@apks.com
`Wallace.Wu@apks.com
`
`Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
`777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
`Tel: (213) 243-4000
`Fax: (213) 243-4199
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Jon E. Wright/
`
`Jon E. Wright, Reg. No. 50,720
`Attorney for Petitioner Nevro Corp.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 4, 2018
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
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
