Case 3:06-cv-04455-JSW Document 220 Filed 08/01/08 Page 1 of 42
`
`I
`
`3
`
`4
`
`James J. Elacqua (CSB No.: 187897)
`jam es.elacqua@dechert.com
`2 Noemi C. ("Nicky") Espinosa (CSB No.: 116753)
`ni cky. espinosa@dechert.com
`Ellen J. Wang (CSB No.: 215478)
`ell en. wang@dechert.com
`Joshua C. Walsh-Benson (CSB No.: 228983)
`j oshua. wal sh-benson@dechert.com
`5 DECHERT LLP
`2440 W . El Camino Real, Suite 700
`6 Mountain View, California 94040
`Telephone:
`(650) 813-4800
`Facsimile:
`(650) 813-4848
`
`7
`
`8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`MEDTRONIC, INC., MEDTRONIC USA, INC.,
`9 AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`15 MEDTRONIC, INC., a Minnesota
`corporation, MEDTRONIC USA, INC., a
`16 Minnesota corporation, and MEDTRONIC
`VASCULAR, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., a
`Delaware corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DECHERT LLP
`A TT O RNE YS A T L AW
`
`S ILI CO N V ALLEY
`
`Case No. C06-04455 JSW (JL)
`
`MEDTRONIC'S OPPOSITION TO
`GORE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT OF PATENT INVALIDITY
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Place:
`Judge:
`
`August 22, 2008
`9:30 a.m.
`Courtroom 2, 17th Floor
`Hon. Jeffrey S. White
`
`MEDTRONIC'S OPPOSITION TO GORE'S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY WDGMENT
`CASE NO. C06-04455 JSW (JL)
`
`COOK
`IPR2019-00123
`Cook v. Medtronic
`Exhibit 1032-0001
`
`

`

`Case 3:06-cv-04455-JSW Document 220 Filed 08/01/08 Page 2 of 42
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................................. 2
`A.
`Prerequisites for Summary Judgment ..................................................................... 2
`B.
`Establishing That A Claim Is Invalid Because It Is Not “Enabled” ....................... 4
`C.
`Establishing Whether a Claim Is Obvious .............................................................. 5
`D.
`Establishing Whether A Claim Is Indefinite ........................................................... 6
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`Gore Fails To Present Any Clear And Convincing Evidence To Support Its
`Arguments For Invalidity........................................................................................ 7
`Gore’s Non-enablement Argument Regarding The Wiktor Patent Claims Is
`Contrary to the Law and Present Material Issues of Fact ....................................... 8
`1.
`Gore Misdirects The Court To Require Enablement of Un-recited
`Claim Elements (“Self-Expanding Stent” or “Resilient Metal
`Wire”)........................................................................................................ 10
`Genuine Issues of Material Fact Preclude Summary Adjudication .......... 11
`Gore’s Inconsistent Arguments Present Material Issues of Fact .............. 12
`Gore Relies on Inapposite Precedents....................................................... 13
`Mr. Wiktor’s Subsequent Efforts to Make a Self-Expanding Stent
`are Inadmissible Hearsay and Irrelevant to Enablement........................... 16
`Gore Presents No Clear And Convincing Evidence of Obviousness of the
`Jervis Patents......................................................................................................... 16
`1.
`Whether The Cragg Filter Reference Qualifies As “Prior” Art
`Presents A Genuine Issue Of Material Fact .............................................. 17
`Genuine Issues Of Material Fact Are Presented Regarding The
`Scope And Content Of The Asserted Prior Art......................................... 19
`Gore Fails To Review The Differences Between The Invention And
`The Prior Art And How Such Differences Are Obvious To One
`Skilled In The Art, Fails To Show A Reason To Combine
`Teachings, and Belatedly Raises A New Invalidity Contention............... 21
`Gore Omits Any Analysis of Secondary Factors ...................................... 23
`4.
`Gore Provides No Clear and Convincing Evidence that Claims of the Jervis
`Patent Are Invalid for Indefiniteness .................................................................... 25
`1.
`The Recited Claims Of The Jervis Patents Are Definite........................... 27
`2.
`Nothing In The Claims Of The Jervis Patents Require A Specific
`Amount Of SIM To Be Present................................................................. 28
`Gore Has Not Established That A Person Of Ordinary Skill In The
`At Would Be Unable To Understand The Metes and Bounds Of The
`Claims. ...................................................................................................... 29
`Gore’s Reliance On Mr. Jervis’ Deposition Testimony Is Improper........ 30
`
`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
`
`DECHERT LLP DECHERT LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`SILICON VALLEY SILICON VALLEY
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`- i -
`
`MEDTRONIC’S OPPOSITION TO GORE’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. C06-04455 JSW (JL)
`
`IPR2019-00123
`Exhibit 1032-0002
`
`

`

`Case 3:06-cv-04455-JSW Document 220 Filed 08/01/08 Page 3 of 42
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Gore Contradicts Itself By Arguing That The Claims Are Both
`Obvious And Indefinite............................................................................. 31
`The Cases Gore Relies On Are Factually Distinguishable From The
`Facts of This Case ..................................................................................... 31
`
`CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 32
`
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`MEDTRONIC’S OPPOSITION TO GORE’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. C06-04455 JSW (JL)
`
`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
`DECHERT LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`IPR2019-00123
`Exhibit 1032-0003
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:06-cv-04455-JSW Document 220 Filed 08/01/08 Page 4 of 42
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`Page
`
`02 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.,
`467 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006)......................................................................................... 22
`
`
`American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc.,
`725 F.2d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1984)......................................................................................... 22
`
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986).................................................................................................... 26, 28
`
`
`Automotive Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc.,
`501 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2007)............................................................................. 14, 15, 16
`
`
`BJ Services Co. v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.,
`338 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003)........................................................................................... 6
`
`
`Bancorp Serv., L.L.C. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co.,
`359 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004)........................................................................... 6, 7, 27, 32
`
`
`Bey v. Kollonitsch,
`806 F.2d 1024 (Fed. Cir. 1986)......................................................................................... 19
`
`
`Boston Scientific Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson,
`534 F.Supp.2d 1062 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ................................................................ 5, 6, 17, 23
`
`
`Burke, Inc. v. Bruno Indep. Living Aids, Inc.,
`183 F.3d1334 (Fed. Cir. 1999).......................................................................................... 30
`
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S.317 (1986)........................................................................................................... 29
`
`
`Christie v. Seybold,
`55 F. 69 (6th Cir. 1893)..................................................................................................... 17
`
`
`Continental Can Company USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991)........................................................................................... 3
`
`
`Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc.,
`868 F.2d 1251 (Fed.Cir.1989)........................................................................................... 30
`
`
`Depomed, Inc. v. Ivax Corp.,
`532 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2007)................................................................ 5
`
`
`Eisai Co. v. Dr. Reddy's Labs., Ltd.,
`No. 2007-1397,-1398, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 15399 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................. 5, 16, 23
`
`
`Exxon Research & Eng'g Co. v. United States,
`265 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................... 7, 25
`
`
`Falkner v. Inglis,
`448 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....................................................................................... 4, 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`MEDTRONIC’S OPPOSITION TO GORE’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. C06-04455 JSW (JL)
`
`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
`DECHERT LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`IPR2019-00123
`Exhibit 1032-0004
`
`

`

`Case 3:06-cv-04455-JSW Document 220 Filed 08/01/08 Page 5 of 42
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`Fontenot v. Upjohn,
`780 F.2d 1190 (5th Cir. 1986)............................................................................................. 2
`
`
`Fraser v. Goodale,
`342 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2003)............................................................................................. 2
`
`
`Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc.,
`No. 03-1431, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36788 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2006) ............................ 3
`
`
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)........................................................................................... 25
`
`
`Genentech Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S,
`108 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997)........................................................................................... 4
`
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966).................................................................................................... 5, 16, 21
`
`
`Halliburton,
`514 F.3d 1244 ....................................................................................................... 27, 31, 32
`
`
`Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`341 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003)......................................................................................... 32
`
`
`Houghton v. South,
`965 F.2d 1532 (9th Cir. 1992)............................................................................................. 2
`
`
`Int'l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc.,
`939 F.2d 1257 (5th Cir. 1991)............................................................................................. 2
`
`
`Intel Corp. v. VIA Technologies, Inc.,
`319 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)........................................................................................... 7
`
`
`Intertrust Technologies Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`275 F. Supp. 2d 1031 (N.D. Cal. 2003) .............................................................................. 7
`
`
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc.,
`429 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2005).................................................................................. passim
`
`
`Johns Hopkins University v. CellPro,
`152 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................... 13, 16
`
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007) ............................................................................................... passim
`
`
`Koito Mfg. Co. v. Turn-Key-Tech L.L.C.,
`381 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2004)....................................................................................... 4, 8
`
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)........................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`MEDTRONIC’S OPPOSITION TO GORE’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. C06-04455 JSW (JL)
`
`
`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
`DECHERT LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`IPR2019-00123
`Exhibit 1032-0005
`
`

`

`Case 3:06-cv-04455-JSW Document 220 Filed 08/01/08 Page 6 of 42
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`481 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007)............................................................................. 13, 14, 15
`
`
`Lisle Corp. v. A.J. Manufacturing Co.,
`289 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (N.D. Ill. 2003) ................................................................................ 7
`
`
`Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc.,
`79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................... 17, 18
`
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed.Cir.1995), aff'd,517 U.S. 370 (1996).............................................. 30, 31
`
`
`Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Int'l,
`316 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003)............................................................................... 6, 25, 28
`
`
`Oasis Indus., Inc. v. G.K.L. Corp.,
`No. 92-4814, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2298 (N.D. Ill. March 2, 1994)............................... 4
`
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`498 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................... 15, 16
`
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharma., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008)......................................................................................... 17
`
`
`Quad Envtl. Techs. Corp. v. Union Sanitary Dist.,
`946 F.2d 870 (Fed. Cir. 1991)............................................................................................. 3
`
`
`Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC,
`516 F.3d 993 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................... 15, 16
`
`
`Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
`216 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................... 30, 31
`
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Magma Design Automation, Inc.,
`No. 04-3923, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21662 (N.D. Cal. March 30, 2006)......................... 2
`
`
`Takeda Chemical v. Alphapharm,
`492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007)......................................................................................... 17
`
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.,
`No. 04-02123, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27444 (N.D. Cal. April 3, 2008)....................... 3, 5
`
`
`Tishcon Corp. v. Soundview Commc'ns, Inc.,
`No. 04-524, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97309 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 15, 2006) ........................... 3, 4
`
`
`In re Wands,
`858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988).................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`STATE CASES
`
`
`Union Carbide Chems. & Plastics Tech. Corp. v. Shell Oil Co.,
`No. 99-274, 99-846, 2004 WL 1305849 (D. Del. June 9, 2004) ........................................ 6
`v
`
`MEDTRONIC’S OPPOSITION TO GORE’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. C06-04455 JSW (JL)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`DECHERT LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`IPR2019-00123
`Exhibit 1032-0006
`
`

`

`Case 3:06-cv-04455-JSW Document 220 Filed 08/01/08 Page 7 of 42
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`
`37 CFR 1.131 .......................................................................................................................... 18, 19
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(c)(2) ("Rule 6") ............................................................................................. 3, 26
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).................................................................................................................... 2, 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112..................................................................................................................... 4, 6, 31
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282............................................................................................................................. 32
`
`
`
`
`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
`DECHERT LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`MEDTRONIC’S OPPOSITION TO GORE’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. C06-04455 JSW (JL)
`
`
`IPR2019-00123
`Exhibit 1032-0007
`
`

`

`Case 3:06-cv-04455-JSW Document 220 Filed 08/01/08 Page 8 of 42
`
`
`
`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
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Gore’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Patent Invalidity (“Motion”) must be denied
`
`because Gore has failed to present any evidence that satisfies the “clear and convincing” burden it
`
`must meet to overcome the statutory presumption of validity of the asserted claims of the patents-in-
`
`suit. On this basis alone, summary adjudication should be denied. Gore studiously avoids a proper
`
`analysis of any particular claim language in its arguments, as doing so would reveal Gore’s
`
`misdirection and baseless propositions.
`
`First, Gore argues that the Wiktor Patents are invalid as not enabled because the specification
`
`fails to teaches how to make or use a “resilient,” “self-expanding” stent constructed from a material
`
`other than “low memory” metal, even though none of these quoted terms appear in any asserted
`
`claims.
`
`Second, Gore argues that the Jervis Patent claims are all invalid as obvious, in light of the
`
`teachings of multiple prior art publications, yet provides no evidence that there is any rational basis
`
`or reason to combine any teachings from any of these references. Gore relies heavily on the Cragg
`
`Filter paper as the basis for obviousness; Medtronic contends that the Cragg Filter does not qualify
`
`as “prior” art, which presents a material issue of fact. Gore (1) mischaracterizes the scope and
`
`content of the prior art, (2) fails to point out any differences between the cited prior art and any
`
`particular claims of the Jervis Patents, and (3) fails to provide any evidence as to why such
`
`differences would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Third, Gore contends that the Jervis Patent claims are invalid as indefinite, because the
`Jervis Patents do not describe a test for detecting SIM nor state how much SIM1 is required. But
`this argument is a red herring, because none of the Jervis Patent claims require the use of any test
`
`methods to detect SIM nor recite any limitations as to a particular quantity of SIM. Gore pointedly
`
`ignores the claim language that affirmatively describes the role SIM serves in the claimed invention.
`
`Further, Gore takes the contradictory positions that persons of ordinary skill in the art were already
`
`familiar with SIM and its behavior by 1983, yet also argues that the Jervis Patent claims are
`
`indefinite because persons of ordinary skill would not know how to detect SIM. Throughout its
`
`28
`DECHERT LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`
`1 “SIM” is an acronym for the oft-used phrase “stress-induced martensite.”
`1
`
`MEDTRONIC’S OPPOSITION TO GORE’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. C06-04455 JSW (JL)
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00123
`Exhibit 1032-0008
`
`

`

`Case 3:06-cv-04455-JSW Document 220 Filed 08/01/08 Page 9 of 42
`
`
`
`argument, Gore fails to specify the claim language it argues is “indefinite,” and fails to come
`
`forward with any evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find any aspect of the
`
`claims of the Jervis Patents indefinite. Thus, even if Gore’s attorney arguments were to be
`
`considered as evidence, Gore has failed to establish any clear and convincing evidence to warrant
`
`summary adjudication of validity on any basis. The jury should have the opportunity to decide all
`
`of the fact issues underlying the validity of the patents-in-suit.
`II.
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`A.
`A motion for summary judgment may be granted only where there is no genuine issue of
`
`Prerequisites for Summary Judgment
`
`material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). If
`
`any factual dispute exists, the movant must prove the dispute is not “genuine,” in that no reasonable
`
`jury could return a verdict for the non-movant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
`
`(1986). “Material” facts are those that might affect the outcome of the suit. Id. When deciding a
`
`motion for summary judgment, a court must draw all factual inferences in favor of the non-movant.
`
`Id. at 255.
`
`As the Ninth Circuit has held, where a summary judgment movant bears the burden of proof
`
`at trial, “it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the
`
`evidence went uncontroverted at trial.” Houghton v. South, 965 F.2d 1532, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992)
`
`(quoting Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1264-65 (5th Cir. 1991)). In other
`
`words, the movant must prove “‘all of the essential elements of the claim.’” Synopsys, Inc. v.
`
`Magma Design Automation, Inc., No. 04-3923, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21662, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal.
`
`March 30, 2006) (quoting Fontenot v. Upjohn, 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1986)). Further, all
`
`evidence submitted in support of a summary judgment motion must be content admissible at trial.
`
`Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003).
`
`The same substantive evidentiary burdens apply at summary judgment as at trial. Anderson,
`
`477 U.S. at 255. Because Medtronic’s patents survived a full patent examination process, including
`
`all potential invalidity challenges, the patents are entitled to a presumption of validity pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 282, and Gore must prove its invalidity contentions by clear and convincing evidence. See
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`MEDTRONIC’S OPPOSITION TO GORE’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. C06-04455 JSW (JL)
`
`
`
`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
`DECHERT LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`IPR2019-00123
`Exhibit 1032-0009
`
`

`

`Case 3:06-cv-04455-JSW Document 220 Filed 08/01/08 Page 10 of 42
`
`
`
`American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., 725 F.2d 1350, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
`
`(“[Section] 282 creates a presumption that a patent is valid and imposes the burden of proving
`
`invalidity on the attacker. That burden is constant and never changes and is to convince the court of
`
`invalidity by clear evidence.”). Though summary judgment is possible in patent cases, “‘when
`
`material facts are disputed, and testimonial, documentary, and expert evidence are needed for their
`
`resolution, summary judgment is not indicated.’” Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter
`
`Int’l, Inc., No. 03-1431, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36788, at *110 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2006) (quoting
`
`Quad Envtl. Techs. Corp. v. Union Sanitary Dist., 946 F.2d 870, 872 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
`
`Further, conclusory assertions and mere attorney argument can not support a movant’s
`
`burden on summary judgment. See Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1068
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Unsubstantiated attorney argument regarding the meaning of technical evidence
`
`is no substitute for competent, substantiated expert testimony. It does not, and cannot, support [the
`
`movant’s] burden on summary judgment.”); Continental Can Company USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.,
`
`948 F.2d 1264, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The purpose of the summary process is to avoid a clearly
`
`unnecessary trial . . . it is not designed to substitute lawyers’ advocacy for evidence . . . .”);
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., No. 04-02123, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27444, at
`
`*115 (N.D. Cal. April 3, 2008) (denying summary judgment of obviousness where defendants failed
`
`to supply “sufficient non-conclusory testimony” and their evidence “simply [fell] short of a prima
`
`facie showing” of obviousness).
`
`With regards to expert affidavits, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(c)(2) (“Rule 6”) provides, “Any affidavit
`
`supporting a motion must be served with the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (“Rule 56”) provides
`
`that summary judgment motions (with supporting documentation) must be served at least nine days
`prior to opposing parties’ final day to serve affidavits.2 Courts have interpreted the requirements of
`Rules 6 and 56 to preclude the initial submission of witness affidavits with movants’ summary
`
`judgment reply briefs. For example, in Tishcon Corp. v. Soundview Commc’ns, Inc., No. 04-524,
`
`2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97309 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 15, 2006), the court struck witness declarations
`
`
`
`2 In addition, Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-2(d) provides, “Each motion must be
`accompanied by affidavits or declarations pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-5.”
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC’S OPPOSITION TO GORE’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. C06-04455 JSW (JL)
`
`
`
`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
`DECHERT LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`IPR2019-00123
`Exhibit 1032-0010
`
`

`

`Case 3:06-cv-04455-JSW Document 220 Filed 08/01/08 Page 11 of 42
`
`
`
`submitted for the first time with a movant’s reply brief. The court noted that the declarations were
`
`“intended to replace adequate evidentiary submissions offered in support of [the movant’s] two
`
`motions for partial summary judgment.” Id. at *26. The court stated that Rule 6 is designed “to
`
`insure that the party opposing a motion for summary judgment be given sufficient time to respond to
`
`the affidavits filed by the moving party, thereby avoiding any undue prejudice.” Id. To allow a
`
`movant to include new witness affidavits with its reply brief would be “precisely the kind of trial by
`
`ambush that the federal rules summarily reject.” Id. at *26-27; see also Oasis Indus., Inc. v. G.K.L.
`
`Corp., No. 92-4814, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2298, at *36-37 (N.D. Ill. March 2, 1994) (striking as
`
`untimely and prejudicial expert affidavits filed with a movant’s reply brief, since allowing the
`
`affidavits would “deny [the non-movant] the opportunity to have a meaningful chance to challenge
`
`the motion for summary judgment.”) In this Motion, Gore has inexplicably failed to submit any
`
`expert affidavits or other, sufficient evidentiary submissions as movant, and should not be permitted
`
`to belatedly submit such evidence with its reply brief.
`B.
`A patent must be “enabled,” meaning it must “‘teach those skilled in the art how to make
`
`Establishing That A Claim Is Invalid Because It Is Not “Enabled.”
`
`and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.’” Koito Mfg. Co. v.
`
`Turn-Key-Tech L.L.C., 381 F.3d 1142, 1155 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Genentech Inc. v. Novo
`
`Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (emphasis added)); see also 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.
`
`An issued patent is valid as enabled unless a movant can prove by clear and convincing evidence
`
`that “the trial and error required to practice the claimed invention would be unduly laborious or
`
`beyond the reach of one of ordinary skill in the art.” Koito, 381 F.3d at 1155.
`
`Only one embodiment of the invention must be enabled; not all possible embodiments need
`
`be enabled. See Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1070-71 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(“Enablement does not require the inventor [to] foresee every means of implementing an invention
`
`at pains of losing his patent franchise.”).
`
`Enablement is a question of law, involving underlying factual inquiries. Falkner v. Inglis,
`
`448 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006). These factual inquiries include eight specific factors courts
`
`have weighed in determining whether experimentation is “undue”: “(1) the quantity of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`MEDTRONIC’S OPPOSITION TO GORE’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. C06-04455 JSW (JL)
`
`
`
`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
`DECHERT LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`IPR2019-00123
`Exhibit 1032-0011
`
`

`

`Case 3:06-cv-04455-JSW Document 220 Filed 08/01/08 Page 12 of 42
`
`
`
`experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or
`
`absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the
`
`relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the
`
`breadth of the claims.” Id. (quoting In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
`C.
`A patent claim must be “non-obvious,” meaning “if the differences between the subject
`
`Establishing Whether a Claim Is Obvious
`
`matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`
`been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art,” the
`
`patent is invalid. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). An issued patent is valid as non-obvious unless a movant can
`
`provide clear and convincing evidence proving otherwise. American Hoist, 725 F.2d at 1360.
`
`Non-obviousness is a question of law, involving underlying factual inquiries. Eisai Co. v.
`
`Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd., No. 2007-1397,-1398, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 15399, at *4 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008). These factual inquiries include: “(1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, (3) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, and (4)
`
`evidence of secondary factors, also known as objective indicia of non-obviousness.” Id. at *4-5
`
`(citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966)); see also Depomed, Inc. v. Ivax Corp.,
`
`532 F. Supp. 2d 1170, 1177 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2007) (listing same “factual elements of an
`
`obviousness analysis” and stating that, for a finding of obviousness, “there must be some motivation
`
`to combine the [prior art] references.”)
`
`Courts have considered such “secondary factors” as “‘commercial success, long felt but
`
`unsolved needs, [and] failure of others,’” as well as “‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the
`
`effect of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background
`
`knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art . . . in order to determine whether
`
`there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at
`
`issue.’” Boston Scientific Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 534 F.Supp.2d 1062, 1070 (N.D. Cal. 2007)
`
`(quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734, 1740-41 (2007)); see also Therasense,
`
`Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., No. 04-02123, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27444, at *115 (N.D. Cal.
`
`April 3, 2008) (denying summary judgment of obviousness where defendants failed to show that one
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`MEDTRONIC’S OPPOSITION TO GORE’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. C06-04455 JSW (JL)
`
`
`
`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
`DECHERT LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`IPR2019-00123
`Exhibit 1032-0012
`
`

`

`Case 3:06-cv-04455-JSW Document 220 Filed 08/01/08 Page 13 of 42
`
`
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have an “apparent reason to combine” prior art references.) Other
`
`secondary factors include “skepticism of the invention’s advantages, copying, praise, unexpected
`
`results, and industry acceptance.” Boston Scientific Corp., 534 F. Supp. 2d at 1074.
`D.
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 requires that claims “particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[] the
`
`Establishing Whether A Claim Is Indefinite
`
`subj