throbber
Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________________________________
`MEDTRONIC, INC., and
`MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.,
`
` Petitioners,
`
`vs. Case No. IPR2020-00126
` U.S. Patent No. 8,048,032
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS
`S.A.R.L.,
` Patent Owner.
`___________________________________________________
`
`IPR2020-00126 (Patent 8,048,032 B2)
`IPR2020-00127 (Patent 8,048,032 B2)
`IPR2020-00128 (Patent RE45,380 E)
`IPR2020-00129 (Patent RE45,380 E)
`IPR2020-00130 (Patent RE45,380 E)
`IPR2020-00132 (Patent RE45,760 E)
`IPR2020-00134 (Patent RE45,760 E)
`IPR2020-00135 (Patent RE45,776 E)
`IPR2020-00136 (Patent RE45,776 E)
`IPR2020-00137 (Patent RE47,379 E)
`IPR2020-00138 (Patent RE47,379 E)
`____________________________________________________
`
` TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC PROCEEDINGS
`
`DATE: January 5, 2021
`TIME: 10:00 a.m. CST
`PLACE: Minneapolis, Minnesota
`(via teleconference)
`JOB NO.: MW 4394062
`
`REPORTED BY: Dawn Workman Bounds, CSR
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`1 guidance on petitioner's arguments in its reply, that
`2 patent owner violated the limitation on incorporation by
`3 reference.
`4 And then we have the December 30th request
`5 from patent owner requesting a Motion to Strike
`6 Petitioner's Reply Briefs, or at least portions thereof.
`7 And I showed them this in the beginning.
`8 Let's actually start with roll call.
`9 Who do we have on the line for patent
`10 owner, and then who do we have on the line for
`11 petitioner?
`12 MR. VANDENBURGH: Your Honor, for patent
`13 owner, this is Derek Vandenburgh of the Carlson Caspers
`14 firm, and also on the call is Peter Kohlhepp of our firm.
`15 JUDGE PAULRAJ: All right. Thank you,
`16 Mr. Vandenburgh.
`17 And who do we have for petitioner?
`18 MR. MORTON: Your Honor, for petitioner
`19 this is Cy Morton, and with me also on the line is Chris
`20 Pinahs and Sharon Roberg-Perez.
`21 And just to preview, Your Honor, usually I
`22 do the talking; but I'm just going to handle this first
`23 issue; and the motion to strike issue, Mr. Pinahs is
`24 going to handle.
`25 JUDGE PAULRAJ: All right. Thank you,
`
`1 A P P E A R A N C E S
`2 (ALL APPEARANCES VIA TELECONFERENCE )
`3 ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES
`4 Christopher G. Paulraj
`5 Sheridan K. Snedden
`6 Jon B. Tornquist
`
`7 8
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:
`9 CYRUS A. MORTON, ESQ.
` CHRISTOPHER PINAHS, ESQ.
`10 SHARON ROBERG-PEREZ, ESQ.
` ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`11 2800 LaSalle Plaza
` 800 LaSalle Ave
`12 Minneapolis, MN 55401
` 612.349.8500
`13 camorton@rkmc.com
` cpinahs@robinskaplan.com
`14 sroberg-perez@robinskaplan.com
`15
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`16
`
` DEREK VANDENBURGH, ESQ
`17 PETER KOHLHEPP, ESQ.
` CARLSON CASPERS VANDENBURGH & LINDQUIST, PA.
`18 Capella Tower, Suite 4200
` 225 South Sixth Street
`19 Minneapolis, MN 55402
` 612.436.9623
`20 dvandenburgh@carlsoncaspers.com
` pkohlhepp@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 5
`
`1 P R O C E E D I N G S
`2 JUDGE PAULRAJ: This is Judge Paulraj of
`3 the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and with me on the
`4 line I have judges Tornquist and Snedden. This is a
`5 conference call and in a series of IPRs: IPR 2020-126,
`6 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, and 138.
`7 Did I get all the cases there?
`8 MR. VANDENBURGH: I believe so.
`9 JUDGE PAULRAJ: Okay. So we have two
`10 requests, both from patent owner; so we'll address both
`11 of those in turn. I know the more recent request was
`12 requested as part of a separate phone call. But per the
`13 e-mail that we sent out this morning, we'd like to
`14 address both requests today.
`15 Do we have a court reporter on the line?
`16 THE REPORTER: Yes, Your Honor.
`17 MR. VANDENBURGH: Yes, Your Honor, we do.
`18 JUDGE PAULRAJ: All right. Excellent.
`19 So whoever did arrange for the court
`20 reporter, per usual practice, please make a transcript of
`21 that part of the record as soon as it's available.
`22 MR. VANDENBURGH: Will do.
`23 JUDGE PAULRAJ: Okay. So let's take the
`24 requests in turn. So we have down a request from Chris
`25 Hasid, December 24th, from patent owner asking for
`
`1 Mr. Morton.
`2 And if we could just make it clear for the
`3 record, identify yourself before you speak. That would
`4 be easier for myself, as well as I imagine the court
`5 reporter.
`6 So happy new year, everyone, and let's
`7 start with first request.
`8 Mr. Vandenburgh, go ahead.
`9 MR. VANDENBURGH: Thank you, Your Honor.
`10 Procedurally this is, of course, a very
`11 unique and complicated case. Not only do we have 11 IPRs
`12 consolidated into a single proceeding, but that's, you
`13 know, made even more complicated by the fact that seven
`14 of the IPRs involved as the lead reference a reference
`15 that there's a dispute over whether it actually
`16 constitutes a prior art or not.
`17 Now, the board I think wisely got out in
`18 front of this issue in setting the scheduling order sua
`19 sponte setting up a separate briefing on that issue with
`20 separate word counts. And I think of relevance to the
`21 issue that we're going to be talking about today, when we
`22 first had the first of two calls last summer relating to
`23 petitioner's request for additional briefing and words on
`24 this issue, we asked the board whether it was sort of
`25 contemplating a single brief dealing with conception and
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`2 (Pages 2 - 5)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 6
`1 reduction to practice or seven different briefs for each
`2 case.
`3 And the guidance we got -- of course, the
`4 board didn't say, you know, we had to do one or the
`5 other; but the guidance was that they preferred a single
`6 brief. And to us that made sense because the real
`7 disputes in this case relating to conception and
`8 reduction to practice don't really turn on the specific
`9 language of a particular claim in a particular patent.
`10 They're more generally on the issues of, you know, were
`11 prototypes made; is there corroboration; is there
`12 testing, was it sufficient. Those are the issues that
`13 seem to be in dispute, and from the evidence that we --
`14 briefing we've seen so far in the dispute.
`15 But, you know, we're asking for
`16 clarification today because there is this issue that
`17 arises in priority disputes of whether the prototypes
`18 that were built meet the limitations of the claims. And
`19 we don't -- again, we don't think there's actually much
`20 dispute on this issue. If you look at the -- when we
`21 briefed this issue, you look at the fact that the -- the
`22 specification here in describing the embodiments of the
`23 invention, basically all of the preferred embodiments are
`24 made up of two subcomponents: a relatively flexible,
`25 polymer, tubular portion at the distal end of the device
`
`Page 8
`
`1 we did. They attached a detailed expert declaration
`2 purporting to set forth some limitations that he thought
`3 weren't present in the claims.
`4 But the other thing the petitioner did is,
`5 in the course of essentially a single paragraph, they
`6 threw the Hail Mary pass. They said: "But, but, wait a
`7 minute. We should win as a matter of procedure because
`8 that sort of detailed element-by-element analysis is
`9 necessary to your burden of proof, patent owner. You
`10 violated the incorporation by a reference rule, and so
`11 you lose as a matter of procedure."
`12 That's basically what we are looking for
`13 here, guidance. Now, we don't think we did violate. We
`14 think that -- you know, we've got 27 pages, including
`15 detailed discussion of the prototypes, that provides
`16 guidance on how those correspond to claim elements,
`17 combined with our appendix in the declaration -- in the
`18 expert -- or the inventor's declaration.
`19 But the important thing and the other
`20 reason we're here is because there certainly was no
`21 intent to violate any word count limits. Again, we were
`22 trying to meet what the board asked for. We gave a
`23 single brief, and we put the claim-by-claim specificity
`24 into these appendices. Seemed to us to be the efficient
`25 thing and what the board wanted.
`
`Page 7
`
`Page 9
`
`1 and then a proximal end that is relatively rigid, that
`2 according to the spec is preferably made out of steel
`3 hypotube.
`4 So as part of our briefing, we pointed out
`5 that our prototypes - and two specific prototypes in
`6 particular that were ordered and built - had exactly
`7 those two components. We showed them. We annotated them
`8 using language -- you know, not the exact language of
`9 each claim because the claims are different, but using
`10 the language corresponding generally to the claim
`11 language. And we pointed out how those prototypes
`12 corresponded to the invention described in the patent and
`13 claimed in the claims.
`14 We also included as an appendix to one of
`15 the inventor declarations an extremely detailed,
`16 element-by-element analysis of each and every claim, each
`17 and every claim limitation to those prototypes.
`18 So what happened then in response?
`19 In response, petitioner in their brief --
`20 first of all, they also filed only a single brief on the
`21 issue of conception and reduction to practice identical
`22 for all seven cases. And in that brief, they didn't
`23 identify a single limitation in the prototypes -- I'm
`24 sorry -- a single limitation of the claims that they're
`25 saying wasn't in the prototypes. Instead they did what
`
`1 We also note that when we had the second
`2 of our two calls relating to patent owner's request for
`3 an additional brief on this issue and for additional
`4 words, that they -- they emphasized that we had put a lot
`5 of material in as part of the request for more words, why
`6 they needed more words; and they emphasized the fact that
`7 they had the burden of proof on this issue. And now
`8 they're coming back and saying, no, that's not really the
`9 case; there's this procedural defect, and we should just
`10 win as a matter of course.
`11 So -- and I guess, before I wrap this up,
`12 I do also want to make one last point why we think that
`13 there's no need for the board to consider - and the board
`14 shouldn't consider - their procedural argument is we
`15 don't think that this is a situation where, at the end of
`16 the day, the board is going to end up having to, as some
`17 of the cases say, play archeologist with the record to
`18 figure out what the parties' arguments are on this issue.
`19 Now, there's still briefs -- two briefs to
`20 go on the issue of conception and reduction to practice.
`21 We're going to file a brief at the end of this month
`22 where we can address the limitation that their expert
`23 says was not in the prototypes, and they get yet another
`24 brief after that to discuss the issue. So the issue will
`25 be crystallized.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`3 (Pages 6 - 9)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`1 And, of course, there's no prejudice to
`2 Medtronic in considering this issue on the merits
`3 because, you know, they have -- they have addressed it in
`4 detail on the merits. They've taken four fact
`5 depositions on the issue of conception and reduction to
`6 practice. They've taken expert depositions on the issue.
`7 It's fully briefed and considered. There's no prejudice
`8 to that.
`9 So I guess what we'd like to ask the board
`10 to do is to confirm today that they aren't going to
`11 decide the conception and reduction to practice issue on
`12 this procedural question of what evidence and argument
`13 should have been in the briefs versus the declarations.
`14 Again, the parties have put a lot of work
`15 into the merits. Everything is there -- you know, needed
`16 to decide the issue is already there and will be there
`17 with additional briefs that are going to be filed.
`18 And I guess, most importantly then, as we
`19 continue to brief this issue, we don't want to have to
`20 devote precious words that we have remaining on this
`21 issue to arguing over this procedural issue to explaining
`22 why they're wrong. So that's our primary request for
`23 today.
`24 I think, alternatively, if the board is
`25 not, you know, willing to grant that clarity today, then
`
`Page 11
`1 what we would ask for is an additional thousand words for
`2 our surreply brief so that we can brief this procedural
`3 question in detail.
`4 You know, petitioner raised it in
`5 literally a paragraph. They didn't devote words to it.
`6 But it's important. It's potentially dispositive. And
`7 so if the board is -- is not willing to just say, you
`8 know, "Oh, we're going to decide this on the merits,"
`9 then we would ask that we be given these thousand extra
`10 words to address that issue as part of our surreply.
`11 That's all I have on that issue, Your
`12 Honor.
`13 JUDGE PAULRAJ: Thank you,
`14 Mr. Vandenburgh.
`15 I don't think I have any questions at this
`16 point from what you presented.
`17 Let me turn it over to Mr. Morton, and
`18 then we may have questions for the other side after that.
`19 MR. MORTON: Yes, Your Honors.
`20 I did think that the request was more for
`21 more words. And I think from this presentation, it's
`22 clear the request is more for an advisory opinion from
`23 the board to decide an issue now that's in the briefing,
`24 which I think are generally not how things go.
`25 You know, on this issue of, you know,
`
`Page 12
`1 there's one brief, and they put all their claim-by-claim
`2 analysis in an appendix to a conductory declaration, I
`3 think, in general, Your Honor, the patent owner is just,
`4 in addition to an advisory opinion, seeking a do-over on
`5 that point. And if I can just give a brief history of
`6 the issue, I think I can explain why really, at the end
`7 of the day, there's nothing the board needs to do now in
`8 terms of an advisory opinion or expanded word count.
`9 So, Your Honor, throughout this process,
`10 there have been two related issues. One issue was word
`11 count, and one issue was whether we could file different
`12 briefs for different IPRs because conception and
`13 reduction to practice is a claim-by-claim analysis which
`14 can differ for different patents. And the board's
`15 original scheduling order back in June addressed both
`16 issues setting word counts and setting consolidated
`17 briefing, one set of briefs.
`18 We sought -- petitioner sought to change
`19 that first at least by seeking identical word counts of
`20 both parties, and patent owner opposed that. In our meet
`21 and confer, they said they planned to file one brief. We
`22 wouldn't agree to that. We pointed out it was
`23 claim-by-claim analysis. And we had a board call where
`24 we made these points to the board, and the board decided
`25 to wait on any decision.
`
`Page 13
`
`1 The patent owner did not raise any issue
`2 with the procedure whatsoever with the board, other than
`3 to oppose our request for equal words. Patent owner went
`4 ahead then and filed one identical brief for all seven
`5 IPRs and put its claim-by-claim analysis in a chart
`6 appended to inventor Root's declaration. After that we
`7 raised the issues again, and again patent owner opposed.
`8 And this time on the board call, the board decided to
`9 order equal briefing.
`10 And we addressed the burden of proof on
`11 that time. There is a transcript. It's in the record.
`12 I said that they have to send for us. They have to make
`13 their case and shift the burden back to us on this issue.
`14 And at that time, the patent owner characterized it as
`15 their burden of production. That's in the transcript.
`16 So -- so they do that. We're going to do that.
`17 Now, this is the heart of the matter for
`18 today's decision, Your Honor; at no time did patent owner
`19 object to the limits on their word count. At no point
`20 did patent owner object to consolidated briefing. They
`21 never said, "Hey, this is going to be difficult to get
`22 this in briefs because it's claim by claim." In fact,
`23 they embraced the idea of single briefs over our
`24 objections, and they only sought to maintain unequal
`25 briefing in their favor.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`4 (Pages 10 - 13)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 14
`1 Now, nothing has changed since then, Your
`2 Honor. We simply made the argument that was available to
`3 us that the Root charts are a proper incorporation by
`4 reference. Very common argument in IPRs. And the
`5 argument's not a stretch. There's nothing in the briefs
`6 about the various claims across the patents, there's only
`7 that chart.
`8 But the board certainly does not need to
`9 decide that issue here today. In the final written
`10 decision, the board can decide whether or not the patent
`11 owner met its burden on this issue in its opening briefs.
`12 The board does need to render an advisory opinion or give
`13 patent owner a do-over with more words.
`14 So I'm guessing patent owner will try to
`15 meet its burden in its surreply briefs now, which I think
`16 is improper. If they do that, we will point that out in
`17 our surreply briefs. And the board can decide the matter
`18 in the final written decision.
`19 So in conclusion, Your Honor, patent owner
`20 has known all along that it's a claim-by-claim analysis.
`21 That's basic patent law. They chose to embrace the
`22 filing of one brief and never asked for more words.
`23 There's no reason to adjust the procedure now just
`24 because we made an incorporation-by-reference argument.
`25 Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`Page 15
`1 JUDGE PAULRAJ: Thank you, Mr. Morton.
`2 Let me put the parties on hold. I'm going
`3 to confer with my panel about whether we have any
`4 questions before we address this issue further.
`5 (Off the record 10:18-10:19.)
`6 JUDGE PAULRAJ: Mr. Vandenburgh, one
`7 question we have for the patent owner's side in terms of
`8 what you're asking for in terms of the thousand extra
`9 words: Would those thousand extra words be used to only
`10 argue that you didn't improperly incorporate Root
`11 reference, or are you going to more or less remedy
`12 perhaps the alleged improper incorporation by reference
`13 by -- by making substantive arguments in your surreply?
`14 Could you clarify that point?
`15 MR. VANDENBURGH: What we intend to do is
`16 to address the -- the alleged deficiency and obviously
`17 brief that in issue -- in detail. And there are cases
`18 from the board on this issue that need analysis.
`19 In addition, we do contemplate addressing
`20 the things that their expert says; you know, what they
`21 put their dec -- in their lengthy declaration that they
`22 incorporated and address the specific issues that the
`23 board -- or I'm sorry -- that petitioner is contending
`24 were not in the prototypes so that the board does not
`25 have to play archeologist.
`
`Page 16
`
`1 But we -- it is not our intent to -- to go
`2 back and somehow -- and, of course, there's no possible
`3 way we could do so with a thousand words -- somehow
`4 incorporate, you know -- or put claim charts into our
`5 surreply brief. That is not our plan.
`6 JUDGE PAULRAJ: Okay. And just to follow
`7 up.
`8 Is it -- regardless of whether it's
`9 inappropriate or not -- and we're not, at least right now
`10 on this call, going to make a judgment on that -- is it
`11 your intent for us to rely upon the claim charts in
`12 addition to the arguments you've made in the -- in the
`13 brief itself?
`14 MR. VANDENBURGH: Well, they are -- they
`15 are evidence.
`16 JUDGE PAULRAJ: Okay.
`17 MR. VANDENBURGH: And just like I am sure
`18 that Mr. Morton would say that their expert's lengthy
`19 appendix is evidence.
`20 But, again, we -- our hope is that we are
`21 going to provide the guidance that the board would like
`22 of what's actually in dispute relative to whether the
`23 prototypes are covered in the claim in the briefs
`24 themselves and not have to somehow parse that out on
`25 their own out of the -- out of the appendices.
`
`Page 17
`
`1 JUDGE PAULRAJ: Okay. And just one
`2 follow-up.
`3 Perhaps, Mr. Morton, you can answer; and
`4 I'll let both sides respond.
`5 In terms of the claim charts included with
`6 petitioner's expert declarations, are those claim
`7 charts -- and what I'm trying to get at is, are they also
`8 kind of entitled to be like a claim-by-claim,
`9 patent-by-patent analysis analogous to what -- what
`10 you've included in patent owner's briefs?
`11 MR. MORTON: So, Your Honor, I guess I
`12 wouldn't -- I wouldn't agree that we haven't made any
`13 argument about what's missing from the prototypes in our
`14 briefs. I think we did make an argument in our briefs.
`15 Certainly there are a lot more words in the claim charts
`16 in the expert's declaration.
`17 I do think there is a little bit of a --
`18 you know, if the board is going to consider their claim
`19 charts, which we say our incorporated by reference, at
`20 that point I guess it's all fair game and our stuff's
`21 probably in, too. But I don't think it's just purely a
`22 goose/gander situation. I think we've said things in the
`23 briefs as far as what's -- what's missing.
`24 JUDGE PAULRAJ: All right. Thank you
`25 both. Let me put the parties on mute again and discuss
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`5 (Pages 14 - 17)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
`1 with my panel.
`2 (Off the record 10:22-10:28.)
`3 JUDGE PAULRAJ: Counsel, this is Judge
`4 Paulraj again. Thank you for your patience as we
`5 conferred.
`6 So to patent owner's request for perhaps
`7 what petitioner might characterize as an advisory
`8 opinion, we aren't going to pass judgment on whether or
`9 not your -- your brief violated the limitation on
`10 incorporation by reference.
`11 We will give the general guidance that
`12 we've given before - and I think you're fully aware of -
`13 that, you know, the intent of that rule is to not have us
`14 dig through for arguments and expert declarations, et
`15 cetera.
`16 So to the extent that the arguments are in
`17 your brief and the evidence in the claim chart supports
`18 those arguments, that's certainly fine. That's
`19 consistent with what we said before and in our trial
`20 practice guide in prior cases, so we'll abide by that
`21 general principle.
`22 And to the extent that you want to address
`23 that incorporation-by-reference argument, we'll give 500
`24 extra words in your -- in your surreply to address that;
`25 not a thousand.
`
`Page 20
`1 the same page. And along with those 500 words -- I know
`2 it's kind hard to perhaps parse which 500 words are going
`3 to be devoted to a certain argument, but as long as both
`4 parties can use those 500 words to address
`5 incorporation-by-reference argument rather than use those
`6 for substantive merits arguments.
`7 Does that make sense?
`8 MR. MORTON: Yes, Your Honor.
`9 MR. VANDENBURGH: Yes, Your Honor.
`10 JUDGE PAULRAJ: Okay. All right. Then I
`11 think we've covered the first issue. Let's turn to the
`12 second issue.
`13 MR. VANDENBURGH: Thank you, Your Honor.
`14 This is Mr. Vandenburgh again.
`15 The Trial Practice Guide clearly states
`16 that a petitioner may not submit new theories of
`17 invalidity for the first time in a reply brief, nor can a
`18 petitioner submit new evidence with their reply brief
`19 that should have been submitted with the opening
`20 petition.
`21 Here Medtronic -- Petitioner Medtronic has
`22 done both. In each of the 11 IPRs, they have submitted
`23 approximately 200 pages of additional experts'
`24 declarations and at least 18 new exhibits, you know, not
`25 counting the expert -- our expert transcript --
`
`Page 19
`
`Page 21
`
`1 Any questions on that point?
`2 MR. VANDENBURGH: No, Your Honor.
`3 JUDGE PAULRAJ: Okay. If there's no other
`4 questions, then let's turn to the second request from
`5 December 30th about a motion to strike petitioner's reply
`6 briefs.
`7 MR. MORTON: Your Honor, this is Mr.
`8 Morton, if I -- if I could just pipe in.
`9 Sorry for the interruption.
`10 JUDGE PAULRAJ: You're going back to the
`11 first issue, Mr. Morton; is that right?
`12 MR. MORTON: Yeah. I just -- I just want
`13 to ask for the same words for my -- for my briefs. If
`14 they're going to get another 500, do we get another 500
`15 words?
`16 JUDGE PAULRAJ: And you want to address
`17 whatever response that -- that they may have in terms of
`18 your incorporation-by-reference argument; is that right?
`19 MR. MORTON: Correct, Your Honor.
`20 JUDGE PAULRAJ: And where do we have the
`21 page limit -- or word limits right now for the remaining
`22 briefs on those issues?
`23 MR. MORTON: 2,800 words each, Your Honor.
`24 JUDGE PAULRAJ: All right. That's fine.
`25 We'll give 500 words to both sides to make everyone on
`
`1 deposition transcripts that they put in.
`2 Additionally and unusually, among this new
`3 evidence is a 100-page declaration from a brand-new
`4 expert. You know, with their opening petition, they
`5 submitted declarations from two -- two of them - expert
`6 declarations - one from a medical doctor and one from a
`7 purported engineering expert.
`8 Now, in their reply brief, they seem to
`9 have jettisoned -- they haven't told us why, but they
`10 didn't submit anything from that first engineering
`11 expert, but instead have switched to a new engineering
`12 expert who submitted a brand-new 100-page declaration.
`13 That sort of volume in itself shows that we aren't
`14 dealing with simply rebuttal evidence. This is new
`15 evidence.
`16 Now, the Trial Practice Guide also
`17 provides guidance on when it is appropriate to object to
`18 such arguments and evidence via separate motion to strike
`19 versus simply pointing out the impropriety of the new
`20 evidence and arguments in the reply brief. And, you
`21 know, consistent with that guidance, we are willing to
`22 address most of them, to simply point out the instances
`23 of new and proper evidence and argument as part of our
`24 surreply brief.
`25 But there are four instances -- they're
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`6 (Pages 18 - 21)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 22
`1 the ones that we identified in our e-mail to the board --
`2 where the Trial Practice Guide's guidance indicates that
`3 a motion to strike is appropriate. First of all, these
`4 are instances where, as the TPG points out, it is beyond
`5 dispute that the arguments in evidence are new and
`6 improper.
`7 I don't -- I don't think I want to take
`8 the time, unless the board's interested, to go through
`9 all four of the issues that we decided. But just to give
`10 an example, three of the IPRs at issue are -- have
`11 grounds of obviousness based on the Kontos reference.
`12 And basically in their petition, petitioner said, "Well,
`13 it would have been obvious to make this one change to
`14 Kontos, and that then meets all the limitations of your
`15 claims."
`16 And we pointed out in response that, well,
`17 when it would be obvious to make that change, and there's
`18 problems and reasons why you wouldn't do that; but, also,
`19 even if you did that, you wouldn't have many of the
`20 limitations of the claim. So then they come back and
`21 reply and say, "Wait a minute. It wouldn't have been
`22 obvious to make one change to Kontos. It would have been
`23 obvious to make five changes to Kontos." They've totally
`24 changed their invalidity theory.
`25 As just a second example, an important
`
`Page 24
`1 Practice Guide, is because of the potential prejudice to
`2 patent owner if this issue isn't resolved now. You know,
`3 first of all, of course, we are subject to word limits as
`4 well in our upcoming surreply briefs, and we shouldn't
`5 have to spend words dealing with improper arguments being
`6 raised too late in the case.
`7 And, secondly, of course, there's the
`8 issue of evidence. We had no reason, for example, to
`9 have our expert explain why it wouldn't have been obvious
`10 to make five changes to the Kontos reference, because
`11 they hadn't argued that it would have been obvious to
`12 make five changes. So if we're really going to deal with
`13 these on the merits, we would an opportunity to submit
`14 additional evidence.
`15 So that's what we're seeking leave of the
`16 board to do, to file a motion to strike, which we think
`17 is the proper relief, or alternatively, which given the
`18 complexity of this case and all that's already going on,
`19 but alternatively we would ask for the right to submit
`20 additional responsive evidence.
`21 And the other thing that we would ask of
`22 the -- of Your Honors today is that this be set up on a
`23 very quick briefing schedule, and that Your Honors
`24 hopefully resolve it quickly. Because, you know, we do
`25 need guidance on these issues before we file our surreply
`
`Page 23
`1 issue in many -- most of the petitions is their argument
`2 that it would have been obvious to take this collar
`3 structure from the Ressemann reference and incorporate it
`4 into other pieces of prior art to create what is called
`5 out in many of the claims as a side opening having at
`6 least two incline portions, or other similar claim
`7 language.
`8 But what we pointed out in our response --
`9 and in fact their experts agreed -- that one of the
`10 things that they were calling an incline portion in the
`11 actual device isn't part of the opening at all. It's --
`12 it's buried underneath multiple different components, and
`13 just serves no function whatsoever in the actual
`14 Ressemann reference. And, again, because their experts
`15 have admitted it, they don't really try to defend that
`16 point in their reply.
`17 Instead they come back and say, well, wait
`18 a minute. Ressemann actually has three inclined
`19 portions. There's this different region of the Ressemann
`20 collar that we think is not what's important and
`21 relevant, and that's why your claims are invalid. This
`22 is the sort of clear changing of positions that are
`23 prohibited in reply brief.
`24 And the other reason that the -- a motion
`25 to strike is appropriate here, as indicated in the Trial
`
`Page 25
`
`1 briefs at the end of this month.
`2 In fact, we frankly need time -- you know,
`3 we need at least a week before those papers are filed,
`4 especially if the relief that would be granted would be
`5 we need to -- to pre -- you know, prepare rebuttal
`6 evidence to put on those topics.
`7 So we'd ask for leave to file the motion
`8 to strike, alternatively submit new evidence, and that it
`9 be set up on a very short briefing schedule.
`10 Thank you, Your Honor.
`11 JUDGE PAULRAJ: Thank you,
`12 Mr. Vandenburgh.
`13 Just to clarify, I think perhaps we
`14 weren't aware of your alternative request for submitting
`15 new evidence as part of a surreply.
`16 Was that discussed as part of the
`17 meet-and-confer process with the other side?
`18 MR. VANDENBURGH: Your Honor, I have to
`19 apologize. I don't believe it was.
`20 It's,

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket