throbber
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
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________________________________
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC
`VASCULAR, INC.,
`
` Petitioners,
`
` vs.
`
`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)
`___________________________________________________
`
` VOLUME I
` REMOTE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
` MICHAEL JONES
`
`DATE: January 18, 2021
`TIME: 8:00 a.m. (Pacific)
`PLACE: Veritext Virtual Videoconference
`
`PAGES: 1 to 189
`JOB NO.: MW 4402816
`REPORTED BY: Merilee Johnson, RDR, CRR, CRC, RSA
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`1 E X H I B I T S
` (Continued)
`
`2 3
`
`Exhibit 1033 United States Patent Application . 141
`4 Publication, US 2004/0236215 A1,
`5 Pub. Date: November 24, 2004
`6 Exhibit 1114 Deposition transcript of Howard .. 38
`7 Charles Root, dated June 27, 2013
`8 CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`9 VSIQXM_E00055124 to 55172
`10 Exhibit 1242 Declaration of Richard A. ........ 70
`11 Hillstead, Ph.D., FAHA
`12 Exhibit 1807 Declaration of Michael Jones .....
`13 Submitted in Support of
`14 Petitioner's Replies
`15 Exhibit 1829 United States Patent No. ........ 91
`16 6,361,529 B1, Date of Patent:
`17 March 26, 2002
`18 Exhibit 2228 Diagram........................... 170
`19 Exhibit 2229 Diagram........................... 174
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1 A P P E A R A N C E S
` (All appearing remotely via videoconference)
`
`23
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
`4 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`BY: Cyrus A. Morton, Esq.
`5 Christopher A. Pinahs, Esq.
` Shelley R. Gilliss, Ph.D.
`6 800 LaSalle Avenue
` Suite 2800
`7 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
` Phone: (612) 349-8500
`8 Email: CMorton@RobinsKaplan.com
` Email: CPinahs@RobinsKaplan.com
`9 Email: SGilliss@RobinsKaplan.com
`10
`11 ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNERS:
`12 CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH,
`LINDQUIST & SCHUMAN, PA
`13 BY: Joseph W. Winkels, Esq.
` Peter M. Kohlhepp, Esq.
`14 225 South Sixth Street
` Suite 4200
`15 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
` Phone: (612) 436-9600
`16 Email: JWinkels@CarlsonCaspers.com
` Email: PKohlhepp@CarlsonCaspers.com
`
`17
`18 ALSO APPEARED:
`19 Greg Smock (Teleflex)
` Peter Keith (Teleflex)
`20 Howard Cyr (Teleflex)
` Justin Bond (Videographer)
`
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 5
`
`1 (PROCEEDINGS, 01/18/2021, 8:00 a.m.)
`2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. Today
`3 is January 18, 2021. We're on the record at
`4 8:00 a.m. Today we'll take the videotaped
`5 deposition in Case No. IPR2020-00138. This
`6 deposition is being held remotely.
`7 Counsel, please state your appearance and
`8 affiliation for the record.
`9 MR. WINKELS: On behalf of patent
`10 owner, Joe Winkels with the Carlson Caspers firm.
`11 With me, from my firm, is Peter Kohlhepp. As well,
`12 Pete Keith is with us today. And two
`13 representatives from Teleflex, Howard Cyr and
`14 Greg Smock, are with us today.
`15 MR. MORTON: This is Cyrus Morton, law
`16 firm of Robins Kaplan, representing petitioner,
`17 Medtronic. With me in the room are also Chris
`18 Pinahs and Shelley Gilliss.
`19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you. Would
`20 you please swear the witness.
`21 MICHAEL JONES,
`22 duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
`23 EXAMINATION
`24 BY MR. WINKELS:
`25 Q. Good morning, Mr. Jones.
`
`1 I N D E X
`
`2 3
`
`WITNESS: MICHAEL JONES PAGE
`4 Examination by Mr. Winkels....................... 5
`5 Examination by Mr. Morton........................178
`6 Further Examination by Mr. Winkels...............186
`
`7 8
`
`CAUTION OR INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO ANSWER:
`9 Page 75, Line 14
`10 Page 76, Line 11
`11
`12 E X H I B I T S
`13
`14 EXHIBITS MARKED AND FIRST REFERRED TO: PAGE
`15 Exhibit 1007 United States Patent No. ......... 32
`16 7,736,355 B2,
`17 Date of Patent: June 15, 2010
`18 Exhibit 1008 United States Patent No. ......... 78
`19 7,604,612 B2,
`20 Date of Patent: October 20, 2009
`21 Exhibit 1030 United States Patent No. ......... 132
`22 5,413,560,
`23 Date of Patent: May 9, 1995
`24
`25
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`2 (Pages 2 - 5)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`1 A. Good morning.
`2 Q. So I understand it's 8:00 a.m. your time.
`3 It's 10:00 a.m. our time. I think we'll need to
`4 take a lunch break at some point today. I'm happy
`5 to do that whenever you would like to. You know,
`6 I'm happy to go through our lunch break, so I was
`7 kind of -- you know, if we went for maybe three,
`8 three and a half hours, something like that, is
`9 kind of what I would think for a lunch break. Does
`10 that sound fine with you?
`11 A. That sounds like a decent plan.
`12 Q. Okay. So we'll stick with that.
`13 Have you ever been deposed before?
`14 A. Yes, I have.
`15 Q. How many times?
`16 A. I believe it's twice.
`17 Q. And when were you last deposed?
`18 A. I think it was early November of 2020.
`19 And, I mean, if you need a specific date, I could
`20 look it up, but it was late October/early
`21 November of 2020.
`22 Q. Okay. And what type of matter was that
`23 that you were deposed in?
`24 A. Products liability case.
`25 Q. Okay. And who were you testifying on
`
`1 about that case, but -- so since you've been
`2 deposed in November of 2020, was that deposition
`3 virtually done via Zoom or WebEx or something
`4 like we're -- a platform like we have today?
`5 A. Yes, a platform --
`6 Q. And so -- yeah. So I just did exactly what
`7 we're not supposed to do. And that's what I wanted
`8 to caution both of us to do is not talk over each
`9 other because it's going to make our court
`10 reporter's job very difficult. So I will do my
`11 best to not interrupt you when you're answering a
`12 question, if you can do your best to not interrupt
`13 me, when I'm asking a question, even if you know
`14 what my question is and you're anticipating it.
`15 Just let's try to -- try not to talk over each
`16 other. Okay?
`17 A. Yes, sir.
`18 Q. All right. The patent litigation case, the
`19 SenoRx, is that the --
`20 A. SenoRx. S-e-n-o-R-x.
`21 Q. SenoRx. And who was the defendant in that
`22 case?
`23 A. I believe we were the defendant.
`24 Q. That was -- that was SenoRx is who
`25 you represented?
`
`Page 7
`
`1 behalf of?
`2 A. The plaintiff.
`3 Q. Okay. Just generally, what was the
`4 technology at issue? What was the general nature
`5 of that case?
`6 A. I'm trying to figure what I -- I'm trying
`7 to figure out what I can tell you.
`8 Q. Let me ask this: Did it relate to a
`9 medical device?
`10 A. Yes, it did.
`11 Q. Okay. Did it relate to a medical device
`12 that would be used in the coronary arteries?
`13 A. No, it did not.
`14 Q. Okay. Did it relate to a medical device
`15 that had anything to do with the heart?
`16 A. No, it did not.
`17 Q. Okay. And you said you've been deposed
`18 twice. One time was in early November of last
`19 year. What was the other time that you've been
`20 deposed?
`21 A. The other time was in a patent litigation
`22 between SenoRx, Inc., which -- and Scitech, over a
`23 radiation balloon catheter that I was an inventor
`24 of.
`25 Q. Okay. I want to ask some more questions
`
`Page 9
`1 A. Well, SenoRx, that was the -- an inventor
`2 of their radiation balloon catheter.
`3 Q. Okay.
`4 A. And they were being sued by Scitech.
`5 Q. And what year were you deposed in that
`6 case?
`7 A. 2007 or 2008, I believe.
`8 Q. Okay. Did that case go to trial?
`9 A. No, it did not.
`10 Q. Were you only deposed once in that case?
`11 A. Yes.
`12 Q. And you said it was about a radiation
`13 balloon catheter. What's a radiation balloon
`14 catheter?
`15 A. A radiation balloon catheter is used by
`16 radiation oncologists. It's a catheter. It goes
`17 into a -- specifically in the case for what we were
`18 making and selling, went into a woman's breast
`19 after surgery to remove a cancerous lesion. It
`20 filled the cavity and then it provided high-dose
`21 radiation therapy over a short period of time for
`22 follow-up treatment after surgery.
`23 Q. Do you recall what year was the filing date
`24 of that invention?
`25 A. I don't recall directly.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`3 (Pages 6 - 9)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`1 Q. Sometime before 2007, though?
`2 A. Yes.
`3 Q. Do you think it was before 2005?
`4 A. I honestly can't recall that far back.
`5 It's -- I'm almost a hundred percent certain it's
`6 in my CV.
`7 Q. Okay.
`8 A. With the -- not necessarily the invention
`9 date but the date the patent was issued.
`10 Q. Okay. And that radiation balloon catheter,
`11 that was not a catheter that was used in the
`12 coronary arteries, correct?
`13 A. That is correct.
`14 Q. Now, have you done any work for Medtronic
`15 before?
`16 A. Not to the best of my recollection, I have
`17 not.
`18 Q. Have you ever received any grants from
`19 Medtronic for any work?
`20 A. No, I have not.
`21 Q. Have you ever licensed any of your patents
`22 to Medtronic?
`23 A. I think -- not directly. I was an inventor
`24 on a number of products at Micro Therapeutics.
`25 Micro Therapeutics was -- through a number of sales
`
`Page 12
`1 Q. Have you spoken to any of the other experts
`2 in this case?
`3 A. No, I have not.
`4 Q. So you have not spoken to Dr. Hillstead; is
`5 that right?
`6 A. I have not spoken with Dr. Hillstead.
`7 Q. You have not spoken with Dr. Brecker,
`8 correct?
`9 A. I have not.
`10 Q. And you have not spoken with Mr. Zalesky,
`11 correct?
`12 A. No, I have not.
`13 Q. Do you have any understanding of why
`14 Mr. Hillstead is not offering any reply opinions in
`15 this matter?
`16 A. No, I do not.
`17 Q. Have you spoken with anyone else in this
`18 case other than counsel from Medtronic?
`19 A. No, I have not.
`20 Q. Now, when were you hired to perform any
`21 work in this matter?
`22 A. I believe it was late June or early July of
`23 2019.
`24 Q. Late June/early July 2019, did you do any
`25 work in connection with the district court
`
`Page 11
`
`Page 13
`
`1 of the entity, those products ended up in
`2 Medtronic's product portfolio.
`3 Q. Are you still receiving royalty payments
`4 from Medtronic?
`5 A. No, never received any royalty payments
`6 from Medtronic.
`7 Q. Had you sold any companies to Medtronic?
`8 A. I have not.
`9 Q. Have any companies that you've been a
`10 shareholder in been sold to Medtronic?
`11 A. Well, Micro Therapeutics was sold to
`12 Medtronic. I was a shareholder of Micro
`13 Therapeutics. I believe I was -- I believe I had
`14 sold all my stock in Micro Therapeutics well before
`15 Medtronic ended up purchasing the remnants of the
`16 company.
`17 Q. Now, what did you do to prepare for your
`18 deposition today?
`19 A. I've reviewed my declaration. I've
`20 reviewed the key exhibits in regards to my
`21 declaration. I've had declaration preparation with
`22 my attorneys.
`23 Q. Did you speak with anyone other than the
`24 Medtronic attorneys?
`25 A. No, I did not.
`
`1 litigation in this case?
`2 A. I believe so.
`3 Q. And starting in late June/early July, did
`4 you also do some work in connection with the IPRs
`5 in this case?
`6 A. Not that -- not to my knowledge.
`7 Q. When did you first start doing any work on
`8 the IPRs in this case?
`9 A. I believe that was in late September or
`10 early October of 2020.
`11 Q. What were you hired to do in late
`12 September/early October of 2020 in connection with
`13 the IPRs?
`14 A. To produce a -- sorry. To produce an
`15 expert report or declaration to review patents and
`16 make comments as a person of skill in the art.
`17 Q. Did you understand at that time that you
`18 were going to be providing a declaration in support
`19 of petitioners' replies in the IPRs?
`20 A. Yeah, I believe that was explained.
`21 Q. Did you gain any understanding of why
`22 Mr. Hillstead was not providing any declaration in
`23 support of the replies?
`24 A. No, I do not.
`25 MR. MORTON: Asked and answered.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`4 (Pages 10 - 13)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
`Page 16
`
`1 BY MR. WINKELS:
`2 Q. Now, what have you all reviewed in
`3 connection with this case? You said in preparation
`4 for the deposition you reviewed your declaration
`5 and some of the key exhibits. But in your work on
`6 this case, what documents have you all reviewed?
`7 A. Well, I believe --
`8 MR. MORTON: Objection.
`9 A. -- let's see -- so I've looked at, read --
`10 trying to think what the best way to go through the
`11 list is.
`12 Q. I'll start identifying some things and you
`13 can tell me, yes or no, you've reviewed it, and
`14 then we'll see if I missed anything.
`15 A. Okay.
`16 Q. Have you reviewed the five patents that are
`17 at issue in these IPRs?
`18 A. Can you cite the patent numbers? Because
`19 I've reviewed the one -- a Root patent, 8,048,032.
`20 Q. Okay. And in your binder, that's listed as
`21 Exhibit 1001, right?
`22 A. Yes.
`23 Q. Have you also reviewed the next tab in your
`24 binder, which is also Exhibit 1001 but it's in a
`25 different IPR, and it's the patent that is the
`
`1 claim.
`2 Q. And then lastly, the next tab in your
`3 binder is Exhibit 1001. It's Patent RE47,379. Am
`4 I correct that you did not review the '379 patent
`5 or the '379 claims?
`6 A. Same thing. I looked at the cover page,
`7 verify what it was, and then did not review the
`8 claims.
`9 Q. Did you review the '032 patent claims?
`10 A. I think I looked at Claim 1 of the '032
`11 when I originally was interviewed for the case.
`12 Q. But in connection with your work on these
`13 IPRs, you have not reviewed all of the claims of
`14 the '032 patent, right?
`15 A. That is correct.
`16 Q. Okay. Have you reviewed the file histories
`17 for the five patents that we just went over?
`18 A. No, I have not.
`19 Q. Have you reviewed any aspect of the file
`20 histories?
`21 A. No, I have not.
`22 Q. Now, based on your declaration, I take it
`23 you've reviewed some prior patents, correct?
`24 A. Yes, I have.
`25 Q. Have you reviewed any prior patents that
`
`Page 15
`
`Page 17
`
`1 No. RE45,380?
`2 A. I have not. I think I just looked at the
`3 cover page to verify it's a re-exam patent, but I
`4 haven't reviewed the contents of it.
`5 Q. Okay. So you have not looked at the claims
`6 of the '380 patent; is that right?
`7 A. That is correct.
`8 Q. And the next tab in your binder is
`9 Patent RE45,760. Have you reviewed the '760
`10 patent?
`11 A. Same thing. Just looked at the cover page
`12 of it and that was all.
`13 Q. And so you have not reviewed the claims of
`14 the '760 patent, correct?
`15 A. No, I have not.
`16 Q. And if I refer to patent numbers by their
`17 last three numbers, will you understand what I'm
`18 referring to?
`19 A. Yes.
`20 Q. Okay. Next tab in your binder is
`21 Exhibit 1001, Patent No. RE45,776. Am I correct
`22 that you have not reviewed the '776 patent or
`23 patent claims?
`24 A. Same thing. I've looked at the cover page,
`25 verify what it is, and then did not review the
`
`1 are not identified in your declaration?
`2 A. Oh. No. No. I think the declaration
`3 covers pretty much everything that -- or everything
`4 that we reviewed or referenced in my declaration.
`5 Q. Okay. Have you reviewed the declarations
`6 that Dr. Brecker or Mr. Hillstead provided in this
`7 case?
`8 A. I reviewed the declaration of
`9 Dr. Hillstead. I don't think I've seen the
`10 declaration of Dr. Brecker.
`11 Q. And did you just review one declaration of
`12 Dr. Hillstead?
`13 A. Yes. I believe it was just one.
`14 Q. And have you reviewed any declarations from
`15 Mr. Zalesky?
`16 A. Not to my knowledge, I have not.
`17 Q. Have you reviewed the declarations from
`18 patent owners' expert Mr. Keith?
`19 A. Yes.
`20 Q. Do you recall how many declarations from
`21 Mr. Keith you reviewed?
`22 A. No, I don't. I think it was -- I believe
`23 it to be just one.
`24 Q. Have you reviewed the declaration or
`25 declarations from Dr. Graham, who was a
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`5 (Pages 14 - 17)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
`Page 20
`
`1 cardiologist in the case?
`2 A. I don't recall seeing his name on any
`3 declaration.
`4 Q. Have you reviewed any declaration from
`5 Dr. Thompson or Dr. Azzalini, who are also
`6 cardiologists?
`7 A. No, I have not.
`8 Q. Have you reviewed any deposition testimony
`9 that has taken place in connection with these IPRs?
`10 A. I don't think I've reviewed any
`11 deposition -- any depositions that have taken
`12 place. I think it was solely declaration.
`13 Q. And just to put a final point on it: Am I
`14 correct you have not reviewed the deposition
`15 testimony from Mr. Hillstead in this case?
`16 A. I believe I've only reviewed his
`17 declaration. I don't think I have seen his
`18 deposition.
`19 Q. Now, in your declaration you discuss
`20 various aspects of opinions that Mr. Hillstead had,
`21 correct?
`22 A. Yes.
`23 Q. Do you think it would be important for you
`24 to review the deposition testimony of Mr. Hillstead
`25 to gain an understanding of what he testified in
`
`1 A. I think it was roughly 30 hours in
`2 conjunction with drafting or review -- I should
`3 say, in conjunction with reviewing prior art,
`4 reviewing declarations, and drafting my
`5 declaration. And probably about 20 hours in -- or
`6 slightly more than that reviewing -- or reviewing
`7 all of the exhibits cited here and my declaration.
`8 Q. So up to today, roughly 50 hours? Is that
`9 roughly accurate?
`10 A. I think that's a good estimate of it.
`11 Q. Okay. Now I want to introduce
`12 Exhibit 1807.
`13 (Exhibit No. 1807 was marked for
`14 identification.)
`15 Q. I've already loaded it into Exhibit Share.
`16 A. Yeah.
`17 Q. What is Exhibit 1807?
`18 A. I have it over here in front of me.
`19 Exhibit 1807 is the patent issued to Itou, last
`20 three digits '355, on June 15, 2010.
`21 Q. And I think we got our wires crossed. I
`22 may have been talking too fast.
`23 What is Exhibit 1807? 1807. I believe
`24 it's your declaration.
`25 A. 1807.
`
`Page 19
`
`Page 21
`
`1 regards to those opinions?
`2 A. I wasn't asked to do that. I was look- --
`3 I was asked to review his declaration and provide
`4 my comments relative to his declaration.
`5 Q. Right. And now sitting here today,
`6 understanding that he's now been deposed with
`7 respect to those opinions in his declaration, do
`8 you think it would have been helpful for you to
`9 review that deposition testimony from
`10 Mr. Hillstead?
`11 A. No, I don't.
`12 Q. It doesn't matter to you what Mr. Hillstead
`13 said about his opinions in the declaration; is that
`14 right?
`15 A. I was asked to comment on his declaration.
`16 I commented on his declaration, where I agree with
`17 it. I assume his testimony followed his
`18 declaration.
`19 Q. And if his testimony did not follow his
`20 declaration, would you find that to be an important
`21 thing that you should have known prior to
`22 submitting your opinion in this case?
`23 A. No, not necessarily.
`24 Q. How many hours have you spent on this case
`25 in connection with the IPRs?
`
`1 Q. Yeah, my apologies.
`2 A. I may not have heard you correctly,
`3 so . . .
`4 1807 is -- yeah, 1807 is my declaration --
`5 Q. And --
`6 A. -- in this case.
`7 Q. And just to confirm: You submitted one
`8 declaration in this case, which would have been
`9 filed in the IPRs that are identified at the bottom
`10 of the first page of 1807, right?
`11 A. Well, those are cut off on my copy of it,
`12 but there -- it gives me -- so I guess maybe if you
`13 want to go to Exhibit Share, there are a number
`14 of -- there are a number of numerals that are
`15 partially available on the bottom of this copy.
`16 Q. Yep. And I was having that same problem
`17 with the printing. So why don't we just go to the
`18 Exhibit Share because I do just want to confirm
`19 this point.
`20 A. Okay.
`21 Q. You've worked with lawyers before and
`22 understand there are some points we need to
`23 confirm, and we'll just have to do it.
`24 A. Okay.
`25 Q. If you could go to 1807 on the
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`6 (Pages 18 - 21)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
`Page 24
`
`1 Exhibit Share.
`2 A. Okay. Where will I find it?
`3 Q. Right. So if you go -- you need to find --
`4 when I pull it up, there's three folders that say
`5 Medtronic -- or two folders that say Medtronic v
`6 Teleflex.
`7 Do you see that on the left side?
`8 A. I see a folder, Medtronic and Teleflex, and
`9 then I see Depositions.
`10 Q. Okay. So open up the Depositions folder.
`11 You should see another folder that says "Deposition
`12 of Mike Jones 1-18-2021."
`13 A. Marked Exhibits?
`14 Q. Yep. And in there, you should see
`15 Exhibit 1807.
`16 Do you see that there?
`17 A. Yes, I do.
`18 Q. Okay.
`19 A. And I see IPR2020-00126/-127/-128/-129/
`20 -130/-132/-134/-135/-136/-137 and -138.
`21 Q. Okay. So Exhibit 1807, 1-8-0-7, is the
`22 single declaration that you filed in support of all
`23 of the IPRs, correct?
`24 A. That is correct.
`25 Q. Okay. If we go to paragraph 7. My
`
`1 A. As an education or as in practical
`2 experience?
`3 Q. Well, let's talk about practical
`4 experience.
`5 A. Yeah. Mechanical engineering probably
`6 focuses more on -- there's a lot of overlap in
`7 there. Heat transfer and fluids being probably the
`8 primary areas of overlap between the two.
`9 Chemical engineering focuses more on
`10 structure, structural integrity. I think those
`11 would be the -- probably the primary differences in
`12 function between a chemical engineer and a
`13 mechanical engineer.
`14 Chemical engineer would be designing
`15 reactors, reactor vessels. Mechanical engineer
`16 would be responsible for their mechanical
`17 performance and suitability.
`18 Q. How does chemical engineering differ from
`19 biomedical engineering?
`20 A. I think you'd have to look at the
`21 individual -- again, are we talking about by
`22 education or by practice?
`23 Q. Let's talk about practical experience.
`24 A. Chemical engineering -- so can you rephrase
`25 that question just so I make sure I answer the
`
`Page 23
`
`Page 25
`
`1 intention is we're just basically going to walk
`2 through your declaration, Mr. Jones. And I'll try
`3 to go in order as much as possible, and I'll try to
`4 draw your attention to various paragraphs to let
`5 you know what I'm talking about and keep things
`6 moving.
`7 A. Okay.
`8 Q. If you go to paragraph 7. I just want to
`9 discuss your education briefly. You received a
`10 degree in chemical engineering, right?
`11 A. That is correct.
`12 Q. How would you describe what chemical
`13 engineering is?
`14 A. Chemical engineering is an engineering
`15 specialty that basically bridges a gap between
`16 chemistry and mechanical engineering. It's
`17 responsible for designing reactors, chemical
`18 processes, distillation, polymerization.
`19 It's evolved a little bit now into protein
`20 engineering and its use in -- its use in chemical
`21 processes. It also encompasses heat transfer, mass
`22 transfer, fluid dynamics. I'm trying to think
`23 in -- sort of briefly includes material science.
`24 Q. How does chemical engineering differ from
`25 mechanical engineering?
`
`1 right one, please?
`2 Q. Yep, yep. How does chemical engineering
`3 differ from biomedical engineering?
`4 A. I think biomedical engineering is maybe a
`5 little more focused on physiology, physiologic
`6 systems. Also including -- which would include
`7 sort of the electrical system of the body, or the
`8 body's response to electrical stimuli. So common
`9 areas that would be shared between them would be,
`10 again, fluids, heat transfer. Probably similar in
`11 chemical processes.
`12 Q. And you don't have an undergraduate degree
`13 in mechanical or biomedical engineering, right?
`14 A. That's correct. I have a degree in --
`15 bachelor of science from Berkeley in 1984 in
`16 chemical engineering. You are correct.
`17 Q. Now in paragraph 8 of your declaration you
`18 describe some catheters that you've worked on. And
`19 I'd like to just talk about these briefly and get
`20 an understanding of what type of catheters these
`21 were.
`22 A. Okay.
`23 Q. The first one you talk about is
`24 thromboembolic stroke catheter, or a catheter for
`25 treating thromboembolic stroke.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`7 (Pages 22 - 25)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
`Page 28
`
`1 A. That's correct.
`2 Q. Where is that catheter used in the body?
`3 A. So those catheters are used -- they're
`4 introduced through a vascular introducer into
`5 typically the femoral or iliac artery of the
`6 patient. Advanced up over the aortic arch and then
`7 subsequently introduced into the left -- I'm sorry,
`8 right common carotid artery, left carotid artery,
`9 or left subclavian artery for navigating up into
`10 the cerebral vasculature.
`11 Q. Maybe I can short circuit some of this. Do
`12 any of the catheters that you've identified in
`13 paragraph 8 go into the coronary arteries?
`14 A. No, they do not.
`15 Q. Do you have any experience designing
`16 catheters for use in the coronary arteries?
`17 A. No, I do not.
`18 Q. And the catheter that you identified from
`19 your experience in paragraph 8 refers to this work
`20 being done in the mid-1980s through the late 1990s;
`21 is that right?
`22 A. That is correct.
`23 Q. Do you have any experience designing
`24 catheters of any type after the late 1990s?
`25 A. Yes. I think I referred to the radiation
`
`1 stroke. Catheters for treating subarachnoid
`2 hemorrhages. I don't believe -- I do not believe
`3 the balloon catheters we developed ended up
`4 going -- becoming commercial.
`5 Electrosurgical balloon catheters.
`6 Embolectomy catheters. And then the -- same thing.
`7 I believe the angioplasty catheters, a product that
`8 I developed or transferred to Shiley, all became
`9 commercial.
`10 Q. And just so the record's clear, you would
`11 include -- the electrosurgical balloon catheter
`12 would be included --
`13 A. Yes.
`14 Q. -- in a product that's become commercial?
`15 A. Yes.
`16 Q. Okay. Now, in paragraph 9, you talk
`17 about -- since '97, you've worked at a company
`18 called Design Development and Fabrication, right?
`19 A. That's correct.
`20 Q. And you say there that the work of that
`21 company is focused on product design and
`22 development, right?
`23 A. That's correct.
`24 Q. Are those two different things: product
`25 design and development?
`
`Page 27
`
`Page 29
`
`1 therapy balloon was a catheter.
`2 Q. And that was the radiation therapy balloon
`3 that is used to treat breast cancer?
`4 A. Yes.
`5 Q. Other than the radiation therapy balloon,
`6 do you have any experience designing catheters
`7 after the late 1990s?
`8 A. Well, yes, my current job. We're designing
`9 a catheter.
`10 Q. You're saying today you're working on
`11 designing a catheter?
`12 A. Yes.
`13 Q. And is that catheter going to be used in
`14 the coronary arteries?
`15 A. No, it is not.
`16 Q. What part of the body is that catheter
`17 going to be used in that you're currently
`18 designing?
`19 A. It's used in the aorta.
`20 Q. Now, the catheters that you worked on that
`21 you identify in paragraph 8, have any of those
`22 catheters become commercial products?
`23 A. Let's see. Yes.
`24 Q. And which ones?
`25 A. Catheters for treating thromboembolic
`
`1 A. They're similar. One leads to the other.
`2 So typically you have to have a design for a
`3 product, refine the design. And then once you've
`4 done that, then you develop that design to prepare
`5 for transfer to manufacturing.
`6 Q. Now at the bottom of paragraph 9, you list
`7 some clients you've worked with.
`8 A. Yes.
`9 Q. First question is: The work you've done
`10 for those clients, does any of that work designing
`11 the devices relate to any devices that are used in
`12 the coronary arteries?
`13 A. (Reviewing document.) The Edwards
`14 Lifesciences was a -- is a surgical device to be
`15 used in conjunction with the coronary artery bypass
`16 surgery but not for use as a catheter in coronary
`17 arteries.
`18 Q. When you say it was a surgical device, did
`19 that relate to an open heart surgical device?
`20 A. That's correct.
`21 Q. And by "open heart," that's where the
`22 patient's chest is actually cracked open to expose
`23 the heart?
`24 A. Through either a port or an opening in the
`25 sternum, yes. Either way.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`8 (Pages 26 - 29)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 30
`1 Q. Now paragraph 10, you say you've been a
`2 named inventor in over a hundred patents. Do you
`3 have any patents related to cardiac catheters?
`4 A. I'd have to look at the list of patents to
`5 answer that. So the answer is I don't -- I don't
`6 know.
`7 Q. And so at least, sitting here right now,
`8 you can't identify any patents that you have that
`9 relate to cardiac catheters; is that right?
`10 A. Not with specific claims that I'm aware of
`11 to cardiac or coronary artery interventions.
`12 Q. Okay. Let's transition and talk about the
`13 Itou reference. You talk about that in your
`14 declaration, correct?
`15 A. Yes, I do.
`16 Q. And I believe your discussion of Itou
`17 starts around paragraph 28, right?
`18 A. Okay. So -- yep. When you get to 28.
`19 Okay.
`20 Q. In paragraph 30 of your declaration you
`21 refer to "Table 1 of Itou teaching that the inner
`22 diameter of catheter 2 is 1.5 millimeters, which is
`23 0.059 inches," right?
`24 A. Yes, that's how -- that's the reference.
`25 Q. And then in that same paragraph you also
`
`Page 31
`1 refer to a 5 French Heartrail catheter that has an
`2 inner diameter of 0.059 inches, right?
`3 A. Yes.
`4 Q. And then 0.059 inches, that's the same as
`5 1.5 millimeters, right?
`6 A. Yes.
`7 Q. Then the next sentence you say, "Such an
`8 inner diameter can 'accept normal balloons or stent
`9 delivery systems less than 4 millimeters in
`10 diameter.'"
`11 Do you see where you say that in paragraph
`12 30?
`13 A. Yes.
`14 Q. Obviously, 4 millimeters is not less than
`15 1.5 millimeters, right?
`16 A. Say -- I'm sorry. Say that again.
`17 Q. 4 millimeters is not less than 1.5
`18 millimeters, right?
`19 A. That's correct. The 4-millimeter diameter
`20 is in reference to typical inflated balloon
`21 diameters.
`22 Q. And in this paragraph you don't identify
`23 what the not-inflated diameter of that stent is,
`24 correct?
`25 A. That's correct.
`
`Page 32
`1 Q. In paragraph 31, you're talking about the
`2 Itou reference itself. And let's just pull that
`3 out. It's Exhibit 1007. It should be in your book
`4 and I'll also put it up on the Exhibit Share for
`5 you.
`6 (Exhibit No. 1007 was marked for
`7 identification.)
`8 A. Okay. Hang

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