`Tuesday, July 7, 2020 9:52 PM
`Manske, William E.; Tremblay, Emily J.; Miller, Austin B.; Gilliss, Shelley R.; Parrott, Jill M.;
`Tacheny, Michele M.
`Morton, Cyrus A.; Roberg-Perez, Sharon E.
`FW: Medtronic v. Teleflex IPRs - Supplemental Evidence
`Sutton Declaration.PDF; Peterson Declaration.pdf; Rao_EuroIntervention_2010.pdf;
`Dickson Declaration.pdf
`
`Parrott, Jill M.
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Attachments:
`
`Jill:
`
`Please save.
`
`Thanks!
`
`From: Peter M Kohlhepp <PKohlhepp@carlsoncaspers.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 6:16 PM
`To: Morton, Cyrus A. <CMorton@RobinsKaplan.com>; Pinahs, Christopher A. <CPinahs@RobinsKaplan.com>
`Cc: Roberg‐Perez, Sharon E. <SRoberg‐Perez@RobinsKaplan.com>; Derek Vandenburgh
`<DVandenburgh@carlsoncaspers.com>; Dennis C Bremer <DBremer@carlsoncaspers.com>; Joe W Winkels
`<JWinkels@carlsoncaspers.com>; Shelleaha L Jonas <SJonas@carlsoncaspers.com>
`Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: Medtronic v. Teleflex IPRs ‐ Supplemental Evidence
`
`Counsel,
`
`On June 22, 2020, Petitioner served objections to Patent Owner’s evidence filed in connection with its preliminary
`responses in IPR2020‐00126, ‐00128, ‐00129, ‐00132, ‐00135, and ‐00137. Petitioner made generic, boilerplate
`objections to numerous groups of exhibits on the basis of, among other things, FRE 106, 401, 402, 403, 602, 701, 702,
`703, 802, 901, and/or 1002, making it impossible to know what the particular grounds are for Petitioner’s objections on
`any given exhibit. Patent Owner thus objects and notes that Petitioner did not meet the threshold of detail required by
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), which requires “particularity.” Because Petitioner did not meet the required “particularity”
`threshold, Patent Owner does not have sufficient information necessary to respond to Petitioner’s objections.
`
`Patent Owner also notes that Petitioner’s objections appear to be premature. The Patent Owner has not yet provided
`Patent Owner Responses or the separate conception/reduction to practice briefing indicating which, if any, of the
`evidence provided with the preliminary responses that Patent Owner will rely on during the instituted trial.
`
`Notwithstanding the above, and without waiving the opportunity to submit supplemental evidence as provided for in
`the rules following the filing of the Patent Owner Responses and conception/reduction to practice briefing, in an effort
`to resolve and streamline these issues, Patent Owner serves the attached documents as supplemental evidence
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b). Regarding Exhibits 2002 and 2014, Patent Owner will make the underlying items,
`namely the Gregg Sutton laboratory notebook and the cut‐down hypotube, available for inspection during the
`appropriate Petitioner discovery period.
`
`Best regards,
`
`1
`
`Medtronic Ex. 1923
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00126/-128/-129/-132/-134/-135/-137
`
`
`
`Peter Kohlhepp
`
`Peter M Kohlhepp
` Carlson Caspers
`225 S. Sixth St., Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
` Direct: 612.436.9659
`PKohlhepp@carlsoncaspers.com
`carlsoncaspers.com
`BIO | vCard | Disclaimers
`
`
`
`2
`
`Medtronic Ex. 1923
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00126/-128/-129/-132/-134/-135/-137
`
`