`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.À.R.L.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00126
`IPR2020-00128
`IPR2020-00129
`IPR2020-00132
`IPR2020-00134
`IPR2020-00135
`IPR2020-00137
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXHIBIT 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Teleflex has not authenticated Exhibit 2024. .................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`Exhibit 2024 is unreliable on its face. ........................................................ 2
`
`B.
`
`Peterson cannot authenticate Exhibit 2024. ............................................... 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Peterson lacks personal knowledge of Exhibit 2024. ........................... 6
`
`Peterson lacks knowledge of VSI’s record-keeping
`procedures. ............................................................................................ 7
`
`C. No other witness can authenticate Exhibit 2024. ....................................... 7
`
` Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. Iogene, LLC,
`IPR2019-00929, Paper 53 (PTAB Sept. 21, 2020)............................................... 5
`
`Linear Technology Corp. v. Micrel, Inc.,
`275 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................... 5, 6, 8
`
`Riverbed Tech., Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC,
`IPR2016-00978, Paper 67 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2017) ................................................ 1
`
`Schroeder v. Smith’s Food & Drug Centers, Inc.,
`No. 2:12-CV-02024-APG, 2014 WL 548149 (D. Nev. Feb. 11,
`2014) ..................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00148, Paper 41 (PTAB Apr. 23, 2015) ........................................... 3, 5
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 802 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 901 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In an attempt to antedate Medtronic’s primary prior art reference, Itou
`
`(Ex-1007), Teleflex filed and relies on a “Product Requirements: Guideliner
`
`Catheter System” document (Ex-2024). Teleflex attempts to authenticate Exhibit
`
`2024 using Dean Peterson, a Principle Research and Design Engineer formerly at
`
`VSI, now at Teleflex. Teleflex served a declaration from Peterson as supplemental
`
`evidence in response to Medtronic’s objections to Exhibit 2024 under Federal Rules
`
`of Evidence 802 and 901. See Ex-1923. Exhibit 2024, though, lacks critical indicia
`
`of reliability on its face, and Teleflex’s attempt to authenticate the document using
`
`Peterson’s conclusory declaration fails. Peterson does not know the circumstances
`
`of the creation of the document and cannot speak to VSI’s record-keeping practices.
`
`Indeed, none of Teleflex’s witnesses appear to have personal knowledge of
`
`Exhibit 2024. Gregg Sutton, Deborah Schmalz, and Howard Root all mention
`
`Exhibit 2024 in their declarations and depositions. See Ex-1762, 116:11 et seq.;
`
`Ex-1757, 79:20 et seq.; Ex-1766, 56:9 et seq. But none provides information
`
`necessary to verify that the document is what Teleflex says it is. The Board should
`
`exclude Exhibit 2024.
`
` TELEFLEX HAS NOT AUTHENTICATED EXHIBIT 2024.
`
`Under Federal Rule of Evidence 901, Teleflex “must produce evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that [Exhibit 2024] is what the proponent [Teleflex]
`
`1
`
`
`
`claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901; Riverbed Tech., Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC,
`
`IPR2016-00978, Paper 67 at 41 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2017) (“The burden is on Patent
`
`Owner to produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that [the exhibit] is what
`
`the Patent Owner claims it is.”). Teleflex cannot prove that Exhibit 2024 is what it
`
`claims: a VSI document created as of a particular date—August 24, 2005—that
`
`“signaled VSI’s transition to the formal Quality process for bringing [the GuideLiner
`
`RX] to market.” Paper 39 at 17.1 Teleflex contends that VSI created Exhibit 2024
`
`on August 24, 2005, and that the document “discuss[ed] both the rapid exchange and
`
`OTW version of GuideLiner” as of that date. Id. If Teleflex (i) cannot date the
`
`document, or (ii) cannot show that the document addressed RX Product
`
`Requirements as of August 24, 2005, the document is not what Teleflex claims. For
`
`either reason, the Board should exclude Exhibit 2024.
`
`A. Exhibit 2024 is unreliable on its face.
`
`Exhibit 2024 lacks critical indicia of reliability. First, the document does not
`
`provide a reliable date. The “8/24/05” on the face of the document is an unexplained
`
`“effective” date:
`
`
`1 This quotation is found in Paper 39 for the following cases: IPR2020-00126,
`
`IPR2020-00128, IPR2020-00129, IPR2020-00132, IPR2020-00135,
`
`IPR2020-00137. For IPR2020-00134, see Paper 36 at 17.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex-2024, 1, 4. The date—“8/24/05”—is neither a “date created” nor a “date last
`
`modified.” It provides no information about when the author prepared or revised the
`
`document. The document’s metadata also includes no “Date Created” or “Date Last
`
`Modified.” Ex-1924. Teleflex cannot rely on the date on the face of the document
`
`“as proof of date[] of creation, modification, or publication”—the date is
`
`inadmissible hearsay if Teleflex “has not established that the dates [on the face of
`
`the document] are automatically generated.” See Standard Innovation Corp. v.
`
`Lelo, Inc., IPR2014-00148, Paper 41 at 18 (PTAB Apr. 23, 2015). Thus, Teleflex
`
`cannot rely on “8/24/05” to date the document.
`
`Still, even if the author created the document on “8/24/05,” the document’s
`
`metadata suggests that the author created the document to address only GuideLiner
`
`OTW, not GuideLiner RX. The document’s file name is “PS1068 rev 01 Product
`
`3
`
`
`
`User Requirements for GuideLiner OTW Support Catheter.” Ex-1924. No evidence
`
`of record—no witness, no document—provides information regarding when, or
`
`how, the author added GuideLiner RX to the document. Indeed, VSI tracked
`
`versions of the document only in hard copy. See Ex-1766, 53:22-54:5. It is entirely
`
`plausible that the document did not reference GuideLiner RX when created. Thus,
`
`Teleflex cannot prove that VSI created the document on August 24, 2005, and even
`
`if it did, it cannot prove that the author included mention of GuideLiner RX on this
`
`date.
`
`Second, the document is an incomplete draft. See Ex-1762, 117:14-118:3. The
`
`document is missing most of its substance (no product specifications, no test
`
`methods), is marked “Rev. 01,” and includes a note that the document is “Pre-
`
`release.” Ex-2024. According to Root, revision “01” would not require “formal sign-
`
`off” or institutional approval under VSI’s general scheme. Id., 117:21-25.
`
`Third, the document does not identify its author. The document identifies
`
`“J. Kauphusman” as “Reviewer” and “J. Kujawa” for “Documentation.” Ex-2024,
`
`1. The document does not identify either person as the author. Both Root and
`
`Schmalz identified Kauphusman as the document’s “Reviewer,” but neither could
`
`identify the author. Ex-1762, 116:21-117:2; Ex-1766, 56:17-25 (“He was clearly the
`
`person that reviewed and approved this document, but I cannot say for certain that
`
`4
`
`
`
`he was the one that actually wrote it.”). The document’s metadata indicates only that
`
`the author is “Preferred Customer.” Ex-1924.
`
`The document provides no reliable date, substance, or author. The August 24,
`
`2005, date on the face of the document is neither reliable nor meaningful on the
`
`current record. Exhibit 2024 is an incomplete draft. It is, on its face, not reliable.
`
`B.
`
`Peterson cannot authenticate Exhibit 2024.
`
`Even if Exhibit 2024 did not present reliability issues on its face, Teleflex still
`
`must authenticate it to rely on it. Teleflex relies on Peterson’s declaration, but he
`
`cannot authenticate the document. Peterson does not speak to the creation of the
`
`document, and his testimony regarding VSI’s document maintenance practices is
`
`contrary to other record evidence.
`
`Failure to authenticate warrants exclusion. Linear Technology Corp. v.
`
`Micrel, Inc., 275 F.3d 1040, 1055-56 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Standard Innovation
`
`Corp., IPR2014-00148, Paper 41 at 10-23 (excluding documents on hearsay and
`
`authentication grounds where no witness in the proceeding had personal knowledge
`
`of the documents); Ingenico Inc. v. Iogene, LLC, IPR2019-00929, Paper 53 at 97-98
`
`(PTAB Sept. 21, 2020) (patent owner did not meet authentication burden in absence
`
`of any testimony about the document). Here, Peterson offers only conclusory
`
`statements about Exhibit 2024 and the systems used to prepare and maintain it. He
`
`cannot speak to the document’s authorship, date of creation, method of creation, or
`
`5
`
`
`
`maintenance, and the limited information that he does provide is contrary to other
`
`record evidence.
`
`1.
`
`Peterson lacks personal knowledge of Exhibit 2024.
`
`The sum total of Peterson’s testimony purportedly authenticating Exhibit
`
`2024 is as follows:
`
`
`
`Ex-1926 ¶ 18. Peterson does not purport to have personal knowledge of the
`
`document, testifying only that it “was made by VSI personnel with knowledge of the
`
`issues contained therein on or near the date of the document.” Id. He does not say
`
`who authored the document, how or why they had relevant knowledge, or when the
`
`author created or modified the document. Peterson does not explain how he
`
`identified the author or confirmed that he or she had the requisite knowledge to do
`
`the drafting. Peterson does not explain “8/24/05” or whether it qualifies as a reliable
`
`creation date. There is no record evidence that Peterson has personal knowledge of
`
`the document, especially considering he joined VSI only one month before the
`
`6
`
`
`
`purported creation date. Ex-1925, 1. Peterson’s testimony is conclusory, and for that
`
`reason, it cannot authenticate Exhibit 2024. See Linear Technology Corp., 275 F.3d
`
`at 1055-56 (exhibit properly excluded where authenticating witness had only
`
`knowledge of a file type generally, and not specific knowledge of the challenged
`
`documents).
`
`2.
`
`Peterson lacks knowledge of VSI’s record-keeping procedures.
`
`The conclusory testimony that Peterson does provide is inconsistent with
`
`other evidence of record. Peterson testifies that the document was maintained “on
`
`[VSI’s] network.” Ex-1926 ¶ 18. But Schmalz’s testimony contradicts Peterson’s.
`
`See Ex-2039 ¶ 8; Ex-1766, 53:22-54:5 (testifying that the “doc control system” at
`
`VSI was not electronic and that “[w]e maintained hard copies of all documents”). If
`
`anything, Peterson leaves Exhibit 2024 less reliable than when he found it.
`
`C. No other witness can authenticate Exhibit 2024.
`
`Teleflex cannot rely on any other witness to authenticate Exhibit 2024.
`
`Sutton lacks personal knowledge. Sutton’s declaration states that a product
`
`requirements document, in general, is “one of the first documents that is part of the
`
`design history process” and that VSI did not create product requirements documents
`
`“unless or until we had gone through feasibility and prototyping of a device and were
`
`ready to move forward with commercialization efforts.” Ex-2119 ¶ 44. That is it. He
`
`does not discuss the particular product requirements document that Teleflex filed.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Sutton does not even swear that Exhibit 2024 is a “true and correct” copy of a
`
`product requirements document. But Sutton should have been able to say more about
`
`the document. In August 2005, Sutton was VSI’s Vice President of Research and
`
`Development. Id. ¶ 2. Yet Teleflex did not and cannot use Sutton to authenticate the
`
`document.
`
`Schmalz lacks personal knowledge. Schmalz’s testimony is limited to
`
`product requirements documents in general, too. She has no personal knowledge of
`
`Exhibit 2024. Ex-2039 ¶ 6 (describing “[s]uch a document” rather than this
`
`particular document). She describes information found on the face of the document.
`
`Id. ¶ 7. Like Sutton, she cannot confirm that the document is “true and correct.”
`
`Id. ¶ 6. She admits that she lacks first-hand knowledge of the document’s creation.
`
`Id. ¶¶ 6-8; Ex-1766, 44:24-45:17 (testifying that someone in VSI’s R&D department
`
`authored the document and that no one on Schmalz’s team authored the document);
`
`56:17-25 (testifying that she did not know if the “J. Kauphusman listed at the top of
`
`this document” authored the document); 48:2-7 (testifying that she did not know if
`
`engineers revised product requirements documents). Schmalz’s second-hand
`
`knowledge and testimony related to a category of documents rather than a particular
`
`document is insufficient to authenticate Exhibit 2024. See, e.g., Linear Technology
`
`Corp., 275 F.3d at 1055-56 (knowledge of a file type generally, without knowledge
`
`of specific documents, not sufficient); Schroeder v. Smith’s Food & Drug Centers,
`
`8
`
`
`
`Inc., No. 2:12-CV-02024-APG, 2014 WL 548149, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 11, 2014)
`
`(excluding videos and photographs under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 where
`
`authenticating witness only “received” them and otherwise had no personal
`
`knowledge of them).
`
`Root lacks personal knowledge. Root has no personal knowledge of the
`
`creation or maintenance of Exhibit 2024, either. Like Sutton and Schmalz, Root
`
`discusses only product requirements documents in general—he offers no specifics
`
`about Exhibit 2024. Ex-2118 ¶ 54. Root did not provide any further information to
`
`authenticate Exhibit 2024 during his deposition, admitting that he did not draft the
`
`document and that he did not know if there were subsequent drafts or revisions.
`
`Ex-1762, 116:21-24, 117:14-18.
`
`Authentication requires personal knowledge about the particular document in
`
`question, yet Teleflex’s witnesses offer only conclusory statements regarding a
`
`category of documents.
`
` CONCLUSION
`
`Teleflex relies on Exhibit 2024 and the date on the face of the document to
`
`make sweeping statements about prototyping and testing work at VSI in 2005.
`
`Teleflex must prove that Exhibit 2024 is what it claims. But Teleflex cannot
`
`authenticate the facially unreliable document. Not one witnesses has personal
`
`9
`
`
`
`knowledge of the document. Medtronic requests that the Board exclude Exhibit
`
`2024.
`
`Dated: February 23, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/Cyrus A. Morton/
`Cyrus A. Morton
`Reg. No. 44,954
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`2800 LaSalle Plaza
`800 LaSalle Avenue
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on February
`
`23, 2021, a copy of PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXHIBIT 2024 was
`
`served in its entirety by electronic mail on Patent Owner’s counsel at the following
`
`addresses indicated in Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices:
`
`J. Derek Vandenburgh, Reg. No. 32,179
`dvandenburgh@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Dennis C. Bremer, Reg. No. 40,528
`dbremer@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Joseph W. Winkels
`jwinkels@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Peter M. Kohlhepp
`pkohlhepp@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Tara C. Norgard (pro hac vice pending)
`tnorgard@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Alexander S. Rinn (pro hac vice pending)
`arinn@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Megan E. Christner, Reg. No. 78,979
`mchristner@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Kenneth E. Levitt, Reg. No. 39,747
`levitt.kenneth@dorsey.com
`
`
`
`Dated: February 23, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Cyrus A. Morton/
`Cyrus A. Morton
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reg. No. 44,954
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`2800 LaSalle Plaza
`800 LaSalle Avenue
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`12
`
`