`
`
`
`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’ SUR-SUR-REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`ADDRESSING CONCEPTION AND REDUCTION TO PRACTICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`TELEFLEX MUST PROVE PRIOR INVENTION. ...................................... 1
`II.
`III. CONCEPTION ................................................................................................ 2
`IV. REDUCTION TO PRACTICE ....................................................................... 3
`A.
`Teleflex cannot prove that VSI assembled RX
`prototypes before Itou. .......................................................................... 3
`VSI needed to test RX prototypes, and Teleflex
`does not show that it did. ....................................................................... 6
`1.
`VSI needed to conduct particular testing to demonstrate
`that RX would work for its intended purpose. ............................ 7
`Reduction to practice requires demonstrating that the
`invention would work for its intended purpose, and
`demonstrating requires testing for all but the most
`primitive inventions. ................................................................... 9
`The Board cannot evaluate whether Teleflex’s testing
`“evidence” proves that VSI demonstrated that RX would
`work for its intended purpose. ..................................................12
`V. DILIGENCE ..................................................................................................14
`VI. TELEFLEX CANNOT PROVE PRIOR INVENTION
`OF EVERY CLAIMED INVENTION. ........................................................14
`INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE ........................................................15
`VII.
`VIII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................17
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Apator Miitors ApS v. Kamstrup A/S,
`887 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 1
`Apple v. Yu,
`IPR2019-01258, 2021 WL 41670 (PTAB Jan. 5, 2021) ...................................... 2
`Bos. Sci. Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson,
`481 F. Supp. 2d 1018 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ..............................................................10
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 1
`E. Rotorcraft Corp. v. United States,
`384 F.2d 429 (Ct. Cl. 1967) ................................................................................10
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 1
`In re Stempel,
`241 F.2d 755 (C.C.P.A. 1957) ............................................................................11
`Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc.,
`79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................... 2, 9, 10
`Mason v. Hepburn,
`13 App. D.C. 86 (D.C. Cir. 1898) .......................................................................10
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01488, Paper 87 (PTAB Nov. 29, 2018) .............................................11
`REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj,
`841 F.3d 954 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 2
`Scott v. Finney,
`34 F.3d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................... 10, 12, 13
`Slip Track Sys., Inc. v. Metal-Lite, Inc.,
`304 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ..........................................................................12
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) ..............................................................................................15
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) .............................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`iv
`
`iV
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Teleflex asks the Board to conclude that VSI reduced its GuideLiner RX
`
`inventions to practice before Itou, based on conclusory, uncorroborated statements
`
`and a record devoid of meaningful documents. Even if the VSI documents are
`
`exactly what the inventors say they are, the record cannot support the inventors’
`
`sweeping assertions that they assembled and tested RX prototypes before
`
`September 23, 2005. Teleflex cannot carry its burden.
`
`II. TELEFLEX MUST PROVE PRIOR INVENTION.
`Teleflex misstates its burden—if the Board is uncertain about the CRTP
`
`evidence, then Teleflex has not satisfied its burden. Teleflex bears “the burden of
`
`going forward with evidence…and presenting persuasive argument based on” that
`
`evidence. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015). It must “establish[] that its claimed invention is entitled to an
`
`earlier priority date than an asserted prior art reference.” In re Magnum Oil Tools
`
`Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Prior invention is “effectively an
`
`affirmative defense.” Id. Teleflex must prove that VSI invented before Itou, not
`
`Medtronic prove that VSI did not. Apator Miitors ApS v. Kamstrup A/S, 887 F.3d
`
`1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The fact that Medtronic must prove unpatentability
`
`does not change that.
`
`1
`
`
`
`III. CONCEPTION
`“Reduction to practice follows conception.” Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79
`
`F.3d 1572, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj,
`
`841 F.3d 954, 958 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patentee “must either prove (1) a conception
`
`and reduction to practice…or (2) a conception…combined with diligence.”).1
`
`Teleflex appears to abandon its original conception documents and identifies
`
`later documents instead. Under Teleflex’s new theory, one document supports
`
`conception of a complete invention: Ex-2022, dated August 1, 2005. Teleflex’s
`
`other conception documents are either unwitnessed inventor documents (thus
`
`cannot corroborate), or component-part drawings that cannot show conception of
`
`every limitation of any claimed invention. Reply, 3-7; Apple v. Yu, IPR2019-
`
`01258, 2021 WL 41670, at *19 (PTAB Jan. 5, 2021) (“We disagree with Patent
`
`Owners’ contention that the [document] does not need corroboration because it is a
`
`physical exhibit. [It] is a document that has been authenticated only by the
`
`testimony of the inventors. Thus, this document is one of the inventors’ own
`
`statements and documents that depends solely on the inventor himself and,
`
`therefore, requires corroboration.”).
`
`
`1 CRTP Response, 20 (acknowledging that cases “recite conception as an element
`
`of proof [for] actual reduction to practice”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`The sole non-inventor document supporting conception of a complete
`
`invention—Ex-2022—undermines Teleflex’s reduction-to-practice timeline. At
`
`best, Teleflex shows conception in August 2005, a mere month before Itou and
`
`after VSI’s purported prototype work in April and July. Teleflex does not connect
`
`Ex-2022 to any subsequent prototype. Teleflex has shifted from arguing early 2005
`
`conception with April/July 2005 reduction to practice to August 2005 conception
`
`with no subsequent reduction to practice. But reduction to practice necessarily
`
`follows conception.
`
`IV. REDUCTION TO PRACTICE
`Reduction to practice requires constructing an embodiment of the invention
`
`and demonstrating that the invention would work for its intended purpose. Reply,
`
`7-8. The Board does not have evidence sufficient to conclude that VSI built, much
`
`less tested, RX prototypes before Itou.
`
`A. Teleflex cannot prove that VSI assembled RX prototypes before Itou.
`Teleflex failed to adduce evidence sufficient to prove RX assembly before
`
`Itou. Even if the component parts are exactly what Root says they are—two halves
`
`of an RX prototype—Teleflex offers only uncorroborated inventor say-so to prove
`
`successful assembly.
`
`Only inventors discuss assembling the “April” and “July” components
`
`(Ex-2089 with Ex-2113 and Ex-2092 with Ex-2114). No non-inventor discusses
`
`3
`
`
`
`assembling these prototypes. Erb does not discuss these prototypes or component
`
`parts in his declaration. Ex-2122. And he could not discuss an assembled “July”
`
`prototype in any detail, even when coached. Ex-1756, 93:14-95:12 (discussing
`
`only Ex-2114).
`
`No document corroborates assembly. Zalesky testified that though it does
`
`not “make a lot of sense” that VSI did not assemble prototypes, it did not—the
`
`record contains no assembly documents. Zalesky was unequivocal:
`
`
`
`Ex-2237, 208:10-25. Just before this exchange, counsel asked whether it would “be
`
`reasonable to order specialized parts…and not attach them,” and Zalesky
`
`responded, “I said too many times that there simply is no evidence of an actual
`
`assembled prototype.” Id., 205:9-21.
`
`The component-part drawings do not require pairing/assembly as the
`
`inventors discuss. The counterbore at the proximal end of the distal tubular
`
`portions (Ex-2089, Ex-2092) does not require attachment to the hypotube portions
`
`4
`
`
`
`(Ex-2113, Ex-2114). The counterbore would have enabled attachment to a variety
`
`of parts, including a proximal tubular portion, instead of an RX pushrod. Ex-1755
`
`¶¶95, 103, 179. Indeed, OTW guide catheters may be manufactured by fusing
`
`distal and proximal tubular portions, “to enable different mechanical properties at
`
`one end versus the other.” Ex-2237, 49:19-51:18.2
`
`Indeed, other documents show that VSI had trouble assembling an RX
`
`prototype and likely did not figure it out in the tight window between receiving RX
`
`parts and Itou. Assembly “took substantial engineering and testing.” Ex-1770, 15;
`
`Reply, 22-27 (citing VSI documents showing RX did not leave proof-of-concept
`
`phase in 2005-2006 and that VSI did not have a working prototype as late as
`
`2008). Teleflex does not explain these documents in its sur-reply. Moreover,
`
`Teleflex cannot explain why laboratory notebooks—including GuideLiner lead
`
`
`2 Teleflex hand-waves the similarity between OTW concept drawings and the
`
`“RX” distal portions, suggesting that the “chronology” does not work. But the
`
`record is littered with evidence that VSI was prototyping and testing OTW
`
`throughout 2005-2006. Reply, 9-10; Ex-2118 ¶19. The late-2005 OTW concept
`
`drawing is consistent with—not contrary to—OTW prototype work before then.
`
`Experimentation using different materials/dimensions goes hand-in-hand with
`
`proof-of-concept work. Ex-2237, 173:20-174:12, 181:6-19.
`
`5
`
`
`
`engineer Kauphusman’s notebooks—logging VSI’s engineering activities in
`
`2005-2006 say nothing about assembling RX prototypes. Reply, 8-11. Teleflex
`
`asks the Board to believe that VSI accomplished successful assembly at an
`
`undisclosed time between arrival of component parts in summer 2005 and
`
`September 23, 2005, when documents suggest otherwise. Indeed, assembly was no
`
`easy task, requiring trial-and-error and comparing strength, flexibility, and
`
`breaking points for numerous options. Ex-1755 ¶73.
`
`Without evidence to corroborate assembly, Teleflex tries to argue that
`
`Zalesky concedes assembly. Sur-reply, 8. Zalesky testifies to exactly the opposite.
`
`Based on years of experience with large and small companies, Zalesky opined that
`
`VSI would at least have assembly instructions if it assembled prototypes. Ex-1755
`
`¶¶66-74, 143-45; Ex-2237, 68:23-69:11, 134:8-138:3. Zalesky does not ask for too
`
`much: he delineates between early proof-of-concept documents and the more
`
`onerous regulatory phase. Ex-2337, 63:23-64:9, 66:1-9 (reduction to practice and
`
`“regulatory requirements” “are two very different issues”). Yet no document shows
`
`whether/when/how VSI assembled RX prototypes.
`
`B. VSI needed to test RX prototypes, and Teleflex does not show that it
`did.
`Even if VSI constructed an RX prototype, VSI needed to demonstrate that it
`
`would work for its intended purpose. Teleflex—for the first time in its sur-reply—
`
`contends that VSI did not need to test prototypes. But Teleflex’s new argument
`
`6
`
`
`
`departs from its previous position,3 expert and inventor testimony, and applicable
`
`law.
`
`1.
`
`VSI needed to conduct particular testing to demonstrate that RX
`would work for its intended purpose.
`The parties agree on the RX intended purpose: to increase backup support
`
`for accessing and crossing tough occlusions. Sur-reply, 9. According to the experts
`
`(Zalesky and Keith), to test whether the RX would increase backup support for
`
`accessing and crossing tough occlusions, VSI needed to set up a benchtop model
`
`simulating challenging anatomy (curvature, restrictions simulating lesions) and run
`
`the prototype through to test whether it would navigate the anatomy, access and
`
`cross simulated lesions, and stay in one piece through retrieval. Ex-1764,
`
`64:2-67:12 (confirming that the proper simulation can test backup support,
`
`whether the tip deforms under pressure, kinking, and stent hang-up); Ex-1755
`
`¶¶233-37; Ex-2237, 28:18-29:9, 37:23-38:21. Only then would VSI have
`
`demonstrated that the prototype would work for its intended purpose.
`
`Teleflex offers no evidence that VSI performed this testing. The only
`
`benchtop model Teleflex alleges VSI even owned was, according to Zalesky, “very
`
`simple.” Ex-2237, 135:5-23.
`
`
`3 CRTP Response, 25 (“Catheter inventions are routinely determined to work using
`
`benchtop models.”).
`
`7
`
`
`
`Ex-2129, 10 (showing OTW prototype)
`
`Compare VSI’s model with those designed to simulate challenging anatomy and
`
`
`
`tough occlusions:
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Ex-1055, Fig. 2
`(demonstrating improved crossing ability)
`
`
`
`Ex-1010, Fig. 1B
`(demonstrating increased backup
`support)
`
`Reduction to practice requires demonstrating that the invention
`would work for its intended purpose, and demonstrating requires
`testing for all but the most primitive inventions.
`Without exception, reduction to practice requires demonstrating that the
`
`invention would work for its intended purpose. Only primitive inventions
`
`demonstrate that workability upon construction and use, without testing. “[S]ome
`
`inventions are so simple and their purpose and efficacy so obvious that their
`
`complete construction is sufficient to demonstrate workability.” Mahurkar, 79 F.3d
`
`at 1578. Traced to its origin, “so simple” refers to rudimentary 19th-century
`
`inventions, including “a clip made in one piece instead of two.” Mason v. Hepburn,
`
`9
`
`
`
`13 App. D.C. 86, 87 (D.C. Cir. 1898). Even there, the inventors constructed and
`
`demonstrated to reduce to practice. Demonstrating that the inventions would work
`
`for their intended purposes did not require testing because the simple inventions
`
`worked upon complete construction and use. Id. at 90-91 (attaching “perfect
`
`construction” of clip to firearm magazine demonstrated that the clip was “capable
`
`of producing the result sought to be accomplished—namely, that of closing the
`
`magazine and clipping it to the barrel”). Even there, construction alone was not
`
`enough.
`
`Demonstrating that an invention would work for its intended purpose
`
`requires testing in all but simple cases. “Reduction to practice occurs when the
`
`workability of an invention can be demonstrated….And this requires testing the
`
`invention.” E. Rotorcraft Corp. v. United States, 384 F.2d 429, 431 (Ct. Cl. 1967).
`
`“Complex inventions…require laboratory tests that accurately duplicate actual
`
`working conditions in practical use.” Scott v. Finney, 34 F.3d 1058, 1062 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994). Catheters, in particular, require testing. Mahurkar, 79 F.3d at 1578; Bos.
`
`Sci. Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1018, 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2007)
`
`(reduction to practice after patentee “submitted documentation of the successful
`
`test results of a catheter embodying the…invention”). Teleflex conceded as much
`
`in its opening brief. CRTP Response, 24-25.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Teleflex cites neither case law4 nor evidence to support its new “no testing”
`
`argument. It conflates obviousness with reduction to practice. Arguments regarding
`
`what would have been obvious to a POSITA do not relieve VSI of its obligation to
`
`demonstrate that the invention would work for its intended purpose. Inferring
`
`cannot replace demonstrating. Teleflex cannot repurpose Medtronic’s invalidity
`
`expert by misapplying his testimony, and its own witnesses undermine its “no
`
`testing” theory. Keith did not offer a “no testing” opinion. Ex-1764, 49:8-14. And
`
`Root testified that VSI needed to test the prototype to confirm that it would work
`
`for its intended purpose. Ex-1762, 99:25-102:3.
`
`
`4 Teleflex cites a non-precedential Board decision and a CCPA opinion. Sur-reply,
`
`9. Neither provides guidance regarding testing to reduce to practice. In Pfizer v.
`
`Genentech, patent owner offered “a detailed account of the construction and
`
`testing” of antibodies. IPR2017-01488, Paper 87 at 21 (PTAB Nov. 29, 2018)
`
`(emphasis added). The Board determined that patent owner did not need to show
`
`that it performed certain other tests because the claims did not require that
`
`particular characteristic. Id. at 23-24. The dispute concerned testing and the scope
`
`of intended purpose. Stempel had nothing to do with reduction-to-practice
`
`testing—it concerned antedating a species reference. 241 F.2d 755, 759 (C.C.P.A.
`
`1957).
`
`11
`
`
`
`3.
`
`The Board cannot evaluate whether Teleflex’s testing “evidence”
`proves that VSI demonstrated that RX would work for its
`intended purpose.
`The Board cannot determine that VSI demonstrated that an RX prototype
`
`would work for its intended purpose based on Teleflex’s conclusory,
`
`uncorroborated evidence. The Board judges “[t]he adequacy of
`
`a reduction to practice…by what one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude
`
`from the results of the tests.” Slip Track Sys., Inc. v. Metal-Lite, Inc., 304 F.3d
`
`1256, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The Board considers “whether the testing in fact
`
`demonstrated a solution to the problem intended to be solved by the invention.”
`
`Scott, 34 F.3d at 1063.
`
`Teleflex offers no testing evidence that the Board can evaluate. The
`
`inventors offer conclusory say-so.5 Regardless, no one corroborates them. No
`
`
`5 Root offers conclusory statements that VSI’s undated testing in non-descript
`
`benchtop models “was sufficient” and showed that the “prototypes worked.”
`
`Ex-2118 ¶¶18, 35; Ex-1762, 105:18-106:13 (testifying only “[w]e would test it in
`
`different anatomies and different angles and different vessels” and [w]e tested it in
`
`different take-offs and different simulated anatomy in the different benchtop
`
`models”), 100:18-22 (conceding “you could define [benchtop model] a lot of
`
`ways”).
`
`12
`
`
`
`non-inventor discusses testing the April or July prototypes with any specificity.
`
`Erb offers no testimony regarding testing these prototypes, and he conceded that he
`
`“was not personally involved in” purported tests “involving the delivery of stents
`
`and balloons.” Ex-2122 ¶¶11-12; Ex-1756, 71:11-73:20. Erb does not explain how
`
`any testing demonstrated that the prototype would work for its intended purpose—
`
`Erb does not even mention the intended purpose. Ex-2122 ¶13 (stating only “we
`
`knew from our early testing of prototypes of the device that it would work”).
`
`Schmalz offers less than Erb. She has no first-hand knowledge of any testing,
`
`cannot judge whether a prototype would work for its intended purpose, and can
`
`only assume that engineers outside her department tested prototypes based on an
`
`unreliable, unauthenticated document that she did not prepare. Reply, 21; Paper
`
`106/109/110/111/112 (Motion to Exclude Ex-2024). Cf. Scott, 34 F.3d at 1063
`
`(wherein the Court had the opportunity to evaluate a video showing specific testing
`
`of a prosthetic implant). The Board needs something to judge.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`Under the rule of reason, VSI did not reduce to practice before Itou. Indeed,
`
`Zalesky, a POSITA with a long history of developing interventional cardiology
`
`catheters, opined that it is not reasonable to conclude that VSI assembled and
`
`tested RX prototypes before Itou. Ex-2237, 41:13-42:17, 228:10-229:8, 232:2-16
`
`(testifying that it is not reasonable to infer that the record supports assembly and
`
`13
`
`
`
`testing, as “[i]t’s inconceivable that you wouldn’t retain at least that small minimal
`
`subset [of documents] I mentioned”).
`
`V. DILIGENCE
`Teleflex offers no rebuttal to Medtronic’s diligence arguments.
`
`VI. TELEFLEX CANNOT PROVE PRIOR INVENTION OF EVERY
`CLAIMED INVENTION.
`Teleflex needed to adduce evidence sufficient to prove prior invention of
`
`each claimed invention. Reply, 2-3. Teleflex did not argue prior invention claim-
`
`by-claim in its opening brief. And its attempt to backdoor claim-by-claim proof by
`
`arguing against Zalesky’s claim-by-claim rebuttal falls short and cannot satisfy its
`
`burden of production.
`
`Zalesky understood the claims (though he did not provide claim construction
`
`opinions) and considered Root’s arguments related to the April and July RX
`
`prototypes in light of the claims. Ex-2237, 200:2-12, 217:23-218:6. Zalesky shows
`
`how Root’s arguments do not satisfy every limitation of every claimed invention.
`
`Ex-1755, App’xs A-E. Teleflex is missing evidence that the RX prototypes met at
`
`least these claim limitations:
`
`Claims
`’032, claims 1, 11
`’380, claims 1, 12
`
`’032, claims 3, 4
`
`Missing Limitation
`“substantially rigid portion…[operably] connected
`to…flexible tip portion”
`
`“the tubular structure further comprises structure
`defining a proximal side opening” or “the side
`
`14
`
`
`
`’380, claims 3, 4, 36
`
`opening is incorporated with the proximal end of the
`reinforced portion”
`
`’776, claims 25, 52, 53
`’760, claims 25, 48, 51, 53
`
`’776, claim 48
`
`’032, claims 6, 11
`’380, claims 1, 12, 25
`’776, claim 44
`’379, claims 25, 38
`’760, claims 35, 51
`
`“a segment defining a [side opening/partially
`cylindrical opening positioned between a distal end
`of the substantially rigid segment and a proximal
`end of the tubular structure]”
`
`“the partially cylindrical opening and the tubular
`structure comprise a reinforced portion of the guide
`extension catheter”
`
`“reinforced portion proximal to the flexible distal
`tip portion” (and similar limitations)
`July prototype does not satisfy.
`Neither prototype satisfies when claiming flexible
`tip segment distinct from reinforced segment.
`
`’032, claims 8, 17
`’380, claims 8, 18, 32
`’776, claims 30, 53
`’379, claim 34
`’760, claims 25, 48, 51, 53
`
`“the cross-sectional inner diameter of the coaxial
`lumen of the [flexible distal portion/tubular
`structure] is not more than one French smaller than
`the cross-sectional inner diameter of the guide
`catheter” (and similar limitations)
`July prototype does not satisfy.
`
`
`
`Even if the Board considers Root’s claim-by-claim arguments, they cannot
`
`fill these holes in Teleflex’s record.
`
`VII. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
`Teleflex concedes that it incorporated Root’s claim-by-claim arguments by
`
`reference, in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Instead of disputing its rule
`
`violation, Teleflex argues that its case is unique and warrants its departure from
`
`the Board’s rules because it has “invested substantial resources” in its case and
`
`15
`
`
`
`wants a decision on the merits. Sur-reply, 18-20. Teleflex pleads for exceptional
`
`treatment.
`
`Teleflex never objected to the Board’s order for consolidated CRTP briefing.
`
`It never suggested that it would not be able to meet its burden in light of applicable
`
`briefing rules and orders. Indeed, the consolidated briefing schedule “made sense”
`
`to Teleflex, and they chose to prioritize arguments untethered to “the specific
`
`language of a particular claim in a particular patent.” Ex-2233, 6:3-14. Teleflex
`
`chose the issues it briefed. It chose to ignore its claim-by-claim burden.
`
`This is not the first time that Teleflex has argued for special treatment when
`
`presenting its CRTP case. It argued against equal briefing between the parties,
`
`wanting more words than Medtronic. Ex-1099/1299/1699, 8:5-10:19. It tried to
`
`obtain an advisory opinion from the Board regarding Medtronic’s incorporation by
`
`reference argument. Ex-2233, 10:9-23. In filing its sur-replies, it departed from the
`
`Board’s order consolidating briefing and submitted five different briefs in an
`
`attempt to salvage its claim-by-claim arguments. The Board should disregard the
`
`additional briefing as a violation of the word count.
`
`Teleflex’s suggestion that Medtronic’s “procedural” argument is
`
`inappropriate or late is meritless. Medtronic raised the issue in its reply to
`
`Teleflex’s infringing CRTP brief. Medtronic had no obligation to raise the issue
`
`related to Teleflex’s burden any earlier.
`
`16
`
`
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION
`Teleflex cannot prove invention before Itou.
`
`
`
`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
`
`17
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATION
`
`I certify that Petitioners’ Sur-Sur-Reply to Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`Addressing Conception and Reduction to Practice consists of 2,800 words not
`
`including its incorporation by reference section, and 268 words in its incorporation
`
`by reference section, in 14-point Times New Roman font, as calculated by the
`
`word count feature of Microsoft Office 2016, in compliance with 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.24(a)(i). This word count is inclusive of all text and footnotes but does not
`
`include the table of contents, table of authorities, mandatory notices under § 42.8,
`
`certificate of service, certificate of word count, or appendix of exhibits or claim
`
`listing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/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
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on February 23, 2021, a copy of PETITIONERS’ SUR-SUR-
`
`REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY ADDRESSING CONCEPTION
`
`AND REDUCTION TO PRACTICE 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
`tnorgard@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Alexander S. Rinn
`pkohlhepp@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Megan E. Christner, Reg. No. 78,979
`mchristner@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Cyrus A. Morton/
`Cyrus A. Morton
`Reg. No. 44,954
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`Dated: February 23, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`