PETITIONERS’ DEMONSTRATIVE
`Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. v.
`Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.
`CONCEPTION AND REDUCTION TO PRACTICE
`
`IPR2020-00126, -00128, -00129, -00132,
`-00134, -00135, -00137
`
`March 8, 2021
`ORAL HEARING
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. v.
`Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.
`CONCEPTION AND REDUCTION TO PRACTICE
`
`IPR2020-00126, -00128, -00129, -00132,
`-00134, -00135, -00137
`
`March 8, 2021
`ORAL HEARING
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`
`Conception and Reduction to Practice
`
`Conception and Reduction to
`Practice before Itou
`
`Conception before Itouand
`Diligence until Root
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove prior invention before Itou.
`
`• Unclear conception timeline.
`• No evidence corroborating assembly or testing of RX
`prototypes.
`• Evidence showing VSI back-burnered RX and could not have
`reduced to practice before Itou.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`Teleflex must prove prior invention.
`
`Teleflex “must either prove (1) a conception and reduction to practice . . . or (2) a
`conception before the filing date of [Itou] combined with diligence.”
`REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj, 841 F.3d 954, 958 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`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).
`If the Board is uncertain about the CRTP evidence, then Teleflex has not satisfied its
`burden.
`
`Petitioners’ CRTP Sur-Sur-Reply at 1-2.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`
`
`Teleflex must prove prior invention claim-by-claim.
`
`Teleflex must “establish prior [invention] of every claim limitation”—
`referencing claim-by-claim charts “fail[s] to meet this burden.”
`Gen. Access Sols., Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App’x 654, 658
`(Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`Petitioners’ CRTP Reply at 2.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`
`
`Conception
`
`To prove conception, Teleflex must show “the formation, in the mind of the inventor of a
`definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention. . . .
`“Conception must include every feature or limitation of the claimed invention.”
`REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj, 841 F.3d 954, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`“[W]hen a party seeks to prove conception through an inventor’s testimony the party
`must proffer evidence, in addition to the inventor’s own statements and
`documents, corroborating the inventor’s testimony.”
`Apator Miitors ApS v. Kamstrup A/S, 887 F.3d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`Petitioners’ CRTP Reply at 3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove conception in early 2005.
`
`Teleflex’s Opening Brief:
`Three Conception
`Documents
`
`Ex-2002; Ex-2004; Ex-2127.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove conception in early 2005.
`
`Three Unwitnessed
`Inventor Documents
`
`Ex-2002; Ex-2004; Ex-2127.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove conception in early 2005.
`
`“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.”
`Apple v. Yu, IPR2019-01258, 2021 WL 41670, at *19 (PTAB Jan. 5, 2021).
`
`Petitioners’ CRTP Sur-Sur-Reply at 2.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove conception in early 2005.
`
`No Side Opening
`
`Ex-2002; Ex-2004; Ex-2127.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove conception in early 2005.
`
`End Opening
`
`Ex-2002; Ex-1755 ¶ 80.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove conception in early 2005.
`Sutton:
`
`Ex-1108/1308/1708, 70:18-71:23, 79:14-80:24.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove conception in early 2005.
`
`End Opening
`
`Ex-2004; Ex-1001, Fig. 1; Ex-1755 ¶ 83.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove conception in early 2005.
`
`Sutton:
`
`Ex-1108/1308/1708, 73:19-23.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove conception in early 2005.
`
`Zalesky:
`
`Undated
`
`Ex-2004; Ex-1755 ¶ 84.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove conception in early 2005.
`
`Sutton:
`
`Ex-1108/1308/1708, 46:7-47:3.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove conception before August 2005.
`
`Teleflex’s Sur-Reply:
`New Conception Document
`
`Ex-2022.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove conception before August 2005.
`
`Ex-2022.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove conception before August 2005.
`
`Teleflex’s Opening Brief
`
`Jan & Feb
`Conception
`
`April & July
`Prototypes
`
`September
`Itou
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove conception before August 2005.
`
`Teleflex’s Sur-Reply
`
`August
`Conception
`
`???
`Prototypes
`
`September
`Itou
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`
`
`Conception and Reduction to Practice
`
`“Reduction to practice follows conception.”
`Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`Petitioners’ CRTP Sur-Sur-Reply at 2.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`
`
`Reduction to Practice
`
`To prove reduction to practice, Teleflex must show:
`“(1) construction of an embodiment . . . that met all the limitations of the [claimed
`invention];
`(2) determination that the invention would work for its intended purpose; and
`(3) the existence of sufficient evidence to corroborate inventor testimony
`regarding these events.”
`Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`Petitioners’ CRTP Reply at 7-8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`
`
`Reduction to Practice: Constructing + Demonstrating
`
`1. Construct a prototype
`embodying the claimed
`invention.
`
`2. Demonstrate that the invention
`would work for its intended
`purpose.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`
`
`Reduction to Practice: Constructing + Demonstrating
`
`1. Construct a prototype
`embodying the claimed
`invention.
`
`2. Demonstrate that the invention
`would work for its intended
`purpose.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`
`
`VSI intended to develop an OTW GuideLiner.
`OTW Prototype Photo
`OTW GEC
`VSI Slide Deck, July 2005
`• Full-length lumen
`• Mother-and-child
`
`Ex-2129.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`
`
`VSI intended to develop an OTW GuideLiner (Prior Art).
`
`Ex-2128.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`
`
`VSI intended to develop an OTW GuideLiner.
`Early on, the GuideLiner Device was OTW:
`
`Ex-1759.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`
`
`VSI intended to develop an OTW GuideLiner.
`
`April 2005
`Kauphusman meets
`with inventors re:
`GuideLiner OTW
`
`Ex-1759.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`
`
`VSI intended to develop an OTW GuideLiner.
`
`April 2005
`Kauphusman meets
`with inventors re:
`GuideLiner OTW
`
`July 2005
`Root presents GuideLiner
`OTW as “New Product on
`the Horizon”
`
`Ex-2129.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`
`
`VSI intended to develop an OTW GuideLiner.
`
`April 2005
`Kauphusman meets
`with inventors re:
`GuideLiner OTW
`
`July 2005
`Root presents GuideLiner
`OTW as “New Product on
`the Horizon”
`
`August / September / November 2005
`Kauphusman tests GuideLiner OTW prototypes
`
`Ex-1760.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`
`
`Teleflex kept OTW documents.
`
`• OTW meetings.
`• OTW photographs.
`• OTW presentations.
`• OTW laboratory
`notebook entries.
`• OTW testing.
`
`April 2005
`
`Ex-1759; Ex-1760; Ex-2129.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Summer / Fall 2005
`
`31
`
`July 2005
`
`
`
`Teleflex is missing key RX documents.
`
`• No prototypes.
`• No photographs.
`• No assembly instructions.
`• No laboratory notebook entries.
`• No testing protocols.
`• No testing notes / data / results.
`
`Ex-1109/1309/1709; Ex-1758.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`
`
`Teleflex is missing key RX documents.
`
`Erb, a VSI technician and
`Teleflex’s lead
`corroborating witness,
`shredded his notebook.
`
`Erb:
`
`Ex-1756, 25:12-30:13, 33:2-8.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`
`
`At most four documents matter.
`
`“April Prototypes”
`
`“July Prototypes”
`
`Ex-2089; Ex-2113; Ex-2092; Ex-2114.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove that VSI assembled RX prototypes.
`
`Erb does not discuss assembling “April” components and “July” components.
`
`Ex-2122 ¶ 8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove that VSI assembled RX prototypes.
`
`Erb lacks personal knowledge . . .
`
`Sutton:
`
`Ex-1757, 43:10-14.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove that VSI assembled RX prototypes.
`
`. . . because Kauphusman and Mytty led the GuideLiner project.
`Sutton:
`
`Ex-1757, 33:11-15, 70:14-19.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove that VSI assembled RX prototypes.
`
`No document corroborates assembling “April” components and “July” components.
`Zalesky:
`
`Ex-2237, 208:14-25.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`
`
`Distal sections bear a striking similarity to OTW drawings.
`
`OTW Concept Drawing
`
`Ex-1763; Ex-2089.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Distal Component
`
`39
`
`
`
`Teleflex is missing key RX documents.
`
`• No prototypes.
`• No photographs.
`• No assembly instructions.
`• No laboratory notebook entries.
`• No testing protocols.
`• No testing notes / data / results.
`
`Ex-1109/1309/1709; Ex-1758.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`
`
`Reduction to practice: Constructing + Demonstrating
`
`1. Construct a prototype
`embodying the claimed
`invention.
`
`2. Demonstrate that the invention
`would work for its intended
`purpose.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`
`
`Intended Purpose
`
`Intended purpose: to increase
`backup support for accessing and
`crossing tough occlusions.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`
`
`Intended Purpose
`
`Sutton:
`
`Ex-2002.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`
`
`The parties agree on the intended purpose.
`
`Teleflex:
`
`PO’s CRTP Sur-Reply at 9.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`
`
`The witnesses agree on how to test that intended purpose.
`
`Intended purpose: to increase
`backup support for accessing and
`crossing tough occlusions.
`
`Demonstrating whether the
`invention would work for that
`intended purpose: benchtop test
`simulating challenging anatomy.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`
`
`The witnesses agree on how to test that intended purpose.
`
`1. Set up benchtop model to
`simulate challenging
`anatomy.
`2. Run prototype through and
`advance ICD to test
`navigating, accessing, and
`crossing.
`3. Retrieve prototype in one
`piece.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`
`
`Root agrees that demonstrating required certain testing.
`
`1. Set up benchtop model to
`simulate challenging
`anatomy.
`
`Root:
`
`Ex-1762, 100:10-22.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`
`
`Root agrees that demonstrating required certain testing.
`
`Root:
`
`1. Set up benchtop model to
`simulate challenging
`anatomy.
`2. Run prototype through and
`advance ICD to test
`navigating, accessing, and
`crossing.
`
`Ex-1762, 100:23-101:10.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`
`
`Root agrees that demonstrating required certain testing.
`
`1. Set up benchtop model to
`simulate challenging
`anatomy.
`2. Run prototype through and
`advance ICD to test
`navigating, accessing, and
`crossing.
`3. Retrieve prototype in one
`piece.
`
`Ex-1762, 101:14-19.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Root:
`
`49
`
`
`
`Root agrees that demonstrating required certain testing.
`
`1. Set up benchtop model to
`simulate challenging
`anatomy.
`2. Run prototype through and
`advance ICD to test
`navigating, accessing, and
`crossing.
`3. Retrieve prototype in one
`piece.
`
`Ex-1762, 101:19-102:3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Root:
`
`50
`
`
`
`Keith expanded on what that testing should look like.
`
`1. Set up benchtop model to
`simulate challenging
`anatomy.
`
`Keith:
`
`Ex-1764, 64:2-17.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`
`
`Keith expanded on what that testing should look like.
`
`Keith:
`
`1. Set up benchtop model to
`simulate challenging
`anatomy.
`2. Run prototype through and
`advance ICD to test
`navigating, accessing, and
`crossing.
`
`Ex-1764, 66:1-13, 67:1-3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`
`
`Keith expanded on what that testing should look like.
`
`1. Set up benchtop model to
`simulate challenging
`anatomy.
`2. Run prototype through and
`advance ICD to test
`navigating, accessing, and
`crossing.
`3. Retrieve prototype in one
`piece.
`
`Ex-1764, 66:14-25, 67:4-10.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Keith:
`
`53
`
`
`
`Zalesky opined that demonstrating required certain testing.
`Zalesky:
`
`Ex-1755 ¶ 235.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`54
`
`
`
`Teleflex adduced zero RX testing evidence.
`Takahashi
`Demonstrating Increased
`Backup Support
`
`VSI Benchtop Model
`July 2005
`
`Sakurada
`Demonstrating Improved
`Crossing Ability
`
`Ex-2129; Ex-1010; Ex-1055.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`
`
`Teleflex adduced zero RX testing evidence.
`Erb
`Schmalz
`VSI Technician
`VSI VP of Regulatory
`
`Ex-2122; Ex-2039.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove that VSI tested RX prototypes.
`Erb
`VSI Technician
`
`Ex-1756, 66:25-67:22, 71:11-73:20.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`57
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove that VSI tested RX prototypes.
`
`Kauphusman
`GuideLiner Lead Engineer
`
`Ex-1760 at 87.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`58
`
`OTW Testing
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove that VSI tested RX prototypes.
`Schmalz
`VSI VP of Regulatory
`
`Not a POSITA,
`no personal knowledge
`
`Ex-1766, 34:11-35:1.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`59
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove that VSI tested RX prototypes.
`
`Schmalz
`VSI VP of Regulatory
`
`Ex-2039 ¶ 6.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`60
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove that VSI tested RX prototypes.
`
`• No reliable date.
`• No author.
`• No content.
`• No electronic copy.
`• No RX file name.
`• No authenticator.
`
`? ?
`
`Petitioners’ Motion to Exclude Ex-2024; Ex-2024.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`61
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove that VSI tested RX prototypes.
`
`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).
`
`Petitioners’ Motion to Exclude Ex-2024 at 3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`62
`
`
`
`The Board needs to be able to assess testing 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 v. Finney, 34 F.3d 1058, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`Petitioners’ CRTP Sur-Sur-Reply at 12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`63
`
`
`
`Predicting is not demonstrating.
`
`“[E]vidence reflects that it was engaging in further testing and redesign
`and fully expected that the product would eventually work properly, but
`what is required is not a mere basis for prediction but an actual
`demonstration.”
`
`Tyco Healthcare Grp. v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 514 F. Supp. 2d 351,
`361 (D. Conn. 2007).
`
`Petitioners’ CRTP Reply at 26.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`64
`
`
`
`The Counter-Narrative
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`65
`
`
`
`VSI did not reduce to practice before Itou.
`
`2005
`
`June 2005
`Market Feasibility Memo
`
`“
`
`”
`
`Zalesky:
`
`Ex-2128; Ex-1755 ¶ 172.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`66
`
`
`
`VSI did not reduce to practice before Itou.
`
`2005
`
`July 2005
`RX Design TBD
`
`“
`
`“
`
`Ex-2130.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`67
`
`
`
`VSI did not reduce to practice before Itou.
`
`2005
`
`Zalesky:
`
`August 2005 (?)
`RX Product Requirements Incomplete
`
`??
`
`Ex-2024; Ex-1755 ¶¶ 196-99.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`68
`
`
`
`VSI did not reduce to practice before Itou.
`
`2005
`
`September 2005
`Itou
`
`Ex-1007.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`69
`
`
`
`VSI did not reduce to practice before Itou.
`
`2005
`
`“
`
`December 2005
`Additional Engineering Required
`
`“
`
`Ex-2131.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`70
`
`
`
`VSI did not reduce to practice before Itou.
`
`2005
`
`December 2005
`Additional Engineering Required
`
`Sutton:
`
`Ex-1768, 14; 1757, 77:16-18.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`71
`
`
`
`VSI did not reduce to practice before Itou.
`
`“ R
`
`oot:
`
`“
`
`May 2006
`Design In Progress
`
`2006
`
`“
`
`“
`
`Ex-2109; Ex-2118 ¶ 54.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`72
`
`
`
`VSI did not reduce to practice before Itou.
`
`2007
`
`April 2007
`RX Design In Progress
`
`Concept Drawing: TBD
`Design Freeze: May 30, 2007
`
`Ex-1769; Ex-1770.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`73
`
`
`
`VSI did not reduce to practice before Itou.
`
`2008
`
`June 2008
`RX Concept Drawing
`
`Ex-1765.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`74
`
`
`
`VSI did not reduce to practice before Itou.
`
`July 2008
`RX Design Pushed Out
`
`2008
`
`“
`
`Ex-2132.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`“
`
`75
`
`
`
`VSI did not reduce to practice before Itou.
`
`2009
`
`May 2009
`RX Product Requirements Complete
`
`Ex-1767.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`76
`
`
`
`VSI did not reduce to practice before Itou.
`
`Phase I
`Feasibility
`
`RX Design
`TBD
`
`Prod. Reqs.
`Incomplete
`
`Itou
`
`Add’l Engineering
`Required
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`Initial Design
`Work Continues
`
`Assembly
`Issues
`
`Concept
`Drawing
`
`“Drastic Design
`Changes”
`
`Prod. Reqs.
`Complete
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`77
`
`
`
`Teleflex incorporates its claim-by-claim arguments by reference.
`
`The Rule
`
`Teleflex’s Opening Brief
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); PO’s CRTP Response at 22.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`>100 pages
`
`78
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove that VSI was diligent.
`
`“[T]o antedate a reference, the applicant must not only have conceived the
`invention before the reference date, but must have reasonably continued
`activity to reduce the invention to practice.”
`ATI Techs. ULC v. Iancu, 920 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`“Reasonable diligence must be shown throughout the entire critical period,
`which begins just prior to the competing reference’s effective date and ends
`on the date of the invention’s reduction to practice.”
`Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus Am., Inc., 841 F.3d 1004, 1007 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016).
`
`Petitioners’ CRTP Reply at 28.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`79
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove that VSI was diligent.
`
`Engineering Work
`
`Sept. 23, 2005
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`May 3, 2006
`
`80
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove that VSI was diligent.
`
`Root:
`
`Ex-1762, 131:3-133:3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`81
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove that VSI was diligent.
`
`Parts Purchases
`
`Sept. 23, 2005
`
`Ex-2104; Ex-2106; Ex-2107.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`May 3, 2006
`
`82
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove that VSI was diligent.
`
`Prosecution Work
`
`~22 hours
`attorney work
`
`~27 hours
`attorney work
`
`~9 hours
`attorney work
`
`Sept. 23, 2005
`
`Ex-2098; Ex-2101; Ex-2103; Ex-2117.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`One email
`
`May 3, 2006
`
`83
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove that VSI was diligent.
`
`No Rebuttal
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`84
`
`
`
`Teleflex cannot prove prior invention.
`
`Conception and Reduction to
`Practice before Itou
`
`Conception before Itouand
`Diligence until Root
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`85
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ DEMONSTRATIVE
`Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. v.
`Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.
`
`IPR2020-00126, -00127, -00128, -00129, -00130,
`-00132, -00134, -00135, -00136, -00137, -00138
`
`March 8, 2021
`ORAL HEARING
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`86
`
`
`
`Agenda
`
`Conception and Reduction to Practice
`
`Merits
`•
`Introduction
`•
`Itou (IPR2020-00126, -00128, -00132, -00134, -00135, -00137)
`• Ressemann (IPR2020-00134, -00138)
`• Double Incline Claims
`• Secondary Considerations
`• Means-Plus-Function (IPR2020-00129)
`• Kontos (IPR2020-00127, -00130, -00136)
`
`Motions to Amend
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`87
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`88
`
`
`
`’032 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1001 at 1
`
`89
`
`
`
`’032 Patent
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1001, 7:61-8:7; Fig. 9 (color added)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`90
`
`
`
`’032 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00127, Ex-1762 (Root Tr), 39:14-17, 19-22, Reply at 24; Ex-1001, Fig. 1
`
`91
`
`
`
`Takahashi
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1010
`
`92
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,439,445 (Kontos)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex-1409, Fig. 1; 5:49-52
`93
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,612 (Ressemann)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`94
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1008, Fig. 1A
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,612 (Ressemann)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1008, 6:18-26, 29-34
`
`95
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,736,355 (Itou)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1007, Abstract; Fig. 3
`
`96
`
`
`
`ITOU
`
`IPR2020-00126, -00128, -00132, -00134, -00135, -00137
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`97
`
`
`
`Itou
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1007, Abstract
`
`98
`
`
`
`Itou
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1007, Fig. 3 (color added); 2:12-15
`
`99
`
`
`
`Itou
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1007, Figs. 1B, 6 (color added); 5:35-42
`
`100
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00137
`
`RE47,379
`claims
`25-26, 29-31, 33-40, 42-43, 45
`26, 38-40, 43-45
`32
`
`Instituted
`Ground
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`44
`5
`44
`Claims addressed in Patent Owner’s Response
`• 44
`
`Unrebutted claims: 25-26, 29-31, 33-40, 42-43, 45
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`References
`
`Itou
`Itou, Ressemann
`Itou and knowledge of a
`POSITA
`Itou, Kataishi
`Itou, Enger
`
`101
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00132
`
`RE45,760
`claims
`25-31, 33-38, 41, 42, 44, 47
`25, 30, 32, 39, 40
`32
`32
`
`Instituted Ground References
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`Itou
`Itou, Ressemann
`Itou, Kataishi
`Itou, Enger
`
`Claims addressed in Patent Owner’s Response
`• Dependent claims 32, 39
`
`Unrebutted claims: 25-31, 33-38, 40-42, 44, 47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`102
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00134
`
`RE45,760
`claims
`48, 51, 53
`48, 51, 53
`52
`48, 51, 53
`
`Instituted Ground
`
`References
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`Itou
`Itou, Ressemann
`Itou and knowledge of a POSITA
`Ressemann
`
`Claims addressed in Patent Owner’s Response
`• Ground 4 only (claims 48, 51, 53)
`
`Unrebutted claims: Grounds 1-3 (claims 48, 51-53)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`103
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00126
`
`References
`
`Instituted Ground
`
`8,048,032
`claims
`Itou
`1
`1-19, 22
`Itou, Ressemann
`2
`3, 13, 14
`Itou, Berg
`3
`20
`Claims addressed in Patent Owner’s Response
`•
`Independent claims 1, 11
`
`• Dependent claims 3, 6, 13, 14
`
`Unrebutted claims: 2, 4, 5, 7-12, 15-19, 20, 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`104
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00128
`
`References
`
`RE45,380
`Instituted
`claims
`Ground
`1-4, 6-10, 12-20, 23
`1
`Itou
`3, 14,15
`2
`Itou, Ressemann
`21
`3
`Itou, Berg
`Claims addressed in Patent Owner’s Response
`•
`Independent claims 1, 12
`
`• Dependent claims 3, 14, 15
`
`Unrebutted claims: 2, 4, 6-10, 13, 16-20, 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`105
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00135
`
`RE45,776
`Claims
`
`Instituted
`Ground
`
`References
`
`25-27, 29-33, 35-37, 41-45, 47-49
`39, 49
`36-37, 52-56
`
`32, 36-38, 46, 52-56
`
`52-56
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Claims addressed in Patent Owner’s Response
`•
`Independent claims 25, 52, 53, 56
`• Dependent claims 32, 36, 37, 39, 46
`
`Itou
`Itou and knowledge of a POSITA
`Itou, Kataishi and knowledge of a
`POSITA
`Itou, Ressemann and knowledge of a
`POSITA
`Itou, Enger and knowledge of a
`POSITA
`Unrebutted claims: 26-27, 29-31,
`33, 35, 38, 41-45, 47-49, 54-55
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`106
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00126, -00128, -00132, -00135, -00137
`•
`“interventional cardiology devices”
`
`o Claim Construction (IPR2020-00126, -00128, -00135)
`o Itou Receives interventional cardiology devices
`***
`Itou discloses a “flexible cylindrical distal tip portion” (claim 6, ’032
`patent) (IPR2020-00126)
`
`Itou discloses an “inclined region that tapers into a non-inclined region”
`(claim 32, ’776 patent) (IPR2020-00135)
`
`•
`
`•
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`107
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00126, -00128, -00135
`•
`“interventional cardiology devices”
`
`o Claim Construction (independent claims)
`o Itou Receives interventional cardiology devices
`***
`Itou discloses a “flexible cylindrical distal tip portion” (claim 6, ’032
`patent) (IPR2020-00126)
`
`Itou discloses an “inclined region that tapers into a non-inclined region”
`(claim 32, ’776 patent) (IPR2020-00135)
`
`•
`
`•
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`108
`
`
`
`“interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex-1001, claim 1 (ʼ032 patent)
`
`109
`
`
`
`“interventional cardiology devices”
`
`Ex-1001, 1:17-21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`110
`
`
`
`“interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Paper 22, 12
`
`111
`
`
`
`“interventional cardiology devices”
`
`Institution Decision
`
`Teleflex Proposal
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“ . . . at least two types of the devices
`selected from the group that includes,
`but is not limited to, guidewires,
`balloons, stents and stent catheters;”
`
`“. . . we do not construe the claims to
`require that more than one . . . be
`simultaneously insertable . . . ”
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“ . . . at least four of the most common
`coronary devices - - - guidewires,
`balloons, stents and stent catheters;” and
`
`“any other device that is delivered
`beyond the end of the device for use with
`a standard guide catheter to a location in
`the cardiac vasculature requiring
`treatment, to provide treatment to that
`location.”
`
`IPR2020-00126, Paper 22, 12-13.
`
`IPR2020-00126, POR, 11.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`112
`
`
`
`“interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1001, 1:17-21; 4:30-31; 5:9-12; 9:59-61
`
`113
`
`
`
`“interventional cardiology devices”
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1800 (Keith Tr.) 63:20-64:1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`114
`
`
`
`“interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`115
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1806 (Supplemental Brecker Decl.)
`
`
`
`“interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1806 (Supplemental Brecker Decl.)
`
`116
`
`
`
`“interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`117
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1001, Fig. ; 4:30-34
`
`
`
`“interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`118
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1015a, 94, Reply at 5 (citing text shown above)
`
`
`
`“interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`119
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1801 (Graham Tr.), 89:15-23
`
`
`
`“interventional cardiology devices”
`
`Ex-1806, Reply at 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126
`
`120
`
`Ex-2238 (Brecker Tr.), 20:21-21:8, Sur-Reply at 6-7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00126, -00128, -00132, -00135, -00137
`•
`“interventional cardiology devices”
`
`o Claim Construction (-00126, -00128, -00135)
`o Itou Receives interventional cardiology devices
`***
`Itou discloses a “flexible cylindrical distal tip portion” (claim 6, ’032
`patent) (IPR2020-00126)
`
`Itou discloses an “inclined region that tapers into a non-inclined region”
`(claim 32, ’776 patent) (IPR2020-00135)
`
`•
`
`•
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`121
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Paper 22, 20
`
`122
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1007, 4:48-51, 61-63; Fig. 5; and see Table 1
`
`123
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`124
`
`IPR2020-00126, Paper 44 (POR), 19-20
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`IPR2020-00126, Paper 44 (POR), 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`125
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1806 (Supplemental Brecker Decl.)
`
`126
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1806 (Supplemental Brecker Decl.)
`
`127
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1806 (Supplemental Brecker Decl.)
`
`128
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1806 (Supplemental Brecker Decl.)
`
`129
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1807 (Jones Decl.)
`
`130
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1007
`
`131
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1807 (Jones Decl.)
`
`132
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-2239 (Jones Tr.), 180:5-22, Paper 114 at 4, n.2
`
`133
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-2239 (Jones Tr.), 181:2-15, Paper 114 at 4, n.2
`
`134
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-2239 (Jones Tr.), 182:16-19, Paper 114 at 4, n.2
`
`135
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1805 (Keith Tr.), 139:3-13, Paper 114 at 3
`
`136
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1805 (Keith Tr.), 144:1-19
`
`137
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`138
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1001
`
`
`
`Ressemann
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1008 (Ressemann), 12:19-26; Fig. 6B
`
`139
`
`
`
`Ressemann
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1008 (Ressemann), 13:15-16, 57-60; Fig. 6E
`
`140
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1007, 5:35-42; Fig. 6
`
`141
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1806 (Supplemental Brecker Decl.)
`
`142
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1019 (Bagaoisan), 3:3-4, Petition at 69
`
`143
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`144
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1762 (Root Tr), 46:9-20, Reply at 13
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1806 (Supplemental Brecker Decl.)
`
`145
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`146
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1021 (Itou’s prosecution history), 3-4, Petition at 72
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`147
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1021 (Itou’s prosecution history), 5, Petition at 72
`
`
`
`Ressemann
`
`Ex-1808
`
`Ex-1008
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex-1809
`
`IPR2020-00126
`
`148
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00132, Ex-1806, Brecker Supplemental Decl., Reply at 3
`
`149
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1007 (Table 1); Ex-1005 (Brecker Decl.)
`
`150
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1005 (Brecker Decl.)
`
`151
`
`
`
`Itou Receives “interventional cardiology devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1005 (Brecker Decl.)
`
`152
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00126
`•
`“interventional cardiology devices”
`
`o Claim Construction (IPR2020-00126, -00128, -00135)
`o Itou Receives interventional cardiology devices
`***
`Itou discloses a “flexible cylindrical distal tip portion” (claim 6, ’032
`patent)
`
`Itou discloses an “inclined region that tapers into a non-inclined region”
`(claim 32, ’776 patent) (IPR2020-00135)
`
`•
`
`•
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`153
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00126
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`154
`
`Ex-1001, claim 6 (ʼ032 patent)
`
`
`
`Itou Discloses a “flexible cylindrical distal tip portion”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Ex-1007, 2:12-18, Table 1
`
`155
`
`
`
`Itou Discloses a “flexible cylindrical distal tip portion”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2020-00126, Paper 1 (Petition), 45; and see Ex-1005 (Brecker Decl.), ¶ 202.
`
`156
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00135
`•
`“interventional cardiology devices”
`
`o Claim Construction (IPR2020-00126, -00128, -00135)
`o Itou Receives interventional cardiology devices
`***
`Itou discloses a “flexible cylindrical distal
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
