`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