`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.A.R.L.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00127
`Patent 8,048,032
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PAPER AUTHORIZED BY JANUARY 5, 2021
`ORDER
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s authorization provided via a January 5, 2021
`
`telephonic hearing (Ex-2233), Patent Owner Teleflex identifies the following
`
`arguments and evidence outside the scope of a proper reply:
`
`1)
`
`Petitioners new theory relying on extensive, additional
`
`modifications to material aspects of Kontos (at least six new modifications) is
`
`outside the scope of a proper reply:
`
`Petition theory:
`
`New theory in reply:
`
`
`
`The following arguments and evidence correspond to this improper new theory:
`
`Reply (Paper 71), pages 14-15 (“recess the marker bands”), page 13, n.4, pages 18-
`
`19 (Section IV(C)(3)), pages 21-22 (Section IV(E)); Ex-1806, ¶¶173 (“embed”
`
`distal marker band), 182, 190-192; Ex-1807, ¶¶174-182, 190, 194-195.
`
`2)
`
`Petitioner’s new motivation that a POSITA would replace
`
`Kontos’s funnel with a side opening to “maximize the usable real estate” is
`
`outside the scope of a proper reply because the Petition did not rely on this
`
`motivation. The following arguments and evidence correspond to this improper
`
`new theory: Reply (Paper 71), pages 11-14 (Section IV(C)); Ex-1806, ¶¶169-173;
`
`and Ex-1807, ¶¶164-182.
`
`2
`
`
`
`3)
`
`Petitioner’s new construction of “coaxial lumen” is outside the
`
`proper scope of reply because the Petitioner offers a construction for the first time
`
`in Reply. The following arguments and evidence correspond to this improper new
`
`construction: Reply (Paper 71), pages 18-19 (Section IV(C)(3)); and Ex-1806,
`
`¶¶14-26, 181.
`
`4)
`
`Petitioner’s new theory that Kontos inherently discloses a “cross-
`
`sectional inner diameter through which interventional cardiology devices are
`
`insertable” (independent claims 1 and 11) is outside the scope of a proper reply, as
`
`the Petition did not argue inherency for this limitation. The following arguments
`
`and evidence correspond: Reply (Paper 71), pages 4-5 (Section IV(A)); Ex-1806,
`
`¶¶47-52,155-158; Ex-1802; Ex-1803; Ex-1804; and Ex-1811.
`
`5)
`
`Petitioner’s new mapping of the “flexible cylindrical portion”
`
`(element of claim 6 of the ’032 patent) onto Kontos’s structure is outside the scope
`
`of a proper reply because the Petitioner mapped claim elements onto different parts
`
`of Kontos’s structure for the first time in Reply. The following arguments and
`
`evidence correspond to this improper new theory: Reply (Paper 71), pages 19-20
`
`(Section IV(D)); and Ex-1806, ¶¶185-187.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Dated: February 1, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/J. Derek Vandenburgh /
`
`
`J. Derek Vandenburgh (Lead Counsel)
`Registration No. 32,179
`Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh
` & Lindquist, P.A.
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 436-9600
`Facsimile: (612) 436-9650
`Email:
`DVandenburgh@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the agreement of the parties, the
`
`
`
`undersigned certifies that on February 1, 2021, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner’s Paper Authorized by January 5, 2021 Order
`
`was served via electronic mail upon the following:
`
`Cyrus A. Morton (Reg. No. 44,954)
`Sharon Roberg-Perez (Reg. No. 69,600)
`Christopher A. Pinahs (Reg. No. 76,375)
`William E. Manske
`Emily J. Tremblay
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
`Minneapolis, MN 55401
`Phone: 349-8500
`Fax: 612-339-4181
`Email: Cmorton@robinskaplan.com
`Email: Sroberg-perez@robinskaplan.com
`Email: Cpinahs@robinskaplan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/J. Derek Vandenburgh/
`J. Derek Vandenburgh
`(Lead Counsel for Patent Owner)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`