`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AD TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.À.R.L.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00128
`Patent RE 45,380
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00128
`Patent RE 45,380
`
`
`Medtronic had no obligation to address secondary considerations or
`
`reduction to practice in its Petition. Teleflex, as the Patent Owner, has the burden
`
`of production and proof and on those issues, respectively. Teleflex’s arguments
`
`have not been fully developed, let alone adjudicated, before any District Court or
`
`in the Patent Office. Neither issue should be addressed until the trial phase.
`
` Medtronic did not have to raise secondary considerations in its Petition.
`
`Medtronic had no obligation to address secondary considerations in the
`
`Petition. The Board has repeatedly rejected similar arguments, including those
`
`involving allegations far more developed than the random assortment of evidence
`
`Teleflex presents here. See, e.g., Lowe’s, Cos., Inc. v. Nichia Corp., IPR2017-
`
`02011, Paper 12 at *4-6 (POPR), Paper 13 at *18 (PTAB Mar. 12, 2018)
`
`(Institution Decision); C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. b/e Aerospace, Inc., IPR2017-01275,
`
`Paper 6 at *53-56 (POPR), Paper 12 at *15 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2017) (Institution
`
`Decision); Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. W. Geco LLC, IPR2014-01477, Paper
`
`12 at *40-41 (POPR), Paper 18 at *32 (PTAB Mar. 17, 2015) (Institution
`
`Decision). Indeed, the Board rejected the same argument from Teleflex’s counsel
`
`in Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Polaris Industries Inc., IPR2017-00433, Paper 17 at *9-10
`
`(PTAB July 5, 2017). The Board explained that “Patent Owner does not identify,
`
`nor are we aware of any persuasive authority requiring Petitioner in this case to
`
`address secondary considerations, not previously presented to the Office, in the
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00128
`Patent RE 45,380
`
`Petition.” Id. at *10. “[T]he burden of production rests on Patent Owner with
`
`regard to secondary considerations,” and thus “full consideration of evidence of
`
`secondary considerations of this nature is not necessary” before institution. Id. at
`
`*10, *19.
`
`The same rules apply here. Again, Teleflex’s counsel identifies no case
`
`requiring a petitioner to address evidence of secondary considerations in its
`
`petition, absent a decision by the Patent Office, ITC, or District Court crediting
`
`that evidence. See, e.g., Stryker Corp. et al. v. KFx Med., LLC, IPR2019-00817,
`
`Paper 10 at *27-28 (PTAB Sept. 16, 2019) (“[S]econdary considerations evidence
`
`was developed fully during the Arthrex Litigation, and the Federal Circuit affirmed
`
`the jury’s verdict”). The Patent Office never addressed the issue during prosecution
`
`of this patent. See Exs. 1002-1003. Further, secondary considerations have not
`
`even been raised by Teleflex in litigation against Medtronic, let alone been fully
`
`developed or adjudicated. Teleflex argues that Medtronic should have cobbled
`
`together disparate disclosures to make Teleflex’s argument for it, including from
`
`an infringement report in a different case (Ex. 2056) and a declaration on purported
`
`irreparable harm from preliminary injunction briefing (Ex. 2043), among other
`
`exhibits, none of which even mention secondary considerations. Requiring
`
`Petitioners to engage in guessing games would waste the parties’ and the Board’s
`
`resources. Under these circumstances, Medtronic did not have to raise secondary
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00128
`Patent RE 45,380
`
`considerations in its Petition.
`
` Medtronic had no obligation to address conception and reduction to
`practice before Teleflex raised the issue.
`Conception and reduction to practice are issues for the trial phase that
`
`Medtronic did not have to address in its Petition. The Board’s rulings on
`
`Petitioner’s obligations with respect to secondary considerations apply even more
`
`forcefully here, because “Patent Owner bears the burden of proof regarding its
`
`antedating contention.” Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms. Inc.,
`
`IPR2016-01563, Paper 14 at *4 (PTAB Dec. 7, 2016). Later, the “Petitioner is
`
`entitled to respond to the contention after discovery.” Id. As the Board has
`
`explained, “[i]t is premature at the institution stage to address the merits of Patent
`
`Owner’s antedating contention.” Id.; see also Pfizer Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`
`IPR2017-01488, Paper 27 at *15 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2017). And it has rejected
`
`arguments “that Petitioners were required in the Petition to foresee and prebut
`
`Patent Owner’s argument and evidence purporting to show a reduction to practice
`
`of certain subject matter.” Associated British Foods PLC v. Cornell Research
`
`Found., IPR2019-00577, Paper 25 at *31 (PTAB July 25, 2019); Mylan, Paper 14
`
`at *3-4. Medtronic had no obligation to do so either.
`
`Teleflex disclosed limited evidence on conception and reduction to practice
`
`in the litigation prior to the filing of Medtronic’s Petition. In its first interrogatory
`
`response from August 15, 2019, Teleflex only disclosed that “the inventors came
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00128
`Patent RE 45,380
`
`up with the idea for what became the GuideLiner catheter product and that led to
`
`the inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit at some point in 2004 after the annual
`
`Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics conference that took place in late
`
`September of that year.” Ex. 2045 at 3-4. The response identified just three
`
`supporting documents dated in 2005 and were marked attorney’s eyes only
`
`(“AEO”). Id. at 4; see, e.g., Exs. 2003-2004. That disclosure did not present a
`
`complete picture of Teleflex’s arguments—it did not even identify a particular date
`
`of alleged conception or reduction to practice.
`
`Teleflex did not begin to disclose its actual positions until much later. On
`
`November 6, 2019 (less than a week before Medtronic filed its Petition) Teleflex
`
`supplemented its interrogatory response to provide its first narrative explanation,
`
`marking it AEO. In total, prior to the Petition’s filing, Teleflex only disclosed
`
`roughly 17 exhibits and its supplemental interrogatory responses. Exs. 2002-2004,
`
`2014-2015, 2017-2019, 2022-2025, 2027, 2036, 2040-2041, 2043, 2045. All of the
`
`documents were designated AEO and raised more questions than they clarified
`
`Teleflex’s position. For example, invoices for part orders do not show conception
`
`and reduction to practice of any particular claim limitation. See, e.g., Ex. 2027. Nor
`
`did drawings of potential catheter designs, which Teleflex did not map to each and
`
`every limitation in its responses. Ex. 2022. Moreover, several days was not
`
`sufficient time to explicate Teleflex’s arguments and then respond.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00128
`Patent RE 45,380
`
`
`Nor was Medtronic legally permitted to use any of the evidence. Teleflex
`
`saw to that by designating the documents under the Protective Order, which
`
`provides that “[a] confidential document may be used only in this action.” Ex.
`
`1086, § 3(a). Consequently, Medtronic was prohibited by court order from using
`
`that evidence in its Petition. Nor does the Protective Order allow Medtronic’s IPR
`
`counsel any access to those materials. Id., §§ 1(a), 3(b)-(c).
`
`Teleflex’s evidence and arguments continued to evolve after Medtronic filed
`
`its Petition. In its POPR, Teleflex relied on roughly 22 new exhibits that it had not
`
`produced prior to the Petition. See, e.g., Exs. 2005-2011, 2013, 2016, 2020-2021,
`
`2026, 2028-2036, 2038. Teleflex’s attempts to fill gaps in its documentary
`
`evidence with two previously undisclosed declarations (Exs. 2001, 2039) raise
`
`significant fact issues relating to witness testimony and lack of documentary
`
`corroboration. This evidence is not analogous to LG Elecs., Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc.,
`
`where the Board found that a draft Patent Application showed all limitations
`
`sufficient to antedate a prior art reference. IPR2018-00704, Paper 14 at 8-20
`
`(PTAB Sept. 5, 2018). Nor is Teleflex’s attempt to swear behind valid under the
`
`AIA. Medtronic is entitled to take discovery and submit expert testimony on gaps
`
`in Teleflex’s evidence, including on reduction to practice of each limitation
`
`(something Teleflex has not shown). Medtronic would be prejudiced if the burden
`
`of proof were shifted and it was deprived of any rebuttal to Teleflex’s arguments.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00128
`Patent RE 45,380
`
`
`Dated: March 30, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Patent Owner
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00128
`Patent RE 45,380
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on March
`
`30, 2020, a copy of PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE 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
`
`
`
`Dated: March 30, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`90545662.1
`
`
`
`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 Patent Owner
`
`7
`
`