`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2020-00129
`Patent RE45,380
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner hereby submits its notice
`
`of objections to certain evidence that Petitioner submitted in connection with
`
`IPR2020-00129.
`
`Objections
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1205 to the extent Dr. Brecker has
`not disclosed materials considered other than those referenced in his
`declaration. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65(a) and (b).
`
`FRE 702, 703, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65:
`
`¶¶ 37, 48, 53-54, 93, 106, 109, 114, 117, 119, 149, 152, 155, 160,
`168, 170, 177, 181, 187-90, 196-97, 207, 209-13, 215-16, 218-21,
`227-29, 232, 235, 236, 249, 251, 255, 260, 262-66, 278 are not based
`on sufficient facts and data and do not reliably apply facts and data
`using scientific principles.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403:
`
`¶¶ 109, 155, 187, 190, 195-96, 222 are not relevant; to the extent they
`are relevant, their probative value is outweighed by the danger of
`causing unfair prejudice and confusing the issues because they lack
`support for the contentions for which they are cited and improperly
`characterize the teachings of Ressemann.
`
` 112 contains irrelevant statements; to the extent such statements are
`relevant, their probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing
`unfair prejudice and confusing the issues because they lack support
`for the contentions for which they are cited and improperly
`characterize the teachings of Ressemann and Kataishi.
`
`¶¶ 113-117, 160, 208-10, 263-64, 265 are not relevant; to the extent
`they are relevant, their probative value is outweighed by the danger of
`causing unfair prejudice and confusing the issues because they lack
`support for the contentions for which they are cited and improperly
`characterize the teachings of Kataishi.
`
` ¶
`
`1
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`1205
`
`

`

`
`¶¶ 118, 168, 214-16 are not relevant; to the extent they are relevant,
`their probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing unfair
`prejudice and confusing the issues because they lack support for the
`contentions for which they are is cited and improperly characterize
`the teachings of Enger.
`
`¶¶ 174, 207, 232, 251, 265 are not relevant; to the extent they are
`relevant, their probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing
`unfair prejudice and confusing the issues because they lack support
`for the contentions for which they are cited and improperly
`characterize the teachings of Itou.
`
` ¶
`
` 260-61 are not relevant; to the extent they are relevant, their
`probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing unfair
`prejudice and confusing the issues because they lack support for the
`contentions for which they are is cited and improperly characterize
`the teachings of the ’380 patent.
`
`FRE 702, 703, 704:
`
`¶¶ 18, 125, 185-99, 208, 214, 217, 221-23, 229, 244-45, 247-56, 263,
`267-68, 279 and the headings of Section X and all subheadings
`thereunder state improper legal conclusions.
`35 U.S.C. § 102: The exhibit is not prior art.
`
`FRE 403: To the extent this document may be relevant, its probative
`value is outweighed by the danger of causing unfair prejudice,
`confusing the issues, causing undue delay, wasting time, or
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore the
`document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1205, 1242).
`
`2
`
`1207
`
`1211
`
`

`

`1216
`
`1217
`
`1220
`
`1221
`
`1222
`
`
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1205, 1242).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1205, 1242).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1205, 1242).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1205, 1242).
`
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`FRE 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a printed
`publication.
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`1223
`
`1224
`
`1227
`
`1229
`
`1231
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay
`FRE 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a printed
`publication.
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay
`FRE 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a printed
`publication.
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1205, 1242).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1205, 1242).
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1205, 1242).
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`1242
`
`1248
`
`1249
`
`1252
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1205 to the extent Dr. Hillstead has
`not disclosed materials considered other than those referenced in his
`declaration. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65(a) and (b).
`
`FRE 702, 703, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65:
`
`¶¶ 19, 35, 45, 51, 55-56, 63-65, 68-69, 80, 82-83, 87, 90-93, 106-07,
`109-13, 118-21, 123, 127-28, 130-32, 136-39, 145-47, 150-52, 156-
`57, 163-72, 175-77, 180, 183, 186-88 are not based on sufficient facts
`and data and do not reliably apply facts and data using scientific
`principles.
`FRE 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a printed
`publication.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1205, 1242).
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`
`FRE 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a printed
`publication.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1205, 1242).
`
`5
`
`

`

`1256
`
`1260
`
`1263
`
`1266
`
`1267
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1205, 1242).
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1205, 1242).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1205, 1242).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1205, 1242).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1205, 1242).
`
`6
`
`

`

`1268
`
`1269
`
`1274
`
`1275
`
`1279
`1282
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1205, 1242).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1205, 1242).
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102: The exhibit is not prior art.
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`
`7
`
`

`

`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1205, 1242).
`FRE 106, 1002: This document is incomplete. This document has
`been modified.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: In view of the Board’s Institution Decision, this
`document is irrelevant and inadmissible under Rule 402. To the
`extent it may be relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing
`undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`evidence, and therefore it is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1205, 1242).
`
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: In view of the Board’s Institution Decision, these
`references are irrelevant and inadmissible under Rule 402. To the
`extent they are relevant, their probative value is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing
`undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`evidence, and therefore they are inadmissible under Rule 403.
`
`1283
`
`1284
`
`1288-
`1295
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Dated: June 22, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`9
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the agreement of the parties, the
`
`
`
`undersigned certifies that on June 22, 2020, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence 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)
`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)
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`