`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2020-00130
`U.S. Patent RE 45,380
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2020-00130.
`
`Objections
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1405 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:
`
`¶¶ 33, 44, 49-50, 89, 94, 97, 102-03, 106-08, 140-41, 151, 160, 163,
`166, 168-69, 174-76, 187-91, 198-200, 204-05, 207-15, 217-18, 220-
`22, 230-32, 235-36, 239-40, 242, 250-54 are not based on sufficient
`facts and data and do not reliably apply facts and data using scientific
`principles.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403:
`
` ¶
`
` 113 is not relevant; to the extent it is relevant, its probative value is
`outweighed by the danger of causing unfair prejudice and confusing
`the issues because Itou is not prior art.
`
` ¶
`
` 97 is not relevant; to the extent it is relevant, its probative value is
`outweighed by the danger of causing unfair prejudice and confusing
`the issues because it lacks support for the contentions for which it is
`cited and improperly characterizes the teachings of Ressemann.
`
` ¶
`
` 101 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.
`
`¶¶ 102-06 are not relevant; to the extent they are relevant, their
`probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing unfair
`
`1
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`1405
`
`
`
`prejudice and confusing the issues because they lack support for the
`contentions for which they are cited and improperly characterize the
`teachings of Kataishi.
`
` 107 is not relevant; to the extent it is relevant, its probative value is
`outweighed by the danger of causing unfair prejudice and confusing
`the issues because it lacks support for the contentions for which it is
`cited and improperly characterizes the teachings of Enger.
`
` ¶
`
` ¶
`
` 214 is not relevant; to the extent it is relevant, its probative value is
`outweighed by the danger of causing unfair prejudice and confusing
`the issues because it lacks support for the contentions for which it is
`cited and improperly characterizes the teachings of Adams.
`
`¶¶ 102, 198 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 the ’380 patent.
`
`FRE 702, 703, 704:
`
`¶¶ 18, 191, 220, 239-41 and the heading of Section X 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.
`1005, 1042).
`
`2
`
`1407
`
`1411
`
`
`
`1416
`
`1417
`
`1420
`
`1421
`
`1422
`
`
`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.
`1005, 1042).
`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.
`1005, 1042).
`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.
`1005, 1042).
`
`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.
`1005, 1042).
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`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.
`1005, 1042).
`
`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.
`1005, 1042).
`
`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.
`1005, 1042).
`
`4
`
`1423
`
`1424
`
`1427
`
`
`
`1437
`
`1442
`
`1448
`
`1449
`
`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.
`1005, 1042).
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1005 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, 28 (including footnote), 41, 45-46, 56-57, 62-64, 66-73, 75-79,
`82-84, 86-87, 89-91, 97-101, 103-104, 107-112, 117-119 are not
`based on sufficient facts and data and do not reliably apply facts and
`data using scientific principles.
`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.
`1005, 1042).
`
`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.
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`1452
`
`1456
`
`1460
`
`1463
`
`1466
`
`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.
`1005, 1042).
`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.
`1005, 1042).
`
`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.
`1005, 1042).
`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.
`1005, 1042).
`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
`
`6
`
`
`
`1467
`
`1468
`
`1469
`
`1474
`
`1475
`
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`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.
`1005, 1042).
`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.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: In view of the Board’s Institution Decision, this
`exhibit is irrelevant and inadmissible under Rule 402. To the extent it
`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 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.
`1005, 1042).
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102: The exhibit is not prior art.
`
`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
`
`7
`
`
`
`1476
`
`1479
`
`1480
`
`1482
`
`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.
`1005, 1042).
`
`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.
`1005, 1042).
`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.
`1005, 1042).
`
`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.
`1005, 1042).
`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.
`1005, 1042).
`
`8
`
`
`
`1483
`
`1484
`
`1488-
`1495
`
`
`
`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. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`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.
`1005, 1042).
`
`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.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Dated: July 10, 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
`
`10
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the agreement of the parties, the
`
`
`
`undersigned certifies that on July 10, 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)
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`