`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND 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 IPR2020-00130
`Patent RE45,380
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REHEARING
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) AND UNITED STATES V. ARTHREX
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`LEGAL STANDARD ...................................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`A.
`State of the Art ....................................................................................... 2
`B.
`Challenged Patent .................................................................................. 3
`C.
`Prior Art ................................................................................................. 4
`D.
`Procedural Background ......................................................................... 6
`IV. DIRECTOR REVIEW IS NECESSARY TO CORRECT THE
`BOARD’S ERRONEOUS SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS
`ANALYSIS. ..................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`The Board Erred in Finding a Nexus Between the Asserted
`Secondary Considerations and the Claimed Invention. ........................ 7
`The Board Erroneously Found Evidence of Copying Patent
`Owner’s GuideLiner Product. ............................................................... 9
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 11
`
`B.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re Kao,
`639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................ 8, 9
`Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc.,
`941 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 10
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ......................... 10
`Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino,
`738 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 11
`Sightsound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir.
`2015) ................................................................................................................... 10
`Other Authorities
`PTO Guidance, Arthrex Q&As | USPTO .................................................................. 2
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00130
`Patent RE45,380
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`The Board’s Final Written Decision (“FWD,” Paper 103) upholding the
`
`patentability of claims 3, 4, 9, 14, and 19 merits Director review for two
`
`independent reasons. First, the Board erroneously found that Petitioner failed to
`
`rebut the showing of nexus between the recited secondary considerations and
`
`Patent Owner’s GuideLiner device. More particularly, the Board erred by failing to
`
`credit Petitioner’s showing that all claim elements were independently described in
`
`two separate prior art references: Itou (Ex-1407) and Ressemann (Ex-1408).
`
`Because the alleged nexus results from features known in the prior art, Patent
`
`Owner’s showing of secondary indicia must fail. The Board’s finding cannot stand
`
`and is incongruous with fundamental tenets of patent law.
`
`Second, the Board misapplied the law by finding that the evidence
`
`established copying of the alleged invention. Specifically, the Board erred by
`
`analyzing only whether the GuideLiner and the allegedly copied devices were
`
`similar—the Board failed to perform a limitation-by-limitation analysis and this
`
`was error. Importantly, the Board focused on the similarities between the products
`
`as a whole, and determined that identifying such facial similarities is sufficient for
`
`the copying analysis. Under the Board’s view, copying can be found simply where
`
`a product is similar to the claimed invention. Had the Board done the required
`
`analysis, it would have found that the claimed limitations are found in the prior art
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00130
`Patent RE45,380
`(and, indeed, in most catheters). Without Director review, the Board will continue
`
`to misapply the copying analysis with respect to those elements already known in
`
`the prior art.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`The Supreme Court has determined that final written decisions are
`
`reviewable by the Director of the PTO. United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct.
`
`1970, 1988 (2021). The PTO clarified that the “Director’s review may address any
`
`issue, including issues of fact and issues of law, and will be de novo.” PTO
`
`Guidance, Arthrex Q&As | USPTO (emphases added). Accordingly, the standard of
`
`review of the FWD by the Director is de novo.
`
`III. BACKGROUND
`State of the Art
`A.
`Coronary artery disease occurs when plaque buildup (a “stenosis”) narrows
`
`the arterial lumen that restricts blood flow and increases the risk of heart attack or
`
`stroke. Petition (“Pet.,” Paper 1) at 8 (citing Ex-1405 ¶¶ 28-32, 34-40). Over forty
`
`years ago, physicians developed percutaneous coronary interventional (“PCI”)
`
`procedures that insert catheters through the femoral or radial artery to treat a
`
`stenosis. Id. The basic components of catheters used during PCI have remained
`
`largely unchanged during this time. Id. A physician uses a hollow needle to access
`
`the patient’s vasculature, introduces a guidewire into the needle, then introduces
`
`and advances a guide catheter along the vasculature until its distal end is placed in
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00130
`Patent RE45,380
`the ostium of a coronary artery. Id. at 8 (citing Ex-1405, ¶¶ 34, 42-55). A guidewire
`
`is threaded through the lumen of the guide catheter to the target site to advance the
`
`therapeutic catheter to the occlusion. Id. The therapeutic catheter is typically
`
`passed beyond the occlusion to alleviate the stenosis, which creates backward force
`
`that can dislodge the guide catheter from the ostium. Id. A mother-and-child
`
`catheter may mitigate this backward force where the child acts as an extension of
`
`the guide catheter into the coronary artery. Id. (citing Ex-1405, ¶¶ 66-80).
`
`B. Challenged Patent
`The ’380 patent relates “generally to catheters used in interventional
`
`cardiology procedures.” Ex-1401, 1:31-32. In particular, the ’380 patent discloses
`
`known features, including a guide extension catheter—referred to in the patent as a
`
`“coaxial guide catheter”—that extends “beyond the distal end of the guide catheter,
`
`and . . . into [a] branch artery.” Id., Abstract. The catheter assembly purports to
`
`have the benefit of a mother-and-child assembly—it “assists in resisting both the
`
`axial forces and the shearing forces that tend to dislodge a guide catheter from the
`
`ostium of a branch artery.” Id., 5:16-20; Ex-1405, ¶¶ 118-19; Pet. at 9.
`
`The patent also addresses structural characteristics of the transition at or near
`
`the extension catheter’s tubular and rigid portions, sometimes referred to as a “side
`
`opening” (circled in red below). Ex-1401, Figs. 4, 13-16, 6:62-7:11; Ex-1405,
`
`¶ 121; Pet. at 10-11. Claims 3, 4, 9, 14, and 19 of the ʼ380 patent, which are
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00130
`Patent RE45,380
`relevant to this Request, all recite a side opening or describe various characteristics
`
`of a side opening. Ex-1401, 11:54-57, 13:14-17.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1401, Fig. 4 (color and annotation added).
`
`Prior Art
`C.
`Several types of catheters, which pre-date the ’380 patent, teach the basic
`
`principles of PCI and describe the claimed technology. For example, Kontos (Ex-
`
`1409)—Petitioner’s primary prior art reference in this IPR—describes “a support
`
`catheter assembly with particular utility in facilitating insertion of a PTCA balloon
`
`into a lesion,” Ex-1409, 1:9-13. Kontos includes support catheter 10 that serves as
`
`a guide extension catheter for providing backup support, such that dislodging of
`
`the guide catheter from the coronary ostium is prevented. Pet. at 17-18; Ex-1405,
`
`¶¶ 140-41. Support catheter 10, as shown below, is “inserted into and passed
`
`through . . . and out the distal end of the guide catheter so as to function as an
`
`extension of the guide catheter to bridge the gap . . . between the end of the guide
`
`catheter and the stenosis to be opened.” Pet. at 18-19; Ex-1409, 2:16-23.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00130
`Patent RE45,380
`
`
`
`Pet. at 19 (citing Ex-1409, Fig. 6B).
`
`Adams (Ex-1435) describes a catheter assembly with (i) a guide catheter, (ii)
`
`a sealing device (i.e., guide extension catheter) sized to fit within the lumen of, and
`
`advance distal to, the guide catheter, and (iii) a protection device that is advanced
`
`distal to both the guide catheter/sealing device assembly and the occlusion to be
`
`treated. Pet. at 21; Ex-1435, [0045], [0064]. Adams includes a proximal side
`
`opening, teaching a guide seal 30 with proximal end 31 that is “preferably cut or
`
`formed at an angle.” Pet. at 47; Ex-1435, [0066].
`
`Ex-1435, Fig. 3A.
`
`Finally, although neither is a specific ground for invalidity in this IPR, Itou
`
`(Ex-1407) and Ressemann (Ex-1408) each disclose a catheter assembly for
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00130
`Patent RE45,380
`alleviating the obstruction of blood flow. Petitioner’s Reply (“Reply,” Paper 69) at
`
`22-24. Both references describe a rapid-exchange catheter configured to receive a
`
`wide variety of interventional cardiology devices (“IVCDs”) while providing back-
`
`up support. Id. Importantly, both Itou and Ressemann disclose the side opening
`
`recited in claims 3, 4, 9, 14, and 19. Id.
`
`Procedural Background
`D.
`The Board instituted IPR on all challenged grounds. Paper 20 at 1-2.
`
`Petitioners asserted three separate grounds of unpatentability, all of which relied
`
`on, in part, the combination of Kontos (Ex-1409) and Adams (Ex-1435). Pet. at
`
`6-7; Paper 20 at 7-8. Relevant here, Petitioner asserted that the Kontos-Adams
`
`combination rendered claims 3, 4, 9, 14, and 19 invalid as obvious. Pet. at 46-53,
`
`55-57, 7-68, 70. Each of these claims recites a “side opening,” or otherwise
`
`describes elements defining a side opening. Ex-1401, 11:54-57, 13:14-17. As set
`
`forth in the Petition, although Kontos does not include a side opening, Adams
`
`describes this feature. Pet. at 47 (citing Ex. 1435, [0066], Fig. 3A).
`
`In its Final Written Decision, the Board found claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 12, 13, 15-
`
`17, 20, and 21 invalid as obvious. FWD at 80-81. As to the side opening claims,
`
`the Board explained that the Kontos-Adams combination “present[s] a close case
`
`on the question of obviousness,” but that Patent Owner’s secondary indicia of non-
`
`obviousness ultimately resulted in a finding of non-obviousness. FWD at 37-38.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00130
`Patent RE45,380
`The Board’s analysis—in particular, as to nexus and copying—is not supported by
`
`the weight of the evidence and correct application of the law, meaning that the
`
`Kontos-Adams combination renders the side opening claims invalid as obvious.
`
`IV. DIRECTOR REVIEW IS NECESSARY TO CORRECT THE
`BOARD’S ERRONEOUS SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS
`ANALYSIS.
`A. The Board Erred in Finding a Nexus Between the Asserted
`Secondary Considerations and the Claimed Invention.
`The Board erred by finding that a sufficient nexus existed despite all claim
`
`elements being described in two separate prior art references: Itou (Ex-1407)1 and
`
`Ressemann (Ex-1408). FWD at 53. It is bedrock law that the presumption of nexus
`
`may be rebutted where, as here, the secondary indicia result from features known
`
`in the prior art. In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Where the
`
`offered secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is
`
`both claimed and novel in the claim there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed
`
`invention.” (emphasis added)).
`
`In determining that Patent Owner’s secondary indicia overcome “the close
`
`case” of obviousness, the Board ignored that Patent Owner’s alleged evidence of
`
`
`1 Patent Owner did not swear behind Itou here as it did in related IPRs. See, e.g.,
`
`IPR2020-00128. Regardless of whether Itou is prior art, claims 3, 4, 9, 14, and 19
`
`are invalid as obvious.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00130
`Patent RE45,380
`nexus was already described in the prior art. FWD at 53-54; see Reply at 22-24. In
`
`particular, Itou and Ressemann are each examples of rapid exchange guide
`
`extension catheters with a side opening that increases back-up support when an
`
`IVCD is extended beyond the distal end of the catheter assembly. Id.
`
`Importantly, Patent Owner did not dispute this showing. For example, Patent
`
`Owner argued that “Itou is not prior art and was a suction catheter having a raised
`
`profile pushwire not amendable to passing interventional cardiology devices.”
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply (“Sur-Reply,” Paper 84) at 25. Itou, however, is prior art
`
`and is configured to receive IVCDs. IPR2020-00128, Paper 1 at 45-46, Paper 22 at
`
`18.2 What is more, the fact that Itou is a suction catheter is a non-sequitur, as the
`
`relevant inquiry is whether the identified prior art discloses the recited claim
`
`elements. In re Kao, 639 F.3d at 1068. Patent Owner did not dispute that Itou
`
`teaches each element of claims 3, 4, 9, 14, and 19. Sur-Reply at 25; see also
`
`IPR2020-00128, Paper 127 at 17-22. Similarly, as to Ressemann, Patent Owner
`
`
`2 Although not an asserted ground of unpatentability in this IPR, Patent Owner did
`
`not contest Itou as prior art. See generally Paper 41. As explained in related IPRs,
`
`Itou discloses each element of the GuideLiner product. See IPR2020-00128, Paper
`
`1. Patent Owner’s acquiescence further undercuts the Board’s conclusion that the
`
`combination of known elements led to GuideLiner’s success. FWD at 38-39.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00130
`Patent RE45,380
`argued that this reference “is an embolic protection device, not a [guide extension
`
`catheter]]; it also discloses an offset lumen, not the coaxial lumen required by [the
`
`claims].” Sur-Reply at 25. Again, the former argument is irrelevant, and the latter is
`
`just incorrect. Paper 104 at 86-87. Both Itou and Ressemann individually disclose
`
`the recited claim elements and for this reason, the Board erred in determining that
`
`Patent Owner established a nexus to the claimed invention.
`
`The record evidence does not support a nexus between Patent Owner’s
`
`claims and the recited secondary considerations. In particular, the Board erred in
`
`finding that “the various features of the prior art” needed to be combined. FWD at
`
`52-53. And for this reason, the Board’s reliance on WBIP was misplaced. Id. If the
`
`Board’s analysis were to stand—and indeed be replicated in future proceedings—
`
`the Federal Circuit’s requirement that nexus be tied to the invention, rather than
`
`elements known in the prior art, would be rendered meaningless. The Board’s
`
`analysis is at odds with precedent demanding nexus be tied to features of the
`
`claimed invention. Sightsound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015); Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`B.
`
`The Board Erroneously Found Evidence of Copying Patent
`Owner’s GuideLiner Product.
`The Board independently erred by finding evidence that three entities—
`
`Boston Scientific, QXMedical, and Medtronic—copied Patent Owner’s
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00130
`Patent RE45,380
`GuideLiner Product and that this evidence is “relevant . . . and favors, at least to
`
`some extent, a conclusion of non-obviousness of the claims at issue.” FWD at 51.
`
`“Copying requires duplication of features of the patentee’s work. . . .”
`
`Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 941 F.3d 1133, 1137 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting
`
`Institute Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino, 738 F.3d 1337,
`
`1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). The Board must analyze whether specific features of
`
`the patented product were duplicated. “[M]ore is needed than merely showing that
`
`similarity exists between the patent and the competitor’s accused product.” Id.
`
`Here, the Board erred by only analyzing whether there were similarities between
`
`the products.
`
`In particular, the Board erred by analyzing the products wholesale instead of
`
`performing an element-by-element analysis. Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., 632
`
`F.3d 1358, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (focusing copying analysis on a specific claim
`
`element and largely ignoring elements that “are simple mechanical parts that are
`
`well known in the art”). Specifically, the Board found that the competing products
`
`“when considered as a whole, are substantially similar in design to the then-
`
`existing GuideLiner products on the market, including the combined use of a
`
`flexible tip, reinforced portion, angled opening, pushrod, and rounded push tab.”
`
`FWD at 49-50 (emphasis added).
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00130
`Patent RE45,380
`But these features, as described above, were all described individually in
`
`both the Itou and Ressemann references. The combined use of a flexible tip,
`
`reinforced portion, angled opening, pushrod, and rounded push tab, are disclosed
`
`by the prior art. See id. In other words, these combined features do not demonstrate
`
`the competitors copied Petitioner’s patented product—they demonstrate the
`
`competitors were replicating the prior art. The Board’s decision, if left undisturbed,
`
`stands for the proposition that copying can be found simply where the product is
`
`similar to the claimed invention. Such a decision that conflicts with precedent
`
`holding the opposition cannot stand.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons stated above, the Board’s FWD upholding the patentability
`
`of claims 3, 4, 9, 14, and 19 is not supported by the weight of the evidence and
`
`correct application of the law.
`
`
`
`Dated: July 21, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Petitioner
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00130
`Patent RE45,380
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on July 21, 2021, a copy of Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) 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
`
`Joseph W. Winkels
`jwinkels@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Peter M. Kohlhepp
`pkohlhepp@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Tara C. Norgard
`tnorgard@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Alexander S. Rinn
`pkohlhepp@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Megan E. Christner, Reg. No. 78,979
`mchristner@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Cyrus A. Morton/
`Cyrus A. Morton
`Reg. No. 44,954
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`12
`
`
`Dated: July 21, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`