UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`VASCULAR SOLUTIONS LLC,
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.à r.l.,
`ARROW INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`and TELEFLEX LLC
`
`
`
`v.
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., and
`MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`No. 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL
`
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`DEFENDANTS’ INTERROGATORIES CONCERNING
`PRELMINARY INJUNCTION ISSUES
`
`Plaintiffs Vascular Solutions LLC, Teleflex Innovations S.à r.l., Arrow
`
`International, Inc., and Teleflex LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs”) hereby object and respond
`
`to Defendants Medtronic, Inc., and Medtronic Vascular, Inc.’s (“Defendant” or
`
`“Medtronic”) Interrogatories Concerning Preliminary Injunction Issues as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs will respond to Medtronic’s Interrogatories in accordance with the
`
`federal discovery rules and laws, and the rules of this Court, including but not limited to
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 for purposes of the preliminary injunction
`
`proceedings. Plaintiffs are only required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
`
`search for and produce responsive information within their personal knowledge or from
`
`documents within their possession, custody, or control, that are located following a
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`Page 1
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2059
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00131
`
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`VASCULAR SOLUTIONS LLC,
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.à r.l.,
`ARROW INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`and TELEFLEX LLC
`
`
`
`v.
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., and
`MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`No. 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL
`
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`DEFENDANTS’ INTERROGATORIES CONCERNING
`PRELMINARY INJUNCTION ISSUES
`
`Plaintiffs Vascular Solutions LLC, Teleflex Innovations S.à r.l., Arrow
`
`International, Inc., and Teleflex LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs”) hereby object and respond
`
`to Defendants Medtronic, Inc., and Medtronic Vascular, Inc.’s (“Defendant” or
`
`“Medtronic”) Interrogatories Concerning Preliminary Injunction Issues as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs will respond to Medtronic’s Interrogatories in accordance with the
`
`federal discovery rules and laws, and the rules of this Court, including but not limited to
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 for purposes of the preliminary injunction
`
`proceedings. Plaintiffs are only required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
`
`search for and produce responsive information within their personal knowledge or from
`
`documents within their possession, custody, or control, that are located following a
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`Page 1
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2059
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00131
`
`
`
`reasonably search, including only such electronically stored information that is
`
`reasonably accessible.
`
`Because this is early discovery for purposes of the preliminary injunction
`
`proceedings, a protective order has not yet been entered. Accordingly, Plaintiffs will
`
`produce documents upon Defendants’ agreement that access to all documents and
`
`information provided in response to these Requests and designated as
`
`“CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” is limited to
`
`the Fredrikson and Byron law firm and Chad Hanson and Matt Anderson of Medtronic
`
`until the Court’s Protective Order is in place.
`
`Plaintiffs object to Medtronic’s “Instructions” to the extent they seek to impose
`
`obligations or requirements beyond those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, applicable case law, or the rules of this Court, including at least with respect
`
`to Instructions 18, 21, 23, and 24. Plaintiffs further object to Medtronic’s “Definitions”
`
`of the terms “Document,” “Date,” and “Identify” as overly broad, unduly burdensome,
`
`and not proportional to the matters at issue in limited preliminary injunction discovery.
`
`Finally, Plaintiffs object to the definition of “Teleflex,” “Plaintiffs,” “you,” and “your” as
`
`overly broad, as seeking to include entities or individuals that are not within the control
`
`of Plaintiffs and as seeking to include third parties. As used herein, “Plaintiffs” refers to
`
`the plaintiffs in this action: Vascular Solutions LLC, Teleflex Innovations S.à r.l., Arrow
`
`International, Inc., and Teleflex LLC.
`
`All documents produced by Plaintiffs in response to Defendants’ Interrogatories
`
`are produced without waiver of Plaintiffs’ right to object to the production of other
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`Page 2
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2059
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00131
`
`
`
`documents. Additionally, production of a document in response to an Interrogatory is not
`
`an admission of that document’s relevance, admissibility at trial or any other objection.
`
`Plaintiffs have made every effort to provide complete answers to these
`
`Interrogatories for purposes of the preliminary injunction proceedings. However,
`
`discovery is ongoing and Plaintiffs will amend, supplement, or otherwise update their
`
`answers to these discovery requests as appropriate. Plaintiffs additionally respond to
`
`Defendants’ Interrogatories as follows:
`
`INTERROGATORIES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`Identify Teleflex’s annual sales, both in the U.S. and globally, of GuideLiner from
`2009 to the present, including the number of units sold of each available version of
`GuideLiner, the revenues received, and the average annual profit margin.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Plaintiffs respond by
`
`identifying at least the documents produced as VSIQXM_E00056202, -56203, -56323, -
`
`44868, and -56294. Plaintiffs are collecting and will produce and identify additional
`
`documents from which additional information responsive to this Interrogatory can be
`
`derived or ascertained.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`Page 3
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2059
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00131
`
`
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 2019
`
`Plaintiffs hereby incorporate its objections as if set forth verbatim. Subject to and
`
`without waiving the forgoing objections, in addition to the original response to
`
`Interrogatory No. 1, and based on its continuing and reasonable investigation to date,
`
`Plaintiffs further respond to this Interrogatory as follows. Pursuant to Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 33(d), Plaintiffs respond by identifying, in addition to those documents
`
`identified in Plaintiffs’ original response, at least the document produced as
`
`VSIMDT_00028305. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement and/or amend this
`
`Response as further relevant information is discovered during the course of this litigation.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`Identify the average annual list price and sales price of GuideLiner from 2009 to
`
`the present.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Plaintiffs respond by
`
`identifying at least the document produced as VSIQXM_E00044867. Plaintiffs are
`
`collecting and will produce and identify additional documents from which additional
`
`information responsive to this Interrogatory can be derived or ascertained.
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 2019
`
`Plaintiffs hereby incorporate its objections as if set forth verbatim. Subject to and
`
`without waiving the forgoing objections, in addition to the original response to
`
`Interrogatory No. 2, and based on its continuing and reasonable investigation to date,
`
`Plaintiffs further respond to this Interrogatory as follows. Pursuant to Federal Rule of
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`Page 4
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2059
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00131
`
`
`
`Civil Procedure 33(d), Plaintiffs respond by identifying, in addition to those documents
`
`identified in Plaintiffs’ original response, at least the documents produced as
`
`VSIMDT_00023796 and 00028305. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement and/or
`
`amend this Response as further relevant information is discovered during the course of
`
`this litigation.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`Identify Teleflex’s average annual market share for guide extension catheters in
`
`the U.S. from 2009 to the present.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for information not in
`
`Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control. Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory as
`
`burdensome and oppressive to the extent it seeks information that is in Defendants’
`
`possession or is available from public sources such as the internet. Plaintiffs further
`
`object to this Interrogatory to the extent it is duplicative of Medtronic’s other
`
`Interrogatories, including at least Interrogatory No. 4.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs respond that
`
`prior to Boston Scientific’s Guidezilla guide extension catheters entering the U.S. market
`
`in 2013, Plaintiffs believe there were no competitors to its own GuideLiner guide
`
`extension catheters in the United States. For the time period after Boston Scientific’s
`
`Guidezilla products entered the U.S. market in 2013, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 33(d), Plaintiffs respond by identifying at least the documents produced as
`
`VSIQXM_E00056205, -56290, -56291, and -56292. Plaintiffs are collecting and will
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`Page 5
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2059
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00131
`
`
`
`produce and identify additional documents from which additional information responsive
`
`to this Interrogatory can be derived or ascertained.
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 2019
`
`Plaintiffs hereby incorporate its objections as if set forth verbatim. Subject to and
`
`without waiving the forgoing objections, in addition to the original response to
`
`Interrogatory No. 3, and based on its continuing and reasonable investigation to date,
`
`Plaintiffs further respond to this Interrogatory as follows. Pursuant to Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 33(d), Plaintiffs respond by identifying, in addition to those documents
`
`identified in Plaintiffs’ original response, at least the document produced as
`
`VSIMDT_00023609. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement and/or amend this
`
`Response as further relevant information is discovered during the course of this litigation.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`Identify Teleflex’s average annual market share in the U.S. Interventional
`
`Cardiology Market from 2009 to the present.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for information not in
`
`Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control. Plaintiffs additionally object to this
`
`Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
`
`proportional to the limited scope of the agreed preliminary injunction discovery or
`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, particularly with
`
`respect to Defendants’ definition regarding the term “Interventional Cardiology Market.”
`
`In responding to this Interrogatory, Plaintiffs will interpret “U.S. Interventional
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`Page 6
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2059
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00131
`
`
`
`Cardiology Market” to mean the U.S. market for guide extension catheters. Plaintiffs
`
`further object to this Interrogatory to the extent it is duplicative of Medtronic’s other
`
`Interrogatories, including at least Interrogatory No. 3.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs respond that
`
`prior to Boston Scientific’s Guidezilla guide extension catheter entering the U.S. market
`
`in 2013, Plaintiffs believe there were no competitors to its own GuideLiner guide
`
`extension catheters in the United States. For the time period after Boston Scientific’s
`
`Guidezilla products entered the U.S. market after 2013, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 33(d), Plaintiffs respond by identifying at least the documents produced as
`
`VSIQXM_E00056205, -56290, -56291, and -56292. Plaintiffs are collecting and will
`
`produce and identify additional documents from which additional information responsive
`
`to this Interrogatory can be derived or ascertained.
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 2019
`
`Plaintiffs hereby incorporate its objections as if set forth verbatim. Subject to and
`
`without waiving the forgoing objections, in addition to the original response to
`
`Interrogatory No. 4, and based on its continuing and reasonable investigation to date,
`
`Plaintiffs further respond to this Interrogatory as follows. Pursuant to Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 33(d), Plaintiffs respond by identifying, in addition to those documents
`
`identified in Plaintiffs’ original response, at least the documents produced as
`
`VSIQXM_E00045369, -00045396, -00045646, -00045690, -00045792, -00056229 and
`
`VSIMDT_00023609, -00023720, -00026415, -00009268, -00009717, -00010205, -
`
`00010450, -00010751, -00010940, -00011088, -00012973. Plaintiffs reserve the right to
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`Page 7
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2059
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00131
`
`
`
`supplement and/or amend this Response as further relevant information is discovered
`
`during the course of this litigation.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`Identify Teleflex’s competitors in the U.S. Interventional Cardiology Market,
`
`including the competitor’s name, the trade name of each identified competitor’s
`competing product(s), and, if known, the competitor’s market share for the identified
`competing products from 2009 to the present.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for information not in
`
`Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control. Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory as
`
`vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the
`
`limited scope of the agreed preliminary injunction discovery or reasonably calculated to
`
`lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, particularly with respect to Defendants’
`
`definition regarding the term “Interventional Cardiology Market.” In responding to this
`
`Interrogatory, Plaintiffs will interpret “U.S. Interventional Cardiology Market” to mean
`
`the U.S. market for guide extension catheters. Plaintiffs additionally object to this
`
`Interrogatory as burdensome and oppressive to the extent it seeks information that is in
`
`Defendants’ possession or is available from public sources such as the internet. Plaintiffs
`
`further object to this Interrogatory to the extent it is duplicative of Medtronic’s other
`
`Interrogatories, including at least Interrogatory No. 6.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs respond that
`
`their competitors in the guide extension catheter market are and have been Medtronic (all
`
`versions of the “Telescope” guide extension catheter since 2019), Boston Scientific (all
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`Page 8
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2059
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00131
`
`
`
`versions of the “Guidezilla” guide extension catheter since 2013), and QX Medical (all
`
`versions of the “Boosting Catheter” guide extension catheter since 2017). For the time
`
`period after Boston Scientific’s Guidezilla guide extension catheter entered the U.S.
`
`market, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Plaintiffs respond by
`
`identifying at least the documents produced as VSIQXM_E00056205, -56290, -56291,
`
`and -56292. Plaintiffs are collecting and will produce and identify additional documents
`
`from which additional information responsive to this Interrogatory can be derived or
`
`ascertained.
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 2019
`
`Plaintiffs hereby incorporate its objections as if set forth verbatim. Subject to and
`
`without waiving the forgoing objections, in addition to the original response to
`
`Interrogatory No. 5, and based on its continuing and reasonable investigation to date,
`
`Plaintiffs further respond to this Interrogatory as follows. Pursuant to Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 33(d), Plaintiffs respond by identifying, in addition to those documents
`
`identified in Plaintiffs’ original response, at least the documents produced as
`
`VSIQXM_E00029190, -00045329, -00045347, -00045369, -00045396, -00045646, -
`
`00045690, -00045736, -00045792, -00056229, -00056315, and VSIMDT_00023609, -
`
`00023720, -00026415, -00009717, -00010205, -00010450, -00010577, -00010751, -
`
`00010940, -00011088, -00011276, -00011448, -00011933, -00012114, -00012327, -
`
`00012784, -00012973, -00013127, -00013400, -00013973, -00014204, -00014865, -
`
`00015013, -00015339, -00015825, -00016228, -00016830, -00017034, -00017390, -
`
`00018215, -00018764, -00018976, -00019307, -00019553, -00019754, -00019939, -
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`Page 9
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2059
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00131
`
`
`
`00020273, -00021439, -00022743, -00025905. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement
`
`and/or amend this Response as further relevant information is discovered during the
`
`course of this litigation.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`
`Identify Teleflex’s competitors for sales of guide extension catheters, including
`the competitor’s name, the trade name of each identified competitor’s competing
`product(s), the available versions of each competing product, and, if known, the
`competitor’s U.S. market share for the identified competing products from 2009 to the
`present.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for information not in
`
`Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control. Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory as
`
`burdensome and oppressive to the extent it seeks information that is in Defendants’
`
`possession or is available from public sources such as the internet. Plaintiffs additionally
`
`object to this Interrogatory to the extent it is duplicative of Medtronic’s other
`
`Interrogatories, including at least Interrogatory No. 5.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs respond that
`
`their competitors in the guide extension catheter market are and have been Medtronic (all
`
`versions of the “Telescope” guide extension catheter since 2019), Boston Scientific (all
`
`versions of the “Guidezilla” guide extension catheter since 2013), and QX Medical (all
`
`versions of the “Boosting Catheter” guide extension catheter since 2017). For the time
`
`period after Boston Scientific’s Guidezilla entered the U.S. market, pursuant to Federal
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Plaintiffs respond by identifying at least the documents
`
`produced as VSIQXM_E00056205, -56290, -56291, and -56292. Plaintiffs are collecting
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`Page 10
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2059
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00131
`
`
`
`and will produce and identify additional documents from which additional information
`
`responsive to this Interrogatory can be derived or ascertained.
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 2019
`
`Plaintiffs hereby incorporate its objections as if set forth verbatim. Subject to and
`
`without waiving the forgoing objections, in addition to the original response to
`
`Interrogatory No. 6, and based on its continuing and reasonable investigation to date,
`
`Plaintiffs further respond to this Interrogatory as follows. Pursuant to Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 33(d), Plaintiffs respond by identifying, in addition to those documents
`
`identified in Plaintiffs’ original response, at least the documents produced as
`
`VSIQXM_E00045369, -00045396, -00045646, -00045690, -00045792, -00056229 and
`
`VSIMDT_00023609, -00023720, -00026415, -00010577, -00010639, -00010940, -
`
`00012784, -00012973, -00013127, -00013400, -00014781, -00015339, -00015825, -
`
`00016228, -00016727, -00016830, -00017034, -00017286, -00017390, -00018215, -
`
`00018764, -00018976, -00019307, -00019754, -00020273. Plaintiffs reserve the right to
`
`supplement and/or amend this Response as further relevant information is discovered
`
`during the course of this litigation.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`
`For each claim in the Patents-in-Suit, identify the Date of first conception and each
`
`reduction to practice, and describe the facts and circumstances relating to your contention
`of the conception and reduction to practice of the alleged invention, including, without
`limitation, where, when, how, and by whom the claim was conceived and reduced to
`practice, and identify all documents and things allegedly corroborating such conception
`and diligence in reducing the claimed invention to practice.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`Page 11
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2059
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00131
`
`
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information subject
`
`to the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other privilege. Plaintiffs
`
`do not agree to waive any applicable privilege by its response to this Interrogatory.
`
`Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome,
`
`irrelevant, and not proportional to the needs of the case at least to the extent it seeks
`
`information regarding the conception and reduction to practice for “each claim in the
`
`Patents-in-Suit,” because only a limited number of the large number of claims of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit are at issue in this litigation and because not all claims asserted against
`
`Defendants in Plaintiffs’ Complaint are included in Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary
`
`injunction.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs respond that
`
`the inventors came 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. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Plaintiffs
`
`further respond by identifying at least the following documents: pages from Gregg
`
`Sutton’s laboratory notebook dated January 4, 2005 (VSIQXM_E00005937), Howard
`
`Root’s notes dated February 7, 2005 (VSIQXM_E00005949), and Howard Root’s market
`
`feasibility memorandum dated February 4, 2005 (VSIQXM_E00005947).
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 2019
`
`Plaintiffs hereby incorporate its objections as if set forth verbatim. Subject to and
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`Page 12
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2059
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00131
`
`
`
`without waiving the forgoing objections, in addition to the original response to
`
`Interrogatory No. 7, and based on its continuing and reasonable investigation to date,
`
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Plaintiffs further respond by
`
`identifying, in addition to those documents identified in Plaintiffs’ original response, at
`
`least the documents produced with the beginning bates number as VSIQXM_E00005944,
`
`-5952, -5955, -5987, -5988, -5990, -5991, and the documents produced with the
`
`beginning bates number as VSIMDT_00028870, -29897, -29923, -29949, -29963, -
`
`29964, -29969, -29973, -29978, -29996, -30001, -30073, -30079, -30086, -30090, -
`
`30095, -30101, -30106, -30111, -30117, -30123, -30129, -30135, -30139, -30168, -
`
`30170, -30178, -30182, -30184, -30186, -30223, -30439, -30532, -30667, -30683.
`
`Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement and/or amend this Response as further relevant
`
`information is discovered during the course of this litigation.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`
`Identify each claim in the Patents-in-Suit that you have alleged or will allege is
`
`infringed by Telescope.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information subject
`
`to the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other privilege. Plaintiffs
`
`do not agree to waive any applicable privilege by its response to this Interrogatory.
`
`Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory as seeking information already provided in
`
`its Complaint. Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory as premature, particularly to
`
`the extent it requires Plaintiffs to set forth their infringement positions before the deadline
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`Page 13
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2059
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00131
`
`
`
`for infringement contentions has been set by the court and to the extent it calls for a legal
`
`conclusion and/or expert testimony or analysis. Plaintiffs additionally object to this
`
`Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, and not proportional to the
`
`needs of the case at least to the extent it seeks information regarding “each claim in the
`
`Patents-in-Suit that you have alleged or will allege is infringed by Telescope,” because
`
`not all claims asserted against Defendants in Plaintiffs’ Complaint are included in
`
`Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
`
` Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs state that they
`
`have alleged that the following claims of the Patents-in-Suit are infringed by Telescope:
`
` Claims 12 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,048,032
`
` Claims 12, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent. No. RE45,380
`
` Claims 25, 36, and 37 of U.S. Patent No. RE45,776
`
` Claims 25, 33, 34, 38, and 44 of U.S. Patent No. RE47,379
`
` Claims 25, 28, 29, 32, and 48 of U.S. Patent No. RE45,760
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`Page 14
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2059
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00131
`
`
`
`Dated: September 20, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ J. Derek Vandenburgh
`J. Derek Vandenburgh (#224145)
`Tara C. Norgard (#307683)
`Joseph W. Winkels (#349707)
`Alexander S. Rinn (#385616)
`Shelleaha L. Jonas (#398417)
`CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH &
`LINDQUIST, P.A.
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`(612) 436-9600 Telephone
`(612) 436-9605 Facsimile
`dvandenburgh@carlsoncaspers.com
`tnorgard@carlsoncaspers.com
`jwinkels@carlsoncaspers.com
`arinn@carlsoncaspers.com
`sjonas@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Vascular Solutions LLC,
`Teleflex Innovations S. à r.l., Arrow
`International, Inc., and Teleflex LLC
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`Page 15
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2059
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00131
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that I caused to be served Plaintiffs’ First Supplemental Objections and
`
`
`
`Responses to Defendants’ Interrogatories Concerning Preliminary Injunction Issues via
`
`the following email listserv, as agreed to by the parties, on the date noted below:
`
`
`
`MDT-VSI@fredlaw.com
`
`
`
`Dated: September 20, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ J. Derek Vandenburgh
`J. Derek Vandenburgh (#224145)
`Tara C. Norgard (#307683)
`Joseph W. Winkels (#349707)
`Alexander S. Rinn (#385616)
`Shelleaha L. Jonas (#398417)
`CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH &
`LINDQUIST, P.A.
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`(612) 436-9600 Telephone
`(612) 436-9605 Facsimile
`dvandenburgh@carlsoncaspers.com
`tnorgard@carlsoncaspers.com
`jwinkels@carlsoncaspers.com
`arinn@carlsoncaspers.com
`sjonas@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`16
`
`
`Page 16
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2059
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00131
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
