`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2020-0128, IPR2020-0129, IPR2020-0130, IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S EXPLANATION OF
`MATERIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PETITIONS AND PETITION
`RANKING FOR U.S. PATENT NO. RE 45,380E
`
`
`
`Petitioners Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. (collectively
`
`“Medtronic”) filed four separate petitions against the ’380 patent, challenging a
`
`total of only 35 claims. Further, Medtronic’s four petitions include a total of seven
`
`different grounds against a single claim—claim 27. IPR2020-00129, Paper 1 at 7
`
`(Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9); IPR2020-00131, Paper 1 at 7 (Grounds 2, 3).
`
`Medtronic’s strategic choice to rely on a section 102(e) reference does
`
`not justify institution of four petitions. Medtronic contends it needs four
`
`petitions because Teleflex is asserting an invention date that pre-dates the Itou
`
`reference (Ex. 1007). Paper 3 at 3–4. Teleflex did invent before the priority date
`
`of Itou. Indeed, Itou’s prior art status is at issue in the parallel district court
`
`litigation, and Medtronic was aware of substantial corroborated evidence showing
`
`Teleflex’s prior invention before it filed its Petitions. Nevertheless, Medtronic
`
`chose to rely on a § 102(e) reference and did not even try to address the issue of
`
`Teleflex’s invention date in its Petitions. Thus, this is not one of the “rare” cases
`
`in which “two petitions by a petitioner may be needed.” November 2019
`
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“TPG”) at 59. Where, as here, a Petitioner
`
`proceeds with filing petitions relying on a primary reference that it knows full-well
`
`is likely to be antedated, four petitions are not justified.
`
`The Board routinely declines to institute multiple petitions, even where there
`
`is a priority date dispute. See, e.g., Comcast Cable Commc’ns., LLC v. Rovi
`
`1
`
`
`
`Guides, Inc., IPR2019-01354, Paper 10 at 6 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2020) (denying
`
`institution of two of three petitions where a potential priority dispute existed);
`
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Whitserve LLC, IPR2019-01018, Paper 13 at 8–9 (PTAB Nov. 1,
`
`2019) (denying institution of a second petition where parties disputed the priority
`
`date of multiple prior art references); Comcast Cable Comm’ncs, LLC v. Rovi
`
`Guides, Inc., IPR2019-00279, Paper 10 at 6–7 (PTAB July 1, 2019) (declining to
`
`institute four of five filed petitions where a potential priority dispute existed).
`
`Furthermore, the TPG explains that three or more petitions are almost never
`
`appropriate (TPG at 59)—here Medtronic seeks institution of four. Medtronic has
`
`failed to justify why it needs not just two petitions, but four.
`
`Medtronic cites Microsoft Corp. v. IPA Techs Inc., IPR2019-00810, Paper
`
`12 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2019). See Paper 3 at 3. But Microsoft was different. First,
`
`the petitioner in Microsoft explained that the “main difference” between its
`
`petitions was that each petition challenged different claims. Microsoft, IPR2019-
`
`00810, Paper 12 at 12. Thus, denying one of the petitions would completely
`
`eliminate the petitioner’s opportunity to challenge those claims. Here, in contrast,
`
`Medtronic filed multiple petitions attacking the same claims based on different
`
`references. Second, while Medtronic is correct that there was a potential dispute
`
`about the priority date of Microsoft’s Kiss reference, the petitioner explained that
`
`“the same analysis of the combination of Kiss/FIPA97 is the basic prior art
`
`2
`
`
`
`challenge to every claim in each petition.” Id. Paper 9 at 1–2 (emphasis added).
`
`Thus, if the Kiss reference was found to not qualify as prior art, all of the petitions
`
`would fail. Consequently, the petitioner’s filing of multiple petitions was clearly
`
`not intended to provide a “back-up” petition because of a potential priority issue.
`
`Medtronic’s reliance on Microsoft is inapt.
`
`Medtronic’s strategic choice to include excessive, duplicative challenges
`
`to the same claims does not justify institution of four petitions. Medtronic
`
`contends that the number and length of the claims, word count constraints, and the
`
`means-plus-function aspect of some claims requires four petitions. Paper 3 at 4–5.
`
`But here, the four Petitions challenge only a total of thirty-five claims—hardly an
`
`unusually high number. Medtronic also challenges the same claims on many
`
`duplicative grounds—far more than needed to provide “back-up” in the event the
`
`Itou reference is not prior art. For example, as explained above Medtronic
`
`challenges claim 27 on seven separate grounds across the four petitions.
`
`While Medtronic proffers the means-plus-function as a justification,
`
`Medtronic’s Petitions state that the analysis is the same regardless of whether a
`
`claim is construed to be means-plus-function. E.g., IPR2020-00129, Paper 1 at 23
`
`(“If this limitation is not construed as means-plus-function, Ressemann’s same
`
`teachings satisfy this limitation.”), 25, 66, 68. Where the analysis would differ,
`
`Medtronic provides the alternate analysis in one sentence. See id. at 24, 68.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Further, Medtronic challenges independent claim 25 and various claims
`
`depending therefrom on three separate grounds, each based on a different lead
`
`reference: Itou, Ressemann, and Kontos. IPR2020-00129, Paper 1 at 7 (Ground 1,
`
`Ressemann; Ground 7, Itou); IPR2020-00131, Paper 1 at 7 (Ground 1, Kontos).
`
`Medtronic argues that it needs “Itou-based” based arguments (that raise the priority
`
`date issue) and back-up “Kontos-based” arguments (that do not raise the priority
`
`date issue). Paper 3 at 1–3, 5. But Medtronic does not explain why it needs a
`
`third ground against the same claims, based on a third reference (Ressemann).
`
`
`
`Medtronic’s contention that it could not fit all arguments into a single
`
`petition is a problem it created itself. Rather than judiciously selecting its strongest
`
`arguments, Medtronic chose, for example, to advance seven grounds against claim
`
`27, and three separate grounds against independent claim 25. Again, Medtronic’s
`
`reliance on Microsoft is inapposite. Microsoft concerned five petitions challenging
`
`89 claims; here Medtronic seeks to use four petitions to challenge only 35 claims.
`
`See Microsoft, IPR2019-00810, Paper 12 at 14. Medtronic’s deliberate drafting
`
`choices do not reasonably justify pursuing an overly burdensome, inefficient, and
`
`unfairly duplicative attack on the ’380 patent. See, e.g., Pfenex, Inc. v.
`
`GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, IPR2019-01027, Paper 12 at 13–14 (PTAB Nov.
`
`13, 2019) (“[T]he mere fact that Petitioner may have had additional art to assert,
`
`including a different statutory basis for asserting that art, does not, on these facts,
`
`4
`
`
`
`justify the additional burden of a second petition directed to the same claims.”).
`
`Instituting four petitions will result in inefficiency and unfairness. As
`
`discussed above, Medtronic is aware that Teleflex intends to swear behind Itou,
`
`and parallel district court litigation addressing this issue is ongoing. Concurrent
`
`adjudication of these issues before the district court and the Board will result in
`
`duplicative work, unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs, the
`
`possibility of inconsistent decisions, and will not promote the efficient
`
`administration of the Office or the integrity of the patent system. See TPG at 56
`
`(the Director must consider “the effect of any such regulation [under this section]
`
`on the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of
`
`the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings instituted
`
`under this chapter”). For the reasons set forth in Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Responses, the Board should deny all four Petitions. However, if the Board is
`
`inclined to institute trial on any one of the petitions, institution on only the Kontos-
`
`based petitions (IPR2020-00130, IPR2020-00131) would avoid at least some of
`
`these inefficiencies.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Dated: April 7, 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
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the agreement of the parties, the
`
`
`
`undersigned certifies that on April 7, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`Patent Owner Response to Petitioner’s Explanation of Material Differences
`
`Between Petitions and Petition Ranking for U.S. Patent No. RE 45,380E 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)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`