1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Telephone Conference - 4/17/2020
`Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. vs. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`-------------------------------------------------
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`-------------------------------------------------
`
`Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc.,
`
` Petitioners,
`
`vs.
`
`Teleflex Innovations S.À.R.L.,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
`-------------------------------------------------
` Case No.: IPR2020-00127
` U.S. Patent No. 8,048,032
`-------------------------------------------------
` Case No.: IPR2020-00130
` U.S. Patent No. RE 45,380
`-------------------------------------------------
` Case No.: IPR2020-00131
` U.S. Patent No. RE 45,380
`-------------------------------------------------
` Case No.: IPR2020-00133
` U.S. Patent No. RE 45,760
`-------------------------------------------------
` Case No.: IPR2020-00134
` U.S. Patent No. 45,760
`-------------------------------------------------
` Case No.: IPR2020-00136
` U.S. Patent No. RE 45,776
`-------------------------------------------------
` Case No.: IPR2020-00138
` U.S. Patent No. RE 47,379
`-------------------------------------------------
`
` TELEPHONIC PROCEEDING
`
` April 17, 2020
`
`By Brandi N. Bigalke, RPR RSA
`
`(763) 591-0535 | info@depointernational.com
`Depo International, Inc.
`
`Page 1 (1)
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1887 - Page 1
`
`

`

`Telephone Conference - 4/17/2020
`Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. vs. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.
`
` Taken pursuant to notice to take telephonic
`
`oral proceeding, on the 17th day of April, 2020,
`
`before Brandi N. Bigalke, Registered Professional
`
`Reporter, Realtime Systems Administrator,
`
`Stenographic Court Reporter, and a Notary Public
`
`in and for the State of Minnesota.
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`(**Everyone appeared by telephone)
`
`The Honorable Christopher Paulraj
`
`The Honorable Sheridan Snedden
`
`The Honorable Jon Tornquist
`
`On Behalf of the Petitioner:
`
`Cyrus A. Morton
`Christopher A. Pinahs
`Sherry Roberg-Perez
`Robins Kaplan, LLP
`800 LaSalle Avenue
`Suite 2800
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`612-349-8722
`CMorton@RobinsKaplan.com
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`(763) 591-0535 | info@depointernational.com
`Depo International, Inc.
`
`Page 2 (2)
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1887 - Page 2
`
`

`

`Telephone Conference - 4/17/2020
`Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. vs. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.
`
`APPEARANCES (Cont'd)
`
`On Behalf of the Patent Owner Teleflex Innovations,
`S.À.R.L.:
`
`J. Derek Vandenburgh
`Peter Kohlhepp
`CARLSON CASPERS
`Capella Tower, Suite 4200
`225 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55345
`612-436-9618
`dvandenburgh@carlsoncaspers.com
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`(763) 591-0535 | info@depointernational.com
`Depo International, Inc.
`
`Page 3 (3)
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1887 - Page 3
`
`

`

`Telephone Conference - 4/17/2020
`Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. vs. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.
`
` 1 P R O C E E D I N G S
` 2 Whereupon, the telephonic proceeding on April 17,
` 3 2020 was commenced at 10:00 a.m. as follows:
` 4 - - -
` 5 THE COURT: Good morning. This is
` 6 a conference call on IPR2020-00127, -00130, 131,
` 7 133, 134, 136, and 138. This is Judge Paulraj,
` 8 and with me on the line I have Judges Tornquist
` 9 and Snedden.
`10 Let's start with role call. Who do
`11 we have on the line for petitioner?
`12 MR. MORTON: Yes, your Honor. This
`13 is Cy Morton for petitioner. Also on with me is
`14 Chris Pinahs. And I do want to report we have a
`15 court reporter on the line as well.
`16 THE COURT: All right. Thank you,
`17 Mr. Morton.
`18 And then since we do have a court
`19 reporter, I'll have you file the transcript of
`20 the court reporter -- from the court reporter
`21 whenever it's available in each of these cases.
`22 Is that clear?
`23 MR. MORTON: Yes, your Honor.
`24 THE COURT: All right. Since we do
`25 have some other related cases that are in this
` 1 family, go ahead and file the entire set of
` 2 cases. I know that the request for conference
` 3 call was only for perhaps the cases we didn't
` 4 discuss in our prior conference call, but just
` 5 for consistency sake and we have a clear record
` 6 in all these cases, go ahead and file the
` 7 transcript in all these cases.
` 8 MR. MORTON: Sure, your Honor. We
` 9 can probably -- we had a transcript for the last
`10 call, we could go ahead and file that in the --
`11 in these current IPRs we're discussing today as
`12 well.
`13 THE COURT: That makes sense.
`14 Thank you, Counsel.
`15 All right. Who do we have on the
`16 line for patent owner?
`17 MR. VANDENBURGH: Yeah. Thank you,
`18 your Honor. This is Derek Vandenburgh for
`19 Teleflex, and with me on the line is Peter
`20 Kohlhepp.
`21 THE COURT: All right. Thank you,
`22 Mr. Vandenburgh.
`23 So the purpose of this call is
`24 perhaps a follow-up to what we discussed in our
`25 prior conference call for the related set of
`
`Page 5
`
`(763) 591-0535 | info@depointernational.com
`Depo International, Inc.
`
`Page 4
`
`Page 6
`
` 1 cases. So it does appear that petitioner would
` 2 like to file a reply along the same lines as what
` 3 we authorized in the other cases, and I do want
` 4 to -- I know the parties to address the, perhaps
` 5 the intervening order from the District Court.
` 6 We are aware that the District
` 7 Court issued an order on the preliminary
` 8 injunction motion more recently, so -- and it
` 9 looks like petitioner wants to address that in
`10 the surreply, at least for the 134 case.
`11 So if you can address that,
`12 Mr. Morton, and then I'll let Mr. Vandenburgh
`13 respond accordingly.
`14 MR. MORTON: Yes, your Honor.
`15 Absolutely.
`16 So as you've already noted, we've
`17 had reply briefs before on the first six
`18 petitions. We're talking about the next seven
`19 now. If you rule consistently, we would get a
`20 five-page reply brief on the 134 IPR to address
`21 both issues, and maybe three pages on the rest of
`22 them that only have the secondary considerations
`23 issue. And that was our original proposal to
`24 patent owner.
`25 Patent owner's position is that we
` 1 should be limited to filing the identical briefs
` 2 we filed previously. And there's no real basis
` 3 for that. We were never limited to filing the
` 4 same briefs in all IPRs. But to avoid a dispute,
` 5 we agreed to do that on secondary consideration.
` 6 On the swear-behind issue, as
` 7 you've already noted, things have changed with
` 8 the District Court's order in the PI. The
` 9 District Court filed that Medtronic raised a
`10 substantial question about the attempt to swear
`11 behind. And in so doing, your Honor, the Court
`12 relied on documents and evidence that we didn't
`13 have when we filed the IPRs.
`14 For instance, and I'll quote from
`15 the Court on the conception and reduction of
`16 practice issue. The Court said notably a report
`17 dated December 1, 2005, months after Teleflex's
`18 claimed reduction to practice states that, "The
`19 rapid exchange version requires additional
`20 engineering, and is not included in our 2006
`21 forecasts." And it cites to Exhibit 40 on the
`22 route declaration.
`23 So we didn't have this Exhibit 40,
`24 your Honor, and the patent owner didn't attach it
`25 to their POPR. And it seems like an important
`
`Page 7
`Page 4 (4 - 7)
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1887 - Page 4
`
`

`

`Telephone Conference - 4/17/2020
`Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. vs. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.
`
` 1 piece of information. So we would like to point
` 2 that out as additional reasoning for why we
` 3 should not have had to address this in the
` 4 petition and the issue to the reserve for the
` 5 trial phase with a fair process discovery.
` 6 Separate point, your Honor, is that
` 7 the Court also found a substantial question on
` 8 the lack of written description. We've argued
` 9 the same point in the 134 IPR as a basis to
`10 change the priority date so the America Invents
`11 Act would apply, and then the patent owner cannot
`12 swear behind, you know, as a legal matter.
`13 This is new information for the
`14 Board that provides another justification to
`15 commit a reply brief, and we also want to bring
`16 it to the board's attention in the reply brief.
`17 So, your Honor, the easiest thing
`18 to do is to grant reply briefs exactly like last
`19 time and let the parties file their briefs.
`20 That's what would normally happen if you just
`21 looked at these current IPRs standing alone that
`22 we're discussing today.
`23 But we're willing to stick to our
`24 offer that we made to patent owner to file the
`25 same content for secondary considerations. We
` 1 just want to use our very limited gauges a little
` 2 differently for the 134 IPR when it comes to the
` 3 swear-behind issue.
` 4 Thank you, your Honor.
` 5 THE COURT: All right. Thank you,
` 6 Mr. Morton.
` 7 So just to be clear, for the
` 8 current set of cases that I mentioned from the
` 9 numbers at the beginning of this call, the ones
`10 where the Kontos is only an issue, those are the
`11 ones where you're only going to address a
`12 secondary consideration argument in your reply.
`13 And the 134 case, which I think it
`14 sets apart here in terms of the latter set of
`15 cases, addresses Itou again. And that's the one
`16 that you're going to want to address the
`17 swear-behind issue, you know, based on the
`18 District Court's preliminary injunction order; is
`19 that right?
`20 MR. MORTON: Yes, your Honor.
`21 THE COURT: All right. Let me
`22 focus just briefly on the Kontos-based cases. So
`23 those with respect to the secondary
`24 considerations arguments in the reply you're
`25 seeking, you were willing to limit that to just
`
`Page 9
`
`(763) 591-0535 | info@depointernational.com
`Depo International, Inc.
`
`Page 8
`
`Page 10
`
` 1 three pages?
` 2 MR. MORTON: Yes, we can limit that
` 3 to three pages, your Honor.
` 4 THE COURT: Okay. And then the
` 5 Itou, you're not seeking anything beyond five
` 6 pages than we previously authorized to address
` 7 those secondary considerations as a swear-behind
` 8 issue?
` 9 MR. MORTON: No. If you want to
`10 give me six pages, I'll take it, but I think we
`11 can do it.
`12 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you,
`13 Counsel. I'll see if Mr. Vandenburgh will give
`14 you the extra page, if he can stipulate to that.
`15 All right. So you did raise
`16 something else that perhaps wasn't argued in the
`17 prior conference call about the written
`18 description argument. It doesn't look like we
`19 authorized any reply briefs to address the
`20 written description issue.
`21 Is that something you're
`22 additionally seeking in terms of addressing in
`23 your reply for the 134 case?
`24 MR. MORTON: Well, I would like
`25 that, your Honor, because this is new
` 1 information, a finding from the Court on this on
` 2 the same issues that were argued. And it relates
` 3 directly to the swear-behind issue. That's
` 4 something we put in our IPRs. We may have thrown
` 5 it in on our last reply briefs. But basically if
` 6 there's a lack of written description, the date
` 7 moves until -- to make it a post AIA patent, and
` 8 then you can't swear behind the detail reference.
` 9 So it's a related point, but yes,
`10 it is something that's a little bit different
`11 based on the decision from the Court.
`12 THE COURT: All right. Let me turn
`13 it over to Mr. Vandenburgh so he can respond to
`14 the points you just discussed.
`15 MR. VANDENBURGH: Thank you, your
`16 Honor.
`17 I want to start by just pointing
`18 out the irony of the fact that Medtronic wants to
`19 use the fact that the District Court has now dug
`20 in to the substance of these issues to try to
`21 explain why the Board should start what we view
`22 as a redundant and duplicative proceeding.
`23 You know, in granting the prior
`24 briefing, the Board was clear that it didn't want
`25 to hear about the merits of the issues, but
`
`Page 11
`Page 5 (8 - 11)
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1887 - Page 5
`
`

`

`Telephone Conference - 4/17/2020
`Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. vs. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.
`
` 1 simply the procedural issues of whether they
` 2 should have been addressed in the petitions
` 3 themselves.
` 4 But, you know, the key point
` 5 that -- one of the key points that we've made in
` 6 our POPRs is that we shouldn't have this
` 7 duplicative proceeding, and that, you know,
` 8 Medtronic has known this dispute was coming for
` 9 years and they certainly could have filed for
`10 IPRs years ago and chose not to, chose to wait
`11 until the eve of the preliminary injunction
`12 hearing to file their IPRs to use that as a basis
`13 to prevent a preliminary injunction. And now
`14 they want to go at it the other way and use the
`15 Court's order to convince the Board why they
`16 should grant the petitions or institute the
`17 petitions in this case.
`18 Now, you know, everyone knows that
`19 PIs in patent cases are rarely granted. The
`20 standard to avoid them is low. We are happy, if
`21 the Board wants to hear it, to explain why even
`22 under the preliminary injunction standard the
`23 District Court was wrong in its analysis of prior
`24 invention, was wrong in its analysis of the 112
`25 issue, but what you told us last time is that we
` 1 should only be addressing whether, as a
` 2 procedural matter, Medtronic should have
` 3 addressed the evidence on prior invention that
` 4 they sought out, actively sought out and asked
` 5 for in the District Court and then didn't address
` 6 in their petitions. Those facts have not
` 7 changed.
` 8 I need to point out that once
` 9 again, like in the last hearing, Mr. Morton has
`10 said things that simply are not true. He claims
`11 that there were new exhibits addressed by the --
`12 by the District Court judge that Medtronic didn't
`13 have, that they couldn't address. In fact, he's
`14 talking about exhibits that they put into the
`15 preliminary injunction briefing.
`16 These are certainly documents that
`17 Medtronic had. I think maybe Mr. Morton is again
`18 trying to rely on this distinction of, well, it
`19 wasn't me. But that point has already been
`20 addressed in the briefing.
`21 The bottom line, your Honor, is the
`22 parties have briefed all of these issues
`23 extensively. The Board is going to have its
`24 hands full digesting 13 petitions, 13 POPRs, the
`25 replies and surreplies that have already been
`
`Page 12
`
` 1 filed. Adding yet additional different briefing
` 2 is just not necessary.
` 3 The last point I want to make on
` 4 that 112 issue, which we've heard about for the
` 5 first time this morning, is that we didn't oppose
` 6 that on the merits of the 112 issue. Our point
` 7 and the only point I believe we made in our POPRs
` 8 on the filing date issue is that these are
` 9 reissue patents that by definition can only have
`10 one effective filing date.
`11 So whether or not there's an
`12 underlying 112 issue simply doesn't matter. What
`13 they're really reinforcing is that they're trying
`14 to backdoor a 112 issue into IPRs in a situation
`15 where it isn't merited. And there's again no
`16 need for additional briefing on that point.
`17 And I guess that's all I've got.
`18 THE COURT: All right. Thank you,
`19 Mr. Vandenburgh.
`20 Let me consult with the panel real
`21 quick, and we'll get back to you.
`22 MR. VANDENBURGH: Thank you.
`23 (Brief pause.)
`24 THE COURT: Counsel, this is Judge
`25 Paulraj again. I did consult with the other
`Page 14
` 1 panel members, and here's what we're going to do:
` 2 So the Kontos-based petitions, I
` 3 think that that's a relatively easy issue to
` 4 decide. So we'll go ahead and authorize a
` 5 three-page surreply addressing the burden of
` 6 proof issue with respect to the secondary
` 7 considerations argument as we authorized before.
` 8 I don't think that's in dispute. And so we'll
` 9 limit that to three pages like Mr. Morton said
`10 that that would be sufficient.
`11 Second, the 134, we're going to go
`12 ahead and authorize a five-page reply that
`13 addresses both the burden issue with respect to
`14 secondary considerations, as well as the burden
`15 issue with respect to the -- the backdating
`16 argument. We're not going to authorize any
`17 additional briefing on the written description
`18 issue, other than maybe relevance. It wasn't
`19 presented before, and I don't think it's -- is
`20 something we need to consider at this point.
`21 So the 134 case, just to be clear,
`22 we'll go ahead and authorize a reply that allows
`23 you to address the District Court's preliminary
`24 injunction order, bearing in mind that what we
`25 want to focus on is still whether or not
`
`Page 15
`Page 6 (12 - 15)
`
`Page 13
`
`(763) 591-0535 | info@depointernational.com
`Depo International, Inc.
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1887 - Page 6
`
`

`

`Telephone Conference - 4/17/2020
`Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. vs. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.
`
` 1 petitioner had a burden in the petition to
` 2 address the backdating argument or not. We still
` 3 want to focus on petitioner's burden rather than
` 4 the substance of whether or not -- whether or not
` 5 the -- the mention of backdated or hesitate {ph}
` 6 to reference.
` 7 So with that, we'll go ahead and
` 8 authorize the reply brief due within five
` 9 business days of this conference call, and we'll
`10 authorize a surreply due by the date after
`11 petitioner files its reply.
`12 Any questions about anything I've
`13 said so far?
`14 MR. MORTON: This is Cy Morton for
`15 the petitioner. No questions from me, your
`16 Honor.
`17 MR. VANDENBURGH: Just give me a
`18 moment.
`19 No, your Honor. That's clear.
`20 Thank you.
`21 THE COURT: All right. Since we
`22 have a court reporter, we'll go ahead and have
`23 the court reporter transcript entered in all
`24 these cases, and that will serve as the record of
`25 our order that we're setting for -- we won't
` 1 issue a separate order.
` 2 Just one additional point of
` 3 clarification. Since the District Court PI
` 4 decision, you know, has become an issue, we'd
` 5 like -- and it could just be petitioner because
` 6 petitioner is filing it -- we'd like you guys to
` 7 go ahead and file the District Court decision as
` 8 an exhibit in all these cases so it will be part
` 9 of the record for all these cases so at least we
`10 have some consistency across all these cases in
`11 terms of what the record is.
`12 MR. MORTON: Again, this is Cy
`13 Morton. Understood, your Honor. We'll do that.
`14 THE COURT: All right. With that,
`15 unless there's anything further, we can adjourn
`16 the call.
`17 MR. VANDENBURGH: Thank you, your
`18 Honor.
`19 MR. MORTON: Thank you.
`20 THE COURT: All right. Thank you,
`21 Counsel.
`22 With that, the call is adjourned.
`23 (Whereupon, the telephonic
`proceeding was terminated at 10:24 a.m.)
`24
`
`Page 16
`
`25
`
`Page 17
`
`(763) 591-0535 | info@depointernational.com
`Depo International, Inc.
`
`Page 7 (16 - 17)
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1887 - Page 7
`
`

`

` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Telephone Conference - 4/17/2020
`Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. vs. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.
`
` C E R T I F I C A T E
`
`STATE OF MINNESOTA:
`
` : SS.:
`
`COUNTY OF HENNEPIN:
`
` BE IT KNOW, that I, Brandi N. Bigalke, RPR,
`RSA, Stenographic Court Reporter, do hereby
`certify that the foregoing transcript of the
`telephonic proceeding in the matter of Medtronic,
`Inc., and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. Versus
`Teleflex Innovations S.À.R.L., is true, correct
`and accurate;
`
` That said transcript was prepared under my
`direction and control from my stenographic
`shorthand notes taken on the 17th day of April,
`2020;
`
` That I am not related to any of the parties
`in this matter, nor am I interested in the
`outcome of this action;
`
` That the cost of the original has been
`charged to the noticing party, and that all
`parties who ordered copies have been charged at
`the same rate for such copies;
`
` WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this 22nd of
`April, 2020.
`
` ___________________________
` Brandi N. Bigalke, RPR, RSA
`
`(763) 591-0535 | info@depointernational.com
`Depo International, Inc.
`
`Page 8 (18)
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1887 - Page 8
`
`

`

`Telephone Conference - 4/17/2020
`Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. vs. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.
`
` WORD INDEX 
`
`< 0 >
`00130   4:6
`
`< 1 >
`1   7:17
`10:00   4:3
`10:24   17:23
`112   12:24   14:4, 6,
`12, 14
`13   13:24
`131   4:6
`133   4:7
`
`134   4:7   6:10, 20  8:9   9:2, 13   10:23  15:11, 21
`
`136   4:7
`138   4:7
`17   1:23   4:2
`17th   2:3   18:13
`
`< 2 >
`2005   7:17
`2006   7:20
`2020   1:23   2:3   4:3  18:13, 21
`225   3:5
`22nd   18:21
`2800   2:19
`
`< 4 >
`40   7:21, 23
`4200   3:5
`45,380   1:12, 14
`45,760   1:15, 17
`45,776   1:18
`47,379   1:20
`
`< 5 >
`55345   3:6
`55402   2:20
`
`< 6 >
`612-349-8722   2:20
`612-436-9618   3:6
`
`< 8 >
`8,048,032   1:11
`800   2:19
`
`< A >
`a.m   4:3   17:23
`Absolutely   6:15
`accurate   18:10
`Act   8:11
`action   18:16
`actively   13:4
`Adding   14:1
`additional   7:19   8:2  14:1, 16   15:17   17:2
`additionally   10:22
`address   6:4, 9, 11,
`
`20   8:3   9:11, 16  10:6, 19   13:5, 13  15:23   16:2
`addressed   12:2  13:3, 11, 20
`addresses   9:15  15:13
`addressing   10:22  13:1   15:5
`adjourn   17:15
`adjourned   17:22
`Administrator   2:5
`ago   12:10
`agreed   7:5
`ahead   5:1, 6, 10  15:4, 12, 22   16:7,
`22   17:7
`AIA   11:7
`allows   15:22
`America   8:10
`analysis   12:23, 24
`apart   9:14
`APPEAL   1:3
`appear   6:1
`APPEARANCES  3:1
`appeared   2:10
`apply   8:11
`April   1:23   2:3   4:2  18:13, 21
`argued   8:8   10:16  11:2
`argument   9:12  10:18   15:7, 16   16:2
`arguments   9:24
`asked   13:4
`attach   7:24
`
`attempt   7:10
`attention   8:16
`authorize   15:4, 12,
`16, 22   16:8, 10
`authorized   6:3  10:6, 19   15:7
`available   4:21
`Avenue   2:19
`avoid   7:4   12:20
`aware   6:6
`
`< B >
`back   14:21
`backdated   16:5
`backdating   15:15  16:2
`backdoor   14:14
`based   9:17   11:11
`basically   11:5
`basis   7:2   8:9  12:12
`bearing   15:24
`beginning   9:9
`Behalf   2:16   3:2
`believe   14:7
`beyond   10:5
`Bigalke   1:25   2:4  18:7, 24
`bit   11:10
`BOARD   1:3   8:14  11:21, 24   12:15, 21  13:23
`
`board's   8:16
`bottom   13:21
`Brandi   1:25   2:4  18:7, 24
`brief   6:20   8:15, 16  14:23   16:8
`briefed   13:22
`briefing   11:24  13:15, 20   14:1, 16  15:17
`briefly   9:22
`briefs   6:17   7:1, 4  8:18, 19   10:19   11:5
`bring   8:15
`burden   15:5, 13, 14  16:1, 3
`business   16:9
`
`< C >
`
`call   4:6, 10   5:3, 4,
`10, 23, 25   9:9  10:17   16:9   17:16,
`
`22
`Capella   3:5
`CARLSON   3:4
`Case   1:10, 12, 13,
`
`15, 16, 18, 19   6:10  9:13   10:23   12:17  15:21
`
`cases   4:21, 25   5:2,
`3, 6, 7   6:1, 3   9:8,
`
`15, 22   12:19   16:24  17:8, 9, 10
`CASPERS   3:4
`certainly   12:9  13:16
`certify   18:8
`change   8:10
`changed   7:7   13:7
`charged   18:18, 19
`chose   12:10
`Chris   4:14
`Christopher   2:12,
`17
`cites   7:21
`claimed   7:18
`claims   13:10
`clarification   17:3
`clear   4:22   5:5   9:7  11:24   15:21   16:19
`CMorton@RobinsK
`aplan.com   2:21
`comes   9:2
`coming   12:8
`commenced   4:3
`commit   8:15
`conception   7:15
`conference   4:6   5:2,
`4, 25   10:17   16:9
`consider   15:20
`consideration   7:5  9:12
`considerations   6:22  8:25   9:24   10:7  15:7, 14
`consistency   5:5  17:10
`consistently   6:19
`consult   14:20, 25
`
`(763) 591-0535 | info@depointernational.com
`Depo International, Inc.
`
`Page 1
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1887 - Page 9
`
`

`

`Telephone Conference - 4/17/2020
`Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. vs. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.
`
`Cont'd   3:1
`content   8:25
`control   18:12
`convince   12:15
`copies   18:19
`correct   18:9
`cost   18:18
`Counsel   5:14  10:13   14:24   17:21
`COUNTY   18:5
`Court   2:6   4:5, 15,
`16, 18, 20, 24   5:13,
`21   6:5, 7   7:9, 11,
`
`15, 16   8:7   9:5, 21  10:4, 12   11:1, 11,
`
`12, 19   12:23   13:5,
`12   14:18, 24   16:21,
`22, 23   17:3, 7, 14,
`20   18:7
`
`Court's   7:8   9:18  12:15   15:23
`current   5:11   8:21  9:8
`Cy   4:13   16:14  17:12
`Cyrus   2:17
`
`< D >
`date   8:10   11:6  14:8, 10   16:10
`dated   7:17
`day   2:3   18:13
`days   16:9
`December   7:17
`decide   15:4
`decision   11:11  17:4, 7
`declaration   7:22
`definition   14:9
`Derek   3:2   5:18
`
`description   8:8  10:18, 20   11:6  15:17
`detail   11:8
`different   11:10  14:1
`differently   9:2
`digesting   13:24
`direction   18:12
`directly   11:3
`
`discovery   8:5
`discuss   5:4
`discussed   5:24  11:14
`discussing   5:11  8:22
`dispute   7:4   12:8  15:8
`distinction   13:18
`District   6:5, 6   7:8,
`
`9   9:18   11:19  12:23   13:5, 12  15:23   17:3, 7
`documents   7:12  13:16
`doing   7:11
`due   16:8, 10
`dug   11:19
`duplicative   11:22  12:7
`dvandenburgh@carl
`soncaspers.com   3:7
`
`< E >
`easiest   8:17
`easy   15:3
`effective   14:10
`engineering   7:20
`entered   16:23
`entire   5:1
`eve   12:11
`evidence   7:12   13:3
`exactly   8:18
`exchange   7:19
`Exhibit   7:21, 23  17:8
`exhibits   13:11, 14
`explain   11:21  12:21
`extensively   13:23
`extra   10:14
`
`< F >
`fact   11:18, 19   13:13
`facts   13:6
`fair   8:5
`family   5:1
`far   16:13
`
`file   4:19   5:1, 6, 10  6:2   8:19, 24   12:12  17:7
`
`filed   7:2, 9, 13  12:9   14:1
`files   16:11
`filing   7:1, 3   14:8,
`10   17:6
`finding   11:1
`first   6:17   14:5
`five   10:5   16:8
`five-page   6:20  15:12
`focus   9:22   15:25  16:3
`follows   4:3
`follow-up   5:24
`forecasts   7:21
`foregoing   18:8
`found   8:7
`full   13:24
`further   17:15
`
`22   17:7
`
`< G >
`gauges   9:1
`give   10:10, 13  16:17
`go   5:1, 6, 10   12:14  15:4, 11, 22   16:7,
`going   9:11, 16  13:23   15:1, 11, 16
`Good   4:5
`grant   8:18   12:16
`granted   12:19
`granting   11:23
`guess   14:17
`guys   17:6
`
`< H >
`HAND   18:21
`hands   13:24
`happen   8:20
`happy   12:20
`hear   11:25   12:21
`heard   14:4
`hearing   12:12   13:9
`HENNEPIN   18:5
`hesitate   16:5
`Honor   4:12, 23   5:8,
`
`18   6:14   7:11, 24  8:6, 17   9:4, 20  10:3, 25   11:16   13:21   16:16, 19  17:13, 18
`
`Honorable   2:12, 13,
`14
`
`< I >
`identical   7:1
`important   7:25
`included   7:20
`information   8:1, 13  11:1
`injunction   6:8  9:18   12:11, 13, 22  13:15   15:24
`Innovations   1:8  3:2   18:9
`instance   7:14
`institute   12:16
`interested   18:15
`intervening   6:5
`invention   12:24  13:3
`Invents   8:10
`IPR   6:20   8:9   9:2
`IPR2020-00127  1:10   4:6
`IPR2020-00130   1:12
`IPR2020-00131   1:13
`IPR2020-00133   1:15
`IPR2020-00134   1:16
`IPR2020-00136   1:18
`IPR2020-00138   1:19
`IPRs   5:11   7:4, 13  8:21   11:4   12:10,
`12   14:14
`irony   11:18
`issue   6:23   7:6, 16  8:4   9:3, 10, 17  10:8, 20   11:3  12:25   14:4, 6, 8, 12,
`
`14   15:3, 6, 13, 15,
`18   17:1, 4
`issued   6:7
`issues   6:21   11:2,
`20, 25   12:1   13:22
`Itou   9:15   10:5
`its   12:23, 24   13:23  16:11
`< J >
`Jon   2:14
`
`(763) 591-0535 | info@depointernational.com
`Depo International, Inc.
`
`Page 2
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1887 - Page 10
`
`

`

`Telephone Conference - 4/17/2020
`Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. vs. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.
`
`Judge   4:7   13:12  14:24
`Judges   4:8
`justification   8:14
`
`< K >
`Kaplan   2:18
`key   12:4, 5
`
`know   5:2   6:4  8:12   9:17   11:23  12:4, 7, 18   17:4  18:7
`
`known   12:8
`knows   12:18
`Kohlhepp   3:4   5:20
`Kontos   9:10
`Kontos-based   9:22  15:2
`< L >
`lack   8:8   11:6
`LaSalle   2:19
`legal   8:12
`limit   9:25   10:2  15:9
`limited   7:1, 3   9:1
`line   4:8, 11, 15  5:16, 19   13:21
`lines   6:2
`little   9:1   11:10
`LLP   2:18
`look   10:18
`looked   8:21
`looks   6:9
`low   12:20
`
`< M >
`matter   8:12   13:2  14:12   18:8, 15
`Medtronic   1:5   7:9  11:18   12:8   13:2,
`12, 17   18:8, 9
`members   15:1
`mention   16:5
`mentioned   9:8
`merited   14:15
`merits   11:25   14:6
`mind   15:24
`Minneapolis   2:20  3:6
`
`Minnesota   2:7, 20  3:6   18:3
`moment   16:18
`months   7:17
`morning   4:5   14:5
`Morton   2:17   4:12,
`13, 17, 23   5:8   6:12,
`14   9:6, 20   10:2, 9,
`
`24   13:9, 17   15:9  16:14   17:12, 13, 19
`motion   6:8
`moves   11:7
`
`< N >
`necessary   14:2
`need   13:8   14:16  15:20
`never   7:3
`new   8:13   10:25  13:11
`normally   8:20
`notably   7:16
`Notary   2:6
`noted   6:16   7:7
`notes   18:13
`notice   2:2
`noticing   18:18
`numbers   9:9
`
`< O >
`offer   8:24
`OFFICE   1:1
`Okay   10:4, 12
`once   13:8
`ones   9:9, 11
`oppose   14:5
`oral   2:3
`
`order   6:5, 7   7:8  9:18   12:15   15:24  16:25   17:1
`
`ordered   18:19
`original   6:23   18:18
`outcome   18:16
`
`Owner   1:9   3:2  5:16   6:24   7:24  8:11, 24
`
`owner's   6:25
`
`< P >
`page   10:14
`
`25   7:24   8:11, 24  11:7   12:19
`patents   14:9
`Paulraj   2:12   4:7  14:25
`pause   14:23
`Peter   3:4   5:19
`petition   8:4   16:1
`
`Petitioner   2:16  4:11, 13   6:1, 9  16:1, 11, 15   17:5, 6
`
`prior   5:4, 25   10:17   11:23   12:23   13:3
`
`pages   6:21   10:1, 3,
`6, 10   15:9
`panel   14:20   15:1
`part   17:8
`parties   6:4   8:19  13:22   18:15, 19
`party   18:18
`PATENT   1:1, 3, 9,
`11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18,
`20   3:2   5:16   6:24,
`
`Petitioners   1:6
`petitioner's   16:3
`petitions   6:18   12:2,
`16, 17   13:6, 24   15:2
`ph   16:5
`phase   8:5
`PI   7:8   17:3
`piece   8:1
`Pinahs   2:17   4:14
`PIs   12:19
`point   8:1, 6, 9   11:9  12:4   13:8, 19   14:3,
`6, 7, 16   15:20   17:2
`pointing   11:17
`points   11:14   12:5
`POPR   7:25
`POPRs   12:6   13:24  14:7
`position   6:25
`post   11:7
`practice   7:16, 18
`
`preliminary   6:7  9:18   12:11, 13, 22  13:15   15:23
`
`prepared   18:12
`presented   15:19
`prevent   12:13
`previously   7:2   10:6
`
`priority   8:10
`probably   5:9
`procedural   12:1  13:2
`PROCEEDING  1:22   2:3   4:2  11:22   12:7   17:23  18:8
`
`process   8:5
`Professional   2:4
`proof   15:6
`proposal   6:23
`provides   8:14
`Public   2:6
`purpose   5:23
`pursuant   2:2
`put   11:4   13:14
`
`< Q >
`question   7:10   8:7
`questions   16:12, 15
`quick   14:21
`quote   7:14
`
`< R >
`raise   10:15
`raised   7:9
`rapid   7:19
`rarely   12:19
`rate   18:19
`real   7:2   14:20
`really   14:13
`Realtime   2:5
`reasoning   8:2
`record   5:5   16:24  17:9, 11
`reduction   7:15, 18
`redundant   11:22
`reference   11:8   16:6
`Registered   2:4
`reinforcing   14:13
`reissue   14:9
`related   4:25   5:25  11:9   18:15
`relates   11:2
`relatively   15:3
`relevance   15:18
`relied   7:12
`rely   13:18
`replies   13:25
`
`(763) 591-0535 | info@depointernational.com
`Depo International, Inc.
`
`Page 3
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1887 - Page 11
`
`

`

`Telephone Conference - 4/17/2020
`Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. vs. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.
`
`reply   6:2, 17, 20  8:15, 16, 18   9:12,
`24   10:19, 23   11:5  15:12, 22   16:8, 11
`report   4:14   7:16
`Reporter   2:5, 6  4:15, 19, 20   16:22,
`23   18:7
`request   5:2
`requires   7:19
`reserve   8:4
`respect   9:23   15:6,
`13, 15
`respond   6:13   11:13
`rest   6:21
`right   4:16, 24   5:15,
`
`21   9:5, 19, 21  10:15   11:12   14:18  16:21   17:14, 20
`
`Roberg-Perez   2:18
`Robins   2:18
`role   4:10
`route   7:22
`RPR   1:25   18:7, 24
`RSA   1:25   18:7, 24
`rule   6:19
`
`< S >
`S.À.R.L   1:8   3:2  18:9
`sake   5:5
`SEAL   18:21
`Second   15:11
`
`secondary   6:22   7:5  8:25   9:12, 23   10:7  15:6, 14
`
`see   10:13
`seeking   9:25   10:5,
`22
`sense   5:13
`Separate   8:6   17:1
`serve   16:24
`set   5:1