`
` 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