`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________________
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC. AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.À.R.L.,
`
`Patent Owner
`_____________________________
`
`Cases IPR2019-0128, IPR2019-0129, IPR2019-0130, IPR2019-0131
`U.S. Patent No. RE 45,380E
`______________________________
`
`PETITIONERS’ EXPLANATION OF MATERIAL DIFFERENCES
`BETWEEN PETITIONS AND PETITION RANKING FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. RE 45,380E
`
`
`
`Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. (“Petitioners”) filed four
`
`concurrent inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions against U.S. Pat. No. RE 45,380E
`
`(“the ’380 Patent;” Ex-1801), but the claims are split such that only two petitions
`
`challenge a given claim. The Board should consider and institute all four petitions.
`
`Two petitions per claim are necessary due to a priority date dispute. The
`
`Board’s Trial Practice Guide states that “more than one petition may be necessary”
`
`where, as here, “there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under
`
`multiple prior art references.” TPG UPDATE (July 2019) at 26. As outlined below,
`
`Petitioners filed two petitions per claim for this exact reason.
`
`Itou-Based Petitions
`Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-20, and 23 as anticipated by
`Petition 1A
`IPR2019-0128
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,736,355 (“Itou”)
`
`Ground 2: Claims 3, 14, and 15 as obvious over Itou in view of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,604,612 (“Ressemann”), and/or the knowledge
`of a POSITA
`
`Ground 3: Claim 21 as obvious over Itou and U.S. Pat. No.
`5,911,715 (“Berg”), and/or the knowledge of a POSITA
`Ground 1: Claims 25-31, 34-37, and 39 as anticipated by
`Ressemann
`
`Ground 2: Claim 27 as obvious over Ressemann and the
`knowledge of a POSITA
`
`Ground 3: Claim 27 as obvious over Ressemann in view of
`U.S. Pat. App. 2005/0015073 (“Kataishi”) and the knowledge of
`a POSITA
`
`
`Petition 1B
`IPR2019-0129
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Ground 4: Claim 27 as obvious over Ressemann in view of
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,980,486 (“Enger”) and the knowledge of a
`POSITA
`
`Ground 5: Claims 32 and 33 as obvious over Ressemann in
`view of Takahashi and the knowledge of a POSITA
`
`Ground 6: Claim 38 as obvious over Ressemann in view of
`Berg and the knowledge of a POSITA
`
`Ground 7: Claims 25-26, 28-37, and 39 as anticipated by Itou
`
`Ground 8: Claim 27 as obvious over Itou in view of Kataishi
`and the knowledge of a POSITA
`
`Ground 9: Claim 38 as obvious over Itou in view of Berg and
`the knowledge of a POSITA
`Kontos-Based Petitions
`Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 12-17, and 19-20 as obvious over
`Petition 2A
`IPR2019-0130
`U.S. Patent No. 5,439,445 (“Kontos”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub.
`2004/0010280 (“Adams”), and/or the knowledge of a POSITA
`
`
`Ground 2: Claims 8 and 18 as obvious over Kontos in view of
`Adams, Takahashi et al., New Method to Increase a Backup
`Support of a 6 French Guiding Coronary Catheter
`(“Takahashi”), and/or the knowledge of a POSITA
`
`Ground 3: Claim 21 as obvious over Kontos in view of Berg,
`and/or the knowledge of a POSITA
`Ground 1: Claims 25-26, 28-31, 34-37, and 39 as obvious over
`Kontos in view of Adams and/or the knowledge of a POSITA
`
`
`Ground 2: Claim 27 as obvious over Kontos in view of Adams,
`Kataishi, and/or the knowledge of a POSITA
`
`Ground 3: Claim 27 as obvious over Kontos in view of Adams,
`Enger, and/or the knowledge of a POSITA
`
`Ground 4: Claims 32-33 as obvious over Kontos in view of
`Takahashi, and/or the knowledge of a POSITA
`
`Petition 2B
`IPR2019-0131
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Ground 5: Claim 38 as obvious over Kontos in view of Adams,
`Berg, and/or the knowledge of a POSITA
`
`
`Petitions 1A and 1B assert Itou as a primary reference. Itou has an effective
`
`
`
`
`filing date of September 23, 2005. (Ex-1807.) But Patent Owner has alleged a
`
`conception and reduction to practice date in 2004—a date much earlier than the
`
`priority date on the face of the ’380 Patent.1 (Ex-1884; Ex-1801.) Petitioners
`
`therefore submitted another set of Petitions (Petitions 2A and 2B) that cover a
`
`similar set of claims as Petitions 1A and 1B but assert prior art references with
`
`priority dates before 2004. This second set of petitions (Petitions 2A and 2B) rely
`
`on Kontos as the primary reference. Kontos issued on August 8, 1995, and it is
`
`prior art under at least § 102(b). (Ex-1809.) Patent Owner is not able to swear
`
`behind Kontos, as it may attempt to do for Itou in Petitions 1A and 1B.
`
`
`
`The Board’s decision in Microsoft Corp. v. IPA Technologies, Inc. is
`
`instructive. IPR2019-00810, Paper 12 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2019). There, as here, the
`
`patent owner raised a priority date issue necessitating “arguments under multiple
`
`prior art references.” Id. at 15. In Microsoft Corp., the priority date dispute
`
`concerned a single prior art reference. Here, the priority dispute is more
`
`
`1 The ʼ380 Patent claims priority to U.S. Pat. No. 8,292,850, which, on its face, is
`
`entitled to a priority date of May 3, 2006. (Ex-1801.)
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`fundamental—Patent Owner has raised a priority date issue regarding the
`
`challenged patent itself. It would be manifestly unfair if the Board exercises its
`
`discretion under § 314(a) to deny Petitions 2A and 2B and post-institution Patent
`
`Owner successfully swears behind Itou. Accordingly, the Board should consider
`
`and institute Petitions 1A and 2A and Petitions 2A and 2B.
`
`
`
`Four petitions are necessary because of the length, type, and number of
`
`claims asserted by Patent Owner in district court. The ’380 Patent has 42
`
`lengthy claims. Claim 1 of the ’380 Patent, for example, consists of 359 words. In
`
`Petitions 1A and 2A, recitation of the challenged claims alone takes up over 1,400
`
`words—more than 10% of Petitioners’ allotted word count. Further, claims 25 and
`
`beyond include means-plus-function limitations requiring unique arguments.
`
`Because of these issues, Petitioners split the means-plus-function claims of the
`
`’380 Patent into Petitions 1B and 2B.
`
`Given Patent Owner’s allegations in district court, Petitioners must also
`
`challenge substantially all claims of the ’380 Patent and consider multiple potential
`
`interpretations of claim limitations. The Board’s Trial Practice Guide states that
`
`“more than one petition may be necessary” where, as here, “the patent owner has
`
`asserted a large number of claims in litigation.” TPG UPDATE (July 2019) at 26.
`
`In the district court litigation, Patent Owner has refused to identify the specific
`
`claims—or a specific number of claims—it will assert against Petitioner. (Ex-1079
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`¶ 49 (“Medtronic has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the
`
`’380 patent, including at least claims 12, 13, and 15…;” see also Ex-1083, ¶ 5d.)
`
`The Board’s decision in Microsoft Corp. is again instructive. There, as here,
`
`“word count limitations and a large number of challenged claims” supported the
`
`filing of multiple petitions. IPR2019-00810, Paper 9 at 14. In Microsoft Corp., the
`
`patent owner generally alleged infringement of “one or more claims” of the subject
`
`patent. Id. at 1 (“The complaint identified only claim 61, while generally alleging
`
`that Petitioner infringed ‘one or more claims.’”) The patent owner also opposed the
`
`streamlining of disputed issues, rejecting petitioner’s proposal to consider a set of
`
`twenty-four exemplary claims. Id. at 13.
`
`Here, too, Petitioner cannot reasonably fit its arguments into a single
`
`petition. Petitioner cannot reasonably fit both its Itou-based and Kontos-based
`
`arguments into a single petition—both of which are necessary, as outlined above—
`
`because of Patent Owner’s position regarding its alleged conception and reduction
`
`to practice date. And Patent Owner has rejected reasonable proposals to narrow the
`
`parties’ dispute (See Ex-1883 at 2 (¶ 5d).)
`
`The Board should consider and institute all four petitions. Petitioners
`
`request that the Board consider its petitions in the following order: Petition 1A
`
`(IPR2019-0128), followed by Petition 2A (IPR2019-0130) and then Petitions 1B
`
`(IPR2019-0129) and 2B (IPR2019-0131).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
`
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`
`
`Date: November 14, 2019
`800 LaSalle Ave, Suite 2800
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`612.349.8500
`
`
`
`
`/ Cyrus A. Morton /
`Cyrus A. Morton
`
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Medtronic, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that PETITIONERS’ EXPLANATION OF
`
`
`
`
`MATERIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PETITIONS AND PETITION
`
`RANKING FOR U.S. PATENT NO. RE 45,380E was served on November 14,
`
`2019, by Federal Express mail to the USPTO correspondence address of record
`
`listed below:
`
`
`
`Paul Onderick
`PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A.
`80 South 8th Street
`4800 IDS Center
`Minneapolis, MN 55402-2100
`
`Courtesy copies were also sent to the following address of record for counsel
`
`in Vascular Solutions LLC, et al. v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-01760 (D.
`
`Minn., filed July 2, 2019):
`
`CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH & LINDQUIST, P.A.
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`/ Cyrus A. Morton /
`
`Cyrus A. Morton
`Registration No. 44,954
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`cmorton@robinskaplan.com
`
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`