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
`_____________________________
`
`Case No.: IPR2020-00131
`U.S. Patent No. RE 45,380E
`______________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE 45,380E
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ...................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................... 4
`A. Real Party-in Interest ................................................................................... 4
`B. Related Matters ............................................................................................ 4
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel ........................................................................... 5
`D. Service Information ..................................................................................... 6
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ..................................... 6
`A. Grounds for Standing .................................................................................. 6
`B. Precise Relief Requested and Asserted Grounds ........................................ 6
`IV. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 7
`A. Overview of the Technology ....................................................................... 7
`B. Overview of the ’380 Patent ........................................................................ 9
`C. Prosecution History of the ’380 Patent ...................................................... 11
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 12
`V.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 13
`A. Means-Plus-Function Limitations (cl. 25)................................................. 14
`B. “concave track” (cl. 34) ............................................................................. 17
`C. “flexural modulus” (cl. 38) ........................................................................ 18
`VII. GROUND 1: KONTOS RENDERS CLAIMS 25-26, 28-31, 34-37,
`and 39 OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF ADAMS AND/OR THE Knowledge
`of a POSITA. .................................................................................................. 19
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`
`A. Kontos ........................................................................................................ 19
`B. Adams ........................................................................................................ 22
`C. Claim 25 .................................................................................................... 25
`1.
`[25.p] “A system comprising:” .......................................................... 25
`2.
`[25.a] .................................................................................................. 25
`3.
`[25.b] .................................................................................................. 29
`4.
`[25.c.i] ................................................................................................ 30
`5.
`[25.c.ii] ............................................................................................... 42
`6.
`[25.d] .................................................................................................. 46
`7.
`[25.e] .................................................................................................. 46
`D. Claim 26 .................................................................................................... 47
`E. Claims 28-30 .............................................................................................. 48
`F. Claim 31 .................................................................................................... 50
`G. Claim 34: ................................................................................................... 50
`H. Claim 35-36 ............................................................................................... 51
`I. Claim 37 .................................................................................................... 52
`J. Claim 39 .................................................................................................... 53
`VIII. GROUND 2: KONTOS RENDERS CLAIM 27 OBVIOUS IN VIEW
`OF ADAMS, KATAISHI, AND/OR THE KNOWLEDGE OF A
`POSITA. ......................................................................................................... 55
`A. Kataishi ...................................................................................................... 55
`B. Claim 27 .................................................................................................... 57
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`IX. GROUND 3: KONTOS RENDERS CLAIM 27 OBVIOUS IN VIEW
`OF ADAMS, ENGER, AND/OR THE KNOWLEDGE OF A
`POSITA. ......................................................................................................... 60
`A. Enger .......................................................................................................... 60
`B. Claim 27 .................................................................................................... 62
`X. GROUND 4: KONTOS RENDERS CLAIMS 32 AND 33 OBVIOUS
`IN VIEW OF ADAMS, TAKAHASHI, AND/OR THE
`KNOWLEDGE OF A POSITA. .................................................................... 65
`A. Takahashi ................................................................................................... 65
`B. Claim 32 .................................................................................................... 66
`C. Claim 33 .................................................................................................... 68
`XI. GROUND 5: KONTOS RENDERS CLAIM 38 OBVIOUS IN VIEW
`OF ADAMS, BERG, AND/OR THE KNOWLEDGE OF A POSITA. ........ 68
`A. Berg............................................................................................................ 68
`B. Claim 38 .................................................................................................... 69
`XII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ............... 71
`XIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Boston Scientific Corp. v. Vascular Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00762, IPR2014-00763 (P.T.A.B., terminated, Aug. 11,
`2014) ..................................................................................................................... 5
`In re Aoyama,
`656 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 14
`In re Harris,
`409 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 69
`KSR Int’l co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 28, 39
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing LLC,
`IPR2015-00483, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. July 15, 2015) .......................................... 23
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 12
`Shenzhen Zhiyi Tech Co. v. iRobot Corp.,
`IPR2017-02137, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2018) ............................................. 22
`Synaptic Medical Inc. v. Karl Storz-Endoscopy-America, Inc.,
`IPR2018-00462, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. July 16, 2018) ............................................ 23
`TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`514 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 14, 16
`Zip-Top LLC v. Stasher, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01216, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2019) .......................................... 22
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 ................................................................................................. 14
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ...........................................................................22, 23, 60, 64, 67
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`1801 U.S. Patent No. RE45,380 (“the ’380 patent”)
`1802
`File history for U.S. Patent No. 8,292,850
`1803
`File history for U.S. Patent No. RE45,380
`1804 Assignment record of the ’380 patent from the USPTO assignment
`database
`1805 Declaration of Doctor Stephen JD Brecker, M.D.
`1806
`Curriculum Vitae of Doctor Stephen JD Brecker, M.D.
`1807 U.S. Patent No. 7,736,355 (“Itou”)
`1808 U.S. Patent No. 7,604,614 (“Ressemann”)
`1809 U.S. Patent No. 5,439,445 (“Kontos”)
`1810
`New Method to Increase a Backup Support of a 6 French Guiding
`Coronary Catheter, Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
`63: 452-456 (2004) (“Takahashi”)
`Excerpt of prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 8,048,032
`(Application 11/416,629) (Amendment and Response, April 6, 2009)
`Joint Claim Construction Statement in QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular
`Solutions, Inc., D. Minn., No. 17-cv-01969 (January 10, 2018), D.I.
`36; D.I. 36-1.
`1813 Markman Order in QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions, Inc., D.
`Minn., No. 17-cv-01969 (October 30, 2018), D.I. 102
`1814 Meads, C., et al., Coronary artery stents in the treatment of ischaemic
`heart disease: a rapid and systematic review, Health Technology
`Assessment 2000 4(23) (“Meads”)
`Excerpt from Grossman’s Cardiac Catheterization, Angiography, and
`Intervention (6th edition) (2000) (chapters 1, 4, 11, 23-25).
`1816 US Patent Publication 2003/0233117 (“Adams ’117”)
`1817 U.S. Patent No. 5,902,290 (“Peacock”)
`
`1811
`
`1812
`
`1815
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`
`1821
`
`1824
`
`Exhibit Description
`1818 U.S. Patent No. 5,891,056 (“Ramzipoor”)
`1819 U.S. Patent No. 6,398,773 (“Bagaoisan”)
`1820 Mehan, Coronary Angioplasty through 4 French Diagnostic
`Catheters, Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 30:22-26
`(1993) (“Mehan”)
`Excerpt of prosecution history for application 11/232,876 (Office
`Action, 6/20/09)
`Cordis, Instructions for Use, CYPHER™ (April 2003)
`1822
`1823 Medtronic, Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data, Driver™
`Coronary Stent System (October 1, 2003)
`Boston Scientific, Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data,
`TAXUS™ Express2™ Drug-Eluting Coronary Stent System (March
`4, 2004)
`1825 U.S. Publication Application No. 2005/0015073 (“Kataishi”)
`1826 U.S. Patent No. 5,489,278 (“Abrahamson”)
`1827 U.S. Patent No. RE45,776 (“Root”)
`1828
`Baim, Randomized Trial of a Distal Embolic Protection Device
`During Percutaneous Intervention of Saphenous Vein Aorto-
`Coronary Bypass Grafts, Circulation 105:1485-1490 (2002) (“Baim”)
`Limbruno, Mechanical Prevention of Distal Embolization During
`Primary Angioplasty, Circulation 108:171-176 (2003) (“Limbruno”)
`1830 U.S. Patent No. 5,413,560 (“Solar ’560”)
`1831
`Schöbel, Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Using a New 5
`French Guiding Catheter: Results of a Prospective Study,
`Catheterization & Cardiovascular Interventions 53:308-314 (2001)
`(“Schöbel”)
`The sliding rail system (monorail): description of a new technique for
`intravascular instrumentation and its application to coronary
`angioplasty, Z. Kardio. 76:Supp. 6, 119-142 (1987) (“Bonzel”)
`
`1829
`
`1832
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`
`1840
`
`Exhibit Description
`1833 U.S. Publication Application No. 2004/0236215 (Mihara)
`1834 U.S. Patent No. 5,527,292 (“Adams ’292”)
`1835 U.S. Publication Application No. 2004/0010280 (“Adams ’280”)
`1836 Williams et al., Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Current
`Era Compared with 1985-1986, Circulation (2000) 102:2945-2951.
`1837 Dorros, G., et al., Coronary Angioplasty in Patients with Prior
`Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery, Cardiology Clinics 7(4): 791-803
`(1989)
`1838 Ozaki et al, New Stent Technologies, Progress in Cardiovascular
`Disease 2:149-140 (1996)
`1839 Urban et al., Coronary stenting through 6 French Guiding Catheters,
`Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis (1993) 28:263-266
`Excerpt of McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical
`Terms (5th edition) (1994) (defining “flexural modulus”)
`Excerpt from Kern’s The Interventional Cardiac Catheterization
`Handbook (2nd edition) (2004) (chapter 1)).
`1842 Declaration of Dr. Richard A. Hillstead, Ph.D.
`1843
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Richard A. Hillstead, Ph.D.
`1844 U.S. Patent No. 5,961,510 (“Fugoso”)
`1845 U.S. Patent No. 6,199,262 (“Martin”)
`1846 U.S. Patent No. 6,042,578 (“Dinh”)
`1847 WO 97/37713 (“Truckai”)
`1848
`Terumo Heartrail II product literature
`1849 Medtronic Launcher product literature
`1850 U.S. Patent No. 5,980,486 (“Enger”)
`1851 U.S. Patent No. 5,911,715 (“Berg”)
`1852 U.S. Patent No. 5,545,149 (“Brin”)
`
`1841
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`1853 U.S. Patent No. 5,720,300 (“Fagan”)
`1854 U.S. Patent No. 5,140,323 (“Shockey”)
`1855
`Sakurada, Improved Performance of a New Thrombus Aspiration
`Catheter: Outcomes From In Vitro Experiments and a
`Case Presentation (“Sakurada”)
`1856 Nordenstrom, New Instruments for Catheterization and
`Angiocardiography (“Nordenstrom”)
`1857 U.S. Patent No. 5,445,625 (“Voda”)
`1858 U.S. Patent No. 6,595,952 (“Forsberg”)
`1859 U.S. Patent No. 6,860,876 (“Chen”)
`1860 U.S. Patent No. 6,638,268 (“Niazi”)
`1861 U.S. Patent No. 5,690,613 (“Verbeek”)
`1862
`lserson, J.-F.-B. Charrière: The Man Behind the “French” Gauge,
`The Journal of Emergency Medicine. Vol. 5 pp 545-548 (1987)
`1863 U.S. Publication Application No. 2003/0195546 (“Solar ’546”)
`1864 QXMédical, LLC’s Opening Claim Construction
`Memorandum QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions, Inc., D. Minn.,
`No. 17-cv-01969 (March 14, 2018), D.I. 56
`1865 U.S. Patent No. 4,000,739 (“Stevens”)
`1866
`EP 0 881 921 B1 (“Lee”)
`1867 U.S. Patent No. 5,451,209 (“Ainsworth”)
`1868 Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Summary
`Judgment Motion and in Support of Defendants’ Summary Judgment
`Motion, QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions LLC et al., 17-cv-
`01969-PJS-TNL (D. Minn 2019)
`Excerpt of prosecution history for application 14/195,435 (Office
`Action, 10/06/15)
`1870 Metz, Comparison of 6f with 7f and 8f guiding catheters for elective
`coronary angioplasty: Results of a prospective, multicenter,
`
`1869
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`
`1871
`
`Exhibit Description
`randomized trial, American Heart Journal. Vol. 134, Number 1, pp
`132-137 (“Metz”)
`Feldman, Coronary Angioplasty Using New 6 French Guiding
`Catheters, Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis 23:93-99
`(1991) (“Feldman”)
`1872 U.S. Patent No. 5,704,926 (“Sutton”)
`1873
`Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary
`Injunction, Vascular Solutions LLC et al. v. Medtronic, Inc., 19:cv-
`01760-PJS-TNL
`1874 Yokoyama, Feasibility and safety of thrombectomy with TVAC
`aspiration catheter system for patients with acute myocardial
`infarction, Heart Vessels (2006) 21:1–7 (“Yokoyama”)
`Excerpt from Plaintiff’s infringement allegations in Vascular
`Solutions, LLC. v. Medtronic, Inc., D. Minn., No. 19-cv-01760
`(October 11, 2019), D.I. 1-14.
`1876 U.S. Patent No. 5,860,963 (“Azam”)
`1877
`10/16/2019 Deposition of Peter Keith in Vascular Solutions, LLC. v.
`Medtronic, Inc., D. Minn., No. 19-cv-01760
`Sylvia Hall-Ellis’s Librarian Declaration
`Complaint in Vascular Solutions, LLC. v. Medtronic, Inc., D. Minn.,
`No. 19-cv-01760 (October 11, 2019), D.I. 1-14.
`1880 U.S. Patent No. 5,061,273 (“Yock”)
`1881
`Intentionally Left Blank
`1882 Declaration of Peter Keith in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for
`Preliminary Injunction, Vascular Solutions LLC et al. v. Medtronic,
`Inc., 19:cv-01760-PJS-TNL (July 14, 2019)
`Joint Fed. R. C. P. 26(f) Report [Excerpt], Vascular Solutions LLC et
`al. v. Medtronic, Inc., 19:cv-01760-PJS-TNL
`
`1875
`
`1878
`1879
`
`1883
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`1884
`Plaintiffs’ Objections and Responses to Interrogatories [Excerpt],
`Vascular Solutions LLC et al. v. Medtronic, Inc., 19:cv-01760-PJS-
`TNL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. (“Petitioner”) request inter
`
`partes review (“IPR”) of claims 25-39 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`RE 45,380 (“the ’380 patent,” Ex-1801). The ʼ380 patent is entitled Coaxial Guide
`
`Catheter for Interventional Cardiology Procedures and lists Howard Root et al. as
`
`inventors. Id., [54], [72]. The Challenged Claims were never subject to an Office
`
`Action, meaning there is no substantive file history for the ʼ380 patent.
`
`The ’380 patent describes a catheter system that reduces the likelihood of a
`
`guide catheter dislodging from the ostium of a coronary artery during the removal
`
`of a coronary stenosis. The purported invention requires a guide catheter (“GC”)
`
`and a guide extension catheter.1 The latter is inserted into and extended beyond the
`
`distal end of the GC (i.e., into a coronary branch artery). Id., Abstract, Figs. 8-9. In
`
`so doing, the guide extension catheter delivers “backup support by providing the
`
`ability to effectively create deep seating in the ostium of the coronary artery,”
`
`
`1 The ’380 patent refers to the guide extension catheter as a “coaxial guide
`
`catheter.” Ex-1805, ¶¶ 71 n.7, 118. A POSITA knew that the “coaxial guide
`
`catheter” of the ’380 patent was commonly understood as a guide extension
`
`catheter because it extends the guide catheter further into the coronary artery. Id.;
`
`see also Ex-1809, 5:49-52 (referring to body 12 “as a guide catheter extension”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`thereby preventing the GC from dislodging from the ostium. Id., 3:1-5.
`
`The ’380 patent admits that the use of a guide extension catheter inside an
`
`outer guide catheter was known. Id., 2:40-56 (describing the use of a “smaller
`
`guide catheter within a larger guide catheter”). Indeed, such a catheter-in-a-catheter
`
`assembly was well-known in the art and described as a “mother-and-child
`
`assembly.” Ex-1805, ¶¶ 70-80. The child catheter (red in below figure) (i.e., the
`
`guide extension catheter) is essentially a tube that is inserted into and extends
`
`beyond the GC (blue in below figure) (i.e., the mother catheter) into the coronary
`
`artery. Id., ¶ 70.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`Ex-1854, Fig. 2 (color and labels added).
`
`The child catheter in the mother-and-child assembly had a continuous lumen
`
`that was longer than the lumen of the guide (“mother”) catheter. Id. The ’380
`
`patent alleges that such a design had certain drawbacks (Ex-1801, 2:57-67; Ex-
`
`1805, ¶¶ 81-89) and modifies the child catheter (of the mother-and-child assembly)
`
`to have two parts: (i) a long thin pushrod (ii) coupled to a short distal lumen (i.e.,
`
`tube) that is highly flexible so it can extend deep into the coronary artery.
`
`
`
`Ex-1801, Fig. 1 (annotations and color added).
`
`But such child catheters that served as guide extension catheters and had a
`
`short lumen connected to a long thin pushrod were already well-known in the art,
`
`as evidenced by U.S. Patent No. 5,439,445 (“Kontos”), which issued more than ten
`
`years before the earliest purported priority date of the ʼ380 patent.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`
`
`
`Ex-1808, Fig. 6B (annotations and color added).
`
`For the reasons set forth herein, there is more than a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the Challenged Claims of the ’380 patent are unpatentable. Accordingly,
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests institution of a trial and cancellation/invalidation of
`
`the Challenged Claims.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`
`A. Real Party-in Interest
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner identifies Medtronic, Inc. and
`
`Medtronic Vascular, Inc. as real parties-in-interest. Medtronic plc is the ultimate
`
`parent of both entities.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner identifies that the ’380 patent
`
`is currently the subject of litigation in two separate actions in the U.S. District
`
`Court for the District of Minnesota: (i) Vascular Solutions LLC, et al. v. Medtronic,
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-01760 (D. Minn., filed July 2, 2019); and (ii) QXMedical,
`
`LLC v. Vascular Solutions, LLC, No. 17-cv-01969 (D. Minn., filed June 8, 2017)
`
`(“QXMedical Litigation”).
`
`Further, the ’380 patent is a reissue of U.S. Pat. No. 8,292,850 (“the ʼ850
`
`patent”). The ʼ850 patent was previously the subject of litigation (i) in the U.S.
`
`District Court for the District of Minnesota in Vascular Solutions, Inc. v. Boston
`
`Scientific Corp., No. 13-cv-01172 (D. Minn., filed May 16, 2013), and (ii) at the
`
`PTAB in Boston Scientific Corp. v. Vascular Solutions, Inc., IPR2014-00762,
`
`IPR2014-00763 (P.T.A.B., terminated, Aug. 11, 2014).
`
` Petitioner is also concurrently filing another petition for IPR challenging the
`
`ʼ380 patent based on prior art references having different priority dates and
`
`disclosures than the references discussed herein, or challenging different claims.
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), Petitioner identifies the following
`
`counsel of record:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Cyrus A. Morton (Reg. No. 44,954)
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
`Minneapolis, MN 55401
`Phone: 612.349.8500
`Fax: 612.339.4181
`Email: Cmorton@RobinsKaplan.com
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Sharon Roberg-Perez (Reg. No. 69,600)
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
`Minneapolis, MN 55401
`Phone: 612.349.8500
`Fax: 612.339.4181
`Email: Sroberg-
`perez@robinskaplan.com
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`
`
`
`Additional Back-Up Counsel
`Christopher A. Pinahs (Reg. No.
`76,375)
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
`Minneapolis, MN 55401
`Phone: 612.349.8500
`Fax: 612.339.4181
`Email: Cpinahs@RobinsKaplan.com
`
`Service Information
`D.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), please direct all correspondence to lead
`
`and back-up counsel at the above addresses. Petitioner consents to electronic
`
`service at the above-identified email addresses.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`A. Grounds for Standing
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104, Petitioner certifies that the ’380 patent is
`
`available for IPR and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting such
`
`review.
`
`Precise Relief Requested and Asserted Grounds
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests review of claims 25-39 of the ʼ380 patent
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`and cancellation of these claims as unpatentable in view of the following grounds:2
`
`
`
`
`
`No.
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Grounds
`Claims 25-26 and 28-31, 34-37, 39 are rendered obvious by Kontos in
`view of Adams and/or the knowledge of a POSITA.
`Claim 27 is rendered obvious by Kontos in view of Adams, Kataishi,
`and/or the knowledge of a POSITA.
`Claim 27 is rendered obvious by Kontos in view of Adams, Enger,
`and/or the knowledge of a POSITA.
`Claims 32-33 are rendered obvious by Kontos in view of Adams,
`Takahashi, and/or the knowledge of a POSITA.
`Claim 38 is rendered obvious by Kontos in view of Adams, Berg,
`and/or the knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`
`IV. BACKGROUND
`A. Overview of the Technology
`Coronary artery disease (“CAD”) occurs when plaque buildup narrows the
`
`arterial lumen. Ex-1805, ¶¶ 28, 30-32. This narrowing, sometimes called a stenosis,
`
`restricts blood flow and increases the risk of heart attack or stroke. Id. In response,
`
`
`2 This petition is also supported by the Declarations of Stephen JD Brecker, MD
`
`(Ex-1805), and Richard A. Hillstead, PhD (Ex-1842), as experts in the field of the
`
`’380 patent. Petitioner also submits the declaration of Sylvia S. Hall-Ellis, PhD
`
`(Ex-1878) to support the authenticity and public availability of the documents cited
`
`herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`physicians developed percutaneous coronary interventional (“PCI”) procedures
`
`that use catheter-based technologies inserted through the femoral or radial artery,
`
`and thus can treat CAD without the need for open-heart surgery. Id., ¶¶ 29, 34-40.
`
`PCI was developed more than forty years ago, and although its catheter-
`
`based technology has advanced, the basic components of PCI have remained
`
`largely unchanged. Id., ¶¶ 33, 41. During PCI, after a physician uses a hollow
`
`needle to gain access to the patient’s vasculature, a guide catheter is introduced and
`
`advanced along the vasculature until its distal end is placed—by a few
`
`millimeters—in the ostium of a coronary artery. Id., ¶¶ 34, 42-55. A hemostatic
`
`valve is placed at the proximal end of the guide catheter and remains outside the
`
`patient’s body. Id., ¶¶ 35, 54. The hemostatic valve prevents blood from exiting the
`
`patient’s artery and keeps air from entering the bloodstream. Id.
`
`Another small diameter flexible guidewire can then be threaded through the
`
`lumen of the guide catheter to the target site. Id., ¶¶ 56-58. This guidewire serves
`
`as a guiderail to advance a therapeutic catheter through the guide catheter and to
`
`the occlusion. Id. The therapeutic catheter typically must then be passed through
`
`and beyond the occlusion in order to alleviate the stenosis. Id., ¶¶ 59-67. This last
`
`step—crossing the therapeutic catheter past the occlusion—creates backward force
`
`that can dislodge the guide catheter from the ostium. Id., ¶¶ 66-67. As discussed
`
`above, one way to ameliorate this backward force is to use a mother-and-child
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`catheter assembly where the child catheter acts as an extension of the guide
`
`catheter into the coronary artery. Id., ¶¶ 68-80.
`
`B. Overview of the ’380 Patent
`The ’380 patent relates “generally to catheters used in interventional
`
`
`
`cardiology procedures.” Ex-1801, 1:30-35. In particular, the ʼ380 patent discloses a
`
`coaxial guide catheter (also known as an extension catheter) that extends “beyond
`
`the distal end of the guide catheter, and … into [a] branch artery.” Id., Abstract.
`
`The catheter assembly purports to have the benefit of a mother-and-child
`
`assembly—it “assists in resisting both the axial forces and the shearing forces that
`
`tend to dislodge a guide catheter from the ostium of a branch artery.” Id., 5:23-27;
`
`Ex-1805, ¶¶ 118-19.
`
`
`
`The ’380 patent explains that the guide extension catheter 12 has a tubular
`
`portion that includes a flexible distal tip 16 (pink) and a reinforced portion 18
`
`(blue), as well as rigid portion 20 (yellow). Id., 3:51-53, 6:34-36, Fig. 1. Color has
`
`been added to Figure 1, below, which has been annotated with the language of
`
`claim 25. Ex-1805, ¶ 120.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`
`
`
`Ex-1801, Fig. 1 (annotations and color added).
`
`
`The patent also addresses structural characteristics of the transition at or near
`
`the extension catheter’s reinforced and rigid portions, sometimes referred to as a
`
`“side opening,” (red circle), which may have an “inclined slope.” Id., 6:62-7:11,
`
`Figs. 4, 13-16; Ex-1805, ¶ 121.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex-1801, Fig 4 (annotations and color added).
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`
`
`As shown below, the ’380 patent describes that guide extension catheter 12
`
`is deployed through guide catheter 56 (no color). A guidewire 64 and balloon
`
`(green) extend from the distal tip (pink) of the extension catheter. Moving distally
`
`to proximally, the extension catheter’s distal tip (pink) and a reinforced portion
`
`(blue) extend out of the distal tip of guide catheter 56. Ex-1805, ¶ 122.
`
`
`
`Ex-1801, Fig. 9 (color added).
`
`
`
`Prosecution History of the ’380 Patent
`C.
`The parent ʼ850 patent issued without an Office Action. See generally Ex-
`
`
`
`1802. According to the Examiner, the claims of the ʼ850 patent were allowable
`
`because “adding a guide catheter to the claimed rail structure with the claimed
`
`flexible tip that is insertable through a hemostatic valve is not taught or suggested
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`by the prior art.” Ex-1802 at 83 (Notice of Allowance at 3). In other words, he
`
`believed that a mother-and-child assembly—where the child catheter is
`
`characterized by a short distal lumen coupled to a proximally located pushrod—
`
`was not described in the art. The Examiner, however, was not aware of Kontos.
`
`Patent Owner sought reissuance in 2013, and as with the original prosecution, the
`
`claims of the ’380 patent issued without an Office Action. See generally Ex-1803.
`
`V. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`
`
`If a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) was a medical doctor,
`
`s/he would have had (a) a medical degree, (b) completed a coronary intervention
`
`training program, and (c) experience working as an interventional cardiologist.
`
`Alternatively, if a POSITA was an engineer s/he would have had (a) an
`
`undergraduate degree in engineering, such as mechanical or biomedical
`
`engineering; and (b) at least three years of experience designing medical devices,
`
`including catheters or catheter-deployable devices. Extensive experience and
`
`technical training might substitute for education, and advanced degrees might
`
`substitute for experience. Additionally, a POSITA with a medical degree may have
`
`access to a POSITA with an engineering degree, and a POSITA with an
`
`engineering degree may have access to one with a medical degree. Ex-1805, ¶ 27;
`
`Ex-1842, ¶¶ 18-19.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Claim terms are typically given their ordinary and customary meanings, as
`
`would have been understood by a POSITA at the time of the invention, having
`
`taken into consideration the language of the claims, the specification, and the
`
`prosecution history of record. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-16
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`When, as here, claim terms have been construed by a district court, those
`
`constructions are properly considered during an IPR. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In the
`
`QXMedical Litigation, Patent Owner stipulated to the following constructions:
`
`• “reinforced portion”: “portion made stronger by additional material or
`
`support” (Ex-1812 at 2)
`
`• “interventional cardiology device(s)”: “devices including, but not limited
`
`to, guidewires, balloon catheters, stents, and stent catheters” (Compare
`
`Ex-1812 at 21 (Dkt. 36-1) (Patent Owner construction), with Ex-1854 at
`
`1 n.1 (agreeing to Patent Owner’s construction))
`
`Further, Patent Owner advanced,3 and the district court adopted, the following
`
`construction:
`
`
`3 The full list of constructions advanced by Patent Owner in the QXMedical
`
`Litigation” are found at Ex-1812 (Dkt. 36-1).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00131
`Patent RE 45,380E
`
`
`• “substantially rigid”: “rigid enough to allow the device to be advanced
`
`within the guide catheter” (Ex-1812 at 2 (Dkt. 36-1); Ex-1813, at 15)
`
`Additionally, the district court provided the following constructions:
`
`• “side opening”: “need no construction and will be given [its] plain and
`
`ordinary meaning” (Id., 26)
`
`• “lumen”: “the cavity of a tube” (Id., 25)
`
`Petitioner agrees with the above constructions for purposes of this IPR4 (Ex-1805,
`
`¶¶ 123-28) and proposes the following additional constructions:
`
`A. Means-Plus-Function Limitations (cl. 25)
`Claim 25, and its dependents, recite various terms that use the phrase
`
`“means for,” which presumptively invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. TriMed, Inc. v.
`
`Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2008). For “means” claims, a
`
`tribunal will first determine what the claimed function is and then determine the
`
`corresponding structures disclosed in the specification that perform that function.
`
`In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1296-1297 (Fed. Cir. 2011). But when a “claim
`
`recites sufficient structure for performing the described functions in their entirety,
`
`the presumption of § 112, ¶ 6 is overcome—the limitation is not a means-plus
`
`
`4 Petitioner proposes these const