`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.A.R.L.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-0132, IPR2020-0133, IPR2020-0134
`Patent RE 45,760E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S EXPLANATION OF
`MATERIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PETITIONS AND PETITION
`RANKING FOR U.S. PATENT NO. RE 45,760E
`
`
`
`Petitioners Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. (collectively
`
`“Medtronic”) filed three separate petitions against the ’760 patent, challenging a
`
`total of only 23 claims. Further, Medtronic’s three petitions include a total of six
`
`different grounds brought against a single claim—claim 32. IPR2020-00132,
`
`Paper 1 at 8 (Grounds 2, 3, 4); IPR2020-00133, Paper 1 at 7 (Grounds 1, 2, 3).
`
`Medtronic’s strategic choice to rely on a section 102(e) reference does
`
`not justify institution of three petitions. Medtronic contends it needs three
`
`petitions because Teleflex is asserting an invention date that pre-dates the Itou
`
`reference (Ex. 1007). Paper 3 at 1-3. Teleflex did invent before the priority date
`
`of Itou. Indeed, Itou’s prior art status is at issue in the parallel district court
`
`litigation, and Medtronic was aware of substantial corroborated evidence showing
`
`Teleflex’s prior invention before it filed its Petitions. Nevertheless, Medtronic
`
`chose to rely on a § 102(e) reference and did not even try to address the issue of
`
`Teleflex’s invention date in its Petitions. Thus, this is not one of the “rare” cases
`
`in which “two petitions by a petitioner may be needed.” November 2019
`
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“TPG”) at 59. Where, as here, a Petitioner
`
`proceeds with filing petitions relying on a primary reference that it knows full-well
`
`is likely to be antedated, three petitions are not justified.
`
`The Board routinely declines to institute multiple petitions, even where there
`
`is a priority date dispute. See, e.g., Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Rovi
`
`1
`
`
`
`Guides, Inc., IPR2019-01354, Paper 10 at 6 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2020) (denying
`
`institution of two of three petitions where a potential priority dispute existed);
`
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Whitserve LLC, IPR2019-01018, Paper 13 at 8-9 (PTAB Nov. 1,
`
`2019) (denying institution of a second petition where parties disputed the priority
`
`date of multiple prior art references); Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Rovi
`
`Guides, Inc., IPR2019-00279, Paper 10 at 6-7 (PTAB July 1, 2019) (declining to
`
`institute four of five filed petitions where a potential priority dispute existed).
`
`Furthermore, the TPG explains that three or more petitions are almost never
`
`appropriate (TPG at 59). Medtronic has failed to justify why it needs not just two
`
`petitions, but three.
`
`Medtronic cites Microsoft Corp. v. IPA Techs Inc., IPR2019-00810, Paper
`
`12 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2019). See Paper 3 at 3. But Microsoft was different. First,
`
`the petitioner in Microsoft explained that the “main difference” between its
`
`petitions was that each petition challenged different claims. Id. at 12. Thus,
`
`denying one of the petitions would completely eliminate the petitioner’s
`
`opportunity to challenge those claims. Here, in contrast, Medtronic filed two
`
`petitions attacking the same claims based on different references, and a third
`
`petition challenging only four claims. Second, while Medtronic is correct that
`
`there was a potential dispute about the priority date of Microsoft’s Kiss reference,
`
`the petitioner explained that “the same analysis of the combination of Kiss/FIPA97
`
`2
`
`
`
`is the basic prior art challenge to every claim in each petition.” Id. Paper 9 at 1-2
`
`(emphasis added). Thus, if the Kiss reference was found to not qualify as prior art,
`
`all of the petitions would fail. Consequently, the petitioner’s filing of multiple
`
`petitions was clearly not intended to provide a “back-up” petition because of a
`
`potential priority issue. Medtronic’s reliance on Microsoft is inapt.
`
`Medtronic’s strategic choice to include excessive, duplicative challenges
`
`to the same claims does not justify institution of three petitions. Medtronic
`
`contends that the number and length of the claims, as well as “word count issues,”
`
`require three petitions. Paper 3 at 3-5. But the three Petitions challenge only a
`
`total of 23 claims—hardly an unusually high number. What’s more, Medtronic
`
`challenges the same claims on many duplicative grounds—far more than needed to
`
`provide “back-up” in the event the Itou reference is not prior art. For example, as
`
`explained above Medtronic challenges claim 32 of the ’760 patent on six separate
`
`grounds.
`
`
`
`Medtronic’s contention that it could not fit all arguments into a single
`
`petition, or two petitions, at most, is a problem it created itself. Rather than
`
`judiciously selecting its strongest arguments, Medtronic chose to advance
`
`excessive, cumulative challenges to the same claims based on the same references.
`
`For example:
`
` Medtronic’s Petition #1 (IPR2020-0132) challenges claim 32 on three
`
`3
`
`
`
`separate grounds: Ground 2: Itou/Ressemann; Ground 3:
`
`Itou/Kataishi; Ground 4: Itou/Enger;
`
` Medtronic’s Petition #2 (IPR2020-0133) challenges claim 32 on three
`
`separate grounds: Ground 1: Ressemann/Takahashi; Ground 2,
`
`Ressemann/Takahashi/Kataishi; Ground 3:
`
`Ressemann/Takahashi/Enger;
`
` Medtronic’s Petition #3 (IPR2020-0134) challenges claims 48, 51,
`
`and 53 on three separate grounds: Ground 1: Itou; Ground 2:
`
`Itou/Ressemann; Ground 3: Ressemann.
`
`Medtronic’s third petition challenges only four claims total, based on the same
`
`primary references, Itou and Ressemann, asserted in its first and second petitions.
`
`Medtronic’s argument that it could not have sufficiently challenged all claims in
`
`one Itou-based petition and one Ressemann-based petition strains credulity.
`
`Again, Medtronic’s reliance on Microsoft is inapposite. Microsoft
`
`concerned five petitions challenging 89 claims; here Medtronic seeks to use three
`
`petitions to challenge only 23 claims. See Microsoft, IPR2019-00810, Paper 12 at
`
`14. Medtronic’s deliberate drafting choices do not reasonably justify its choice to
`
`pursue an overly burdensome, inefficient, and unfairly duplicative attack on the
`
`’760 patent. See, e.g., Pfenex, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, IPR2019-
`
`01027, P12 at 13-14 (PTAB Nov. 13, 2019) (“[T]he mere fact that Petitioner may
`
`4
`
`
`
`have had additional art to assert, including a different statutory basis for asserting
`
`that art, does not, on these facts, justify the additional burden of a second petition
`
`directed to the same claims.”).
`
`Instituting three petitions will result in inefficiency and unfairness. As
`
`discussed above, Medtronic is aware that Teleflex intends to swear behind Itou,
`
`and parallel district court litigation addressing this issue is ongoing. Concurrent
`
`adjudication of these issues before the district court and the Board will result in
`
`duplicative work, unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs, the
`
`possibility of inconsistent decisions, and will not promote the efficient
`
`administration of the Office or the integrity of the patent system. See TPG at 56
`
`(the Director must consider “the effect of any such regulation [under this section]
`
`on the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of
`
`the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings instituted
`
`under this chapter”). For the reasons set forth in Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Responses to Petitions, the Board should deny all three petitions.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Patent Owner is filing a Preliminary Response in IPR2020-0132 concurrently
`
`herewith, and intends to file Preliminary Responses in IPR2020-0133 and
`
`IPR2020-0134 before the deadline provided in 37 C.F.R. 42.107(b).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Dated: March 10, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/J. Derek Vandenburgh/
`J. Derek Vandenburgh (Lead Counsel)
`Registration No. 32,179
`Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh
` & Lindquist, P.A.
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 436-9600
`Facsimile: (612) 436-9650
`Email:
`DVandenburgh@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the agreement of the parties, the
`
`
`
`undersigned certifies that on March 10, 2020, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner Response to Petitioner’s Explanation of Material
`
`Differences Between Petitions and Petition Ranking for U.S. Patent No. RE
`
`45,760E was served via electronic mail upon the following:
`
`Cyrus A. Morton (Reg. No. 44,954)
`Sharon Roberg-Perez (Reg. No. 69,600)
`Christopher A. Pinahs (Reg. No. 76,375)
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
`Minneapolis, MN 55401
`Phone: 349-8500
`Fax: 612-339-4181
`Email: Cmorton@robinskaplan.com
`Email: Sroberg-perez@robinskaplan.com
`Email: Cpinahs@robinskaplan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/J. Derek Vandenburgh/
`J. Derek Vandenburgh (Lead Counsel)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`