`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2020-00133
`Patent RE 45,760
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Medtronic argues for a bright-line rule that a petition need only address
`
`secondary considerations when there has been “a decision by the Patent Office,
`
`ITC, or District Court crediting that evidence.” Paper 14 at 2. No such rule exists,
`
`and the Board should decline Medtronic’s invitation to create one. As the Board’s
`
`prior decisions demonstrate, whether a petitioner must address secondary
`
`considerations in a petition is fact-specific. See, e.g., Robert Bosch Tool Corp. v.
`
`SD3, LLC, IPR2016-01753, Paper 15 at 28–30 (PTAB Mar. 22, 2017) (“In this
`
`particular case, we determine it is appropriate to review and address the objective
`
`evidence of nonobviousness proffered by the Patent Owner for purposes of this
`
`Decision [Denying Institution].”) (emphasis added). The fact that Medtronic can
`
`cite cases where, on the facts of those particular cases, the Board found that a
`
`patent owner failed to meet its burden of production concerning secondary
`
`considerations is irrelevant. Indeed, in Robert Bosch Tool Corp., the Board
`
`considered secondary considerations at the institution stage even though the ITC
`
`Initial Determination issued after the petition was filed. IPR2016-01753, Paper 15
`
`at 30 n.9. Here, Medtronic was unquestionably aware of compelling evidence of
`
`secondary considerations, and Medtronic’s failure to address that evidence in its
`
`Petition unfairly deprived the Board of relevant information needed to make an
`
`informed decision whether to institute trial.
`
`Contrary to Medtronic’s assertion that it must “cobble[] together disparate
`
`1
`
`
`
`disclosures . . . to make Teleflex’s argument for it,” (Paper 14 at 3), Medtronic was
`
`presented with clear objective evidence supporting the validity of the GuideLiner
`
`patents. For example, Medtronic complains that “[n]one of Teleflex’s identified
`
`exhibits even mention ‘secondary considerations,’” (id.), but Teleflex’s motion for
`
`preliminary injunction in the district court case—filed over a month before
`
`Medtronic filed its Petition—contained three separate sections with specific titles
`
`directed to long-felt need, commercial success and copying. Ex. 1273 at 2, 5, 9.
`
`The objective evidence was also provided in other documents that Medtronic
`
`already had, as explained in detail in the Preliminary Response. Paper 10 at 36–
`
`48; see also, e.g., Ex. 2058; Ex. 1273 at 5; Ex. 2043 (Welch Decl.), ¶¶ 4, 9–18, 34–
`
`35; Ex. 2046 (Root 2013 Decl.), ¶¶ 39, 43–45; Ex. 2059 (Interrog. Resp.); Exs.
`
`2065–2067; Ex. 2069 at 5; Ex. 1279, ¶ 18. In the parallel district court case,
`
`Medtronic even deposed a Teleflex Director of Sales well before filing its Petition,
`
`specifically questioning the witness on sales of GuideLiner. Ex. 2051. What’s
`
`more, a mere three days after filing its first Petition, Medtronic filed two
`
`declarations in the district court seeking to explain, substantively, why Teleflex’s
`
`evidence did not actually show copying. Vascular Sols. LLC v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`
`No. 19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL, Dkt. 110, ¶¶ 61–67, Dkt. 109 (D. Minn.). There is no
`
`reason Medtronic could not have done the same thing in the Petition. Medtronic’s
`
`contention that Teleflex’s evidence of secondary considerations is not developed
`
`2
`
`
`
`enough to address is just not credible.
`
`Here, not only did Teleflex meet its burden, but Medtronic’s own actions
`
`show that the burden of production was met. Medtronic was undisputedly aware
`
`of an important competitor (Boston Scientific) holding a license to the GuideLiner
`
`patents, and Medtronic itself admittedly asked for a license. Ex. 2068, ¶ 26.
`
`Medtronic sought a license to the GuideLiner patents because it was aware of the
`
`invention’s commercial success, industry praise, and satisfaction of a long-felt
`
`need. This real-world evidence confirms that Medtronic cannot credibly argue that
`
`the burden of production had not been met.
`
`Ultimately, the Board must be able to accurately evaluate the likelihood that
`
`a petitioner will prevail and whether institution is an appropriate use of the Board’s
`
`resources. Medtronic’s failure to address the substantial evidence of secondary
`
`considerations of which it was aware prevents the Board from making a fully
`
`informed decision. Where the petitioner knows the whole story, the Board should
`
`not be forced to make an institution decision based on only half of the story.
`
`Medtronic’s willful ignorance of the substantial, compelling evidence of secondary
`
`considerations unfairly handicaps the Board’s ability to make a fair institution
`
`decision.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Dated: May 1, 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
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the agreement of the parties, the
`
`
`
`undersigned certifies that on May 1, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply to Petitioner’s Reply to Preliminary Response 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 for Patent Owner)
`
`
`
`