`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2020-00133
`Patent RE 45,760
`______________________________
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO ADDRESS 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) AND 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners submit this Reply to address the § 314 factors set forth in Apple
`
`Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. March 20, 2020).
`
`Judge Schiltz Issues “Ready for Trial” Dates, not Actual Trial Dates: The parties’
`
`“Ready for Trial” date was originally June 1, 2021, but has already been extended
`
`to August 1, 2021.1 It is likely that this date will again be extended. Indeed, Judge
`
`Schiltz’s final “Ready for Trial” date in patent proceedings is, on average, over
`
`eight months after the original “Ready for Trial” date. Ex-1289. For example, in
`
`the QXMedical litigation, Judge Schiltz issued an April 15, 2019 “Ready for Trial”
`
`date. Ex-1290 at 9. That date was later extended, per stipulation of the parties, to
`
`November 1, 2019. Ex-1291 at 10. A trial date was finally set for February 24,
`
`2020, more than ten months after the original “Ready for Trial” date. Ex-1292 at 1.
`
`Judge Schiltz’s scheduling orders do not provide trial dates, and whatever date is
`
`finally set in this litigation, it will be long after the Board’s Final Written Decision.
`
`“Other Factors” Indicate that a § 314 denial is Inappropriate: Other than by
`
`advancing an incorrect construction of “interventional cardiology devices,”
`
`Teleflex does not dispute that the prior art discloses all claim limitations. Due to
`
`Petitioners’ strong invalidity showing, the Board should not deny under § 314.
`
`
`1 The schedule was extended after Patent Owner filed an Amended Complaint
`
`adding two additional patents. Medtronic is preparing to file IPRs for these patents.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Judge Schiltz Grants Post-Institution Stays: Judge Schiltz has granted every post-
`
`institution request to stay litigation pending reexamination or IPR. See Ex-1293.
`
`Judge Schiltz is also expecting a merits-based institution decision in these IPRs. In
`
`the co-pending QxMedical litigation—that involves the same family of patents
`
`challenged here—Judge Schiltz granted a stay pending the institution decision in
`
`this IPR after QxMedical agreed to suspend its limited sales and waive its
`
`anticipation and obviousness defenses. Ex-1294. The Judge further stated that if
`
`the Board institutes, “the Court will invite the parties to brief whether the stay
`
`should extend through the conclusion of the review process.” Id. The Judge will
`
`certainly entertain Petitioners’ motion to stay in the event of institution.
`
`The Litigation has not Significantly Progressed: An important consideration under
`
`this factor—whether Petitioner unreasonably delaying in seeking IPR—favors
`
`Medtronic. See Apple, IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 11. Indeed, Medtronic filed
`
`these IPRs roughly 4 months after the Complaint and before Patent Owner filed its
`
`infringement contentions. See id. (noting that “it is often reasonable for a petitioner
`
`to wait to file its petition until” after receiving infringement contentions).
`
`Patent Owner Asserts only a Sub-Set of the Challenged Claims: In the District
`
`Court, Patent Owner asserts only a small fraction of the Challenged Claims. Ex-
`
`1295 at 2-3.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Dated: May 19, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Cyrus A. Morton/
`Cyrus A. Morton
`Reg. No. 44,954
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`2800 LaSalle Plaza
`800 LaSalle Avenue
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on May 19,
`
`2020, a copy of PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO ADDRESS 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) AND
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5 was served in its entirety by electronic mail on Patent Owner’s
`
`counsel at the following addresses indicated in Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices:
`
`J. Derek Vandenburgh, Reg. No. 32,179
`dvandenburgh@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Dennis C. Bremer, Reg. No. 40,528
`dbremer@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`
`
`Dated: May 19, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Cyrus A. Morton/
`Cyrus A. Morton
`Reg. No. 44,954
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`2800 LaSalle Plaza
`800 LaSalle Avenue
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`4
`
`