`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.À.R.L.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00134
`Patent RE 45,760
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00134
`Patent RE 45,760
`
`I. Medtronic had no obligation to address conception and reduction to
`practice in the Petition.
`Conception and reduction to practice (“CRTP”) are issues for the trial phase
`
`that Medtronic did not have to address in its Petition.1 Indeed, “Patent Owner bears
`
`the burden of proof regarding its antedating contention,” meaning the “Petitioner is
`
`entitled to respond to th[at] contention after discovery.” Mylan Pharms. Inc. v.
`
`Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms. Inc., IPR2016-01563, Paper 14 at *4 (PTAB Dec.
`
`7, 2016). As the Board has previously explained: “[i]t is premature at the
`
`institution stage to address the merits of Patent Owner’s antedating contention.”
`
`Id.; see also Pfizer Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2017-01488, Paper 27 at *15
`
`(PTAB Dec. 1, 2017). The Board routinely rejects arguments “that Petitioners were
`
`required in the Petition to foresee and prebut Patent Owner’s argument and
`
`evidence purporting to show a reduction to practice of certain subject matter.”
`
`Associated British Foods PLC v. Cornell Research Found., IPR2019-00577, Paper
`
`25 at *31 (PTAB July 25, 2019); Mylan, Paper 14 at *3-4.
`
`Medtronic should be afforded the opportunity to respond to Teleflex’s CRTP
`
`theory. In particular, Medtronic should be able to take discovery and submit expert
`
`
`1 Teleflex’s attempt to swear behind Itou is moot because the AIA applies. Pet. at
`
`14-15. The Court’s decision is relevant because it finds a substantial question on
`
`written description for the same reason argued in the Petition. Ex. 1688 at 9.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00134
`Patent RE 45,760
`
`testimony addressing the holes in Teleflex’s evidence, including on the CRTP of
`
`each limitation (something Teleflex and its expert has not done). Even more
`
`concerning, is the evidence Teleflex has withheld from these proceedings. In
`
`denying Teleflex’s motion for preliminary injunction, the District Court pointed
`
`out that “a report dated December 1, 2005—months after Teleflex’s claimed
`
`reduction to practice—states that ‘[t]he rapid exchange version requires additional
`
`engineering and is not included in our 2006 forecasts.’” Ex. 1688 at 13. Teleflex
`
`did not submit that contradictory report with its POPR. Thus, Medtronic would be
`
`prejudiced if the burden of proof were shifted and it was deprived of any
`
`opportunity to address such issues and rebut Teleflex’s arguments and evidence.
`
`Notably, Teleflex disclosed limited evidence on CRTP in the litigation
`
`before Medtronic filed its Petition. In Teleflex’s first interrogatory response from
`
`August 15, 2019, it only disclosed that “the inventors came up with the idea for
`
`what became the GuideLiner catheter product and that led to the inventions
`
`claimed in the patents-in-suit at some point in 2004 after the annual Transcatheter
`
`Cardiovascular Therapeutics conference that took place in late September of that
`
`year.” Ex. 2045 at 3-4. The response identified just three supporting attorney’s
`
`eyes only (“AEO”) documents from 2005. Id. at 4; see, e.g., Exs. 2003-2004. That
`
`disclosure was far from a complete picture of Teleflex’s theory—it did not even
`
`offer alleged dates for CRTP.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00134
`Patent RE 45,760
`
`
`Teleflex did not begin to disclose its actual positions until much later. On
`
`November 6, 2019 (less than a week before Medtronic filed its Petition) Teleflex
`
`supplemented its interrogatory response to provide its first narrative explanation,
`
`marking it AEO. In total, prior to the Petition’s filing, Teleflex only disclosed
`
`roughly 17 exhibits and its supplemental interrogatory responses in the district
`
`court litigation. Exs. 2002-2004, 2014-2015, 2017-2019, 2022-2025, 2027, 2036,
`
`2040-2041, 2043, 2045. All of the documents were designated AEO and raised
`
`more questions than they clarified on Teleflex’s CRTP position. For example,
`
`invoices for part orders do not show CRTP of any particular claim limitation. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 2027; see also Ex. 1688 at 12-13 (“[T]hese documents do little to
`
`corroborate either diligence or reduction to practice of the Rx version.”). Nor did
`
`drawings of potential catheter designs, which Teleflex did not map to each and
`
`every limitation in its responses. Ex. 2022. Moreover, several days was not
`
`sufficient time to explicate Teleflex’s arguments and then respond.
`
`Nor was Medtronic legally permitted to use any of the evidence from the
`
`district court. Teleflex saw to that by designating the documents under the
`
`Protective Order, which provides that “[a] confidential document may be used only
`
`in this action.” Ex. 1686, § 3(a). Consequently, Medtronic was prohibited by court
`
`order from using that evidence in its Petition. Nor does the Protective Order allow
`
`Medtronic’s IPR counsel any access to those materials. Id., §§ 1(a), 3(b)-(c).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00134
`Patent RE 45,760
`
`
`Further, Teleflex’s evidence and arguments continued to evolve after
`
`Medtronic filed its Petition. In its POPR, Teleflex relied on roughly 22 new
`
`exhibits that it had not produced prior to the Petition. See, e.g., Exs. 2005-2011,
`
`2013, 2016, 2020-2021, 2026, 2028-2036, 2038. This evidence is not analogous to
`
`LG Elecs., Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc., where the Board found that a draft Patent
`
`Application showed all limitations sufficient to antedate a prior art reference.
`
`IPR2018-00704, Paper 14 at 8-20 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2018). Despite the volume of
`
`Teleflex’s exhibits, in the order denying Teleflex’s motion for preliminary
`
`injunction, the District Court’s found a “lack of primary documentation that would
`
`typically be generated during the development and testing of a medical device.”
`
`Ex. 1688 at 13-14. The Court also noted “a remarkable discrepancy between the
`
`robust documentation of the development of the OTW [over-the-wire] version and
`
`the meager documentation that Teleflex has submitted to corroborate the reduction
`
`to practice of the Rx [rapid-exchange] version.” Id. at 12. These types of issues
`
`demonstrate why Petitioners should not be saddled with predicting how patent
`
`owners could potentially piece together evidence of uncertain applicability. Indeed,
`
`even Teleflex has been unable to present a cogent theory sufficient to overcome the
`
`“substantial question” of validity based on Itou in the District Court. Id. at 14.
`
`Thus, Medtronic’s Petition did not need to address and prebut Teleflex’s CRTP.
`
`1. Medtronic did not have to raise secondary considerations in its Petition.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00134
`Patent RE 45,760
`
`
`Medtronic had no obligation to address secondary considerations in the
`
`Petition. The Board has repeatedly rejected Teleflex’s arguments to the contrary.
`
`See, e.g., Lowe’s, Cos. v. Nichia Corp., IPR2017-02011, Paper 13 at *18 (PTAB
`
`Mar. 12, 2018); C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. b/e Aerospace, Inc., IPR2017-01275, Paper
`
`12 at *15 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2017); Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. W. Geco LLC,
`
`IPR2014-01477, Paper 18 at *32 (PTAB Mar. 17, 2015). Indeed, the Board
`
`rejected the same argument from Teleflex’s counsel in Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Polaris
`
`Industries Inc., IPR2017-00433, Paper 17 at *9-10 (PTAB July 5, 2017). The
`
`Board explained that “Patent Owner does not identify, nor are we aware of any
`
`persuasive authority requiring Petitioner in this case to address secondary
`
`considerations, not previously presented to the Office, in the Petition.” Id. at *10.
`
`“[T]he burden of production rests on Patent Owner with regard to secondary
`
`considerations,” and thus “full consideration of evidence of secondary
`
`considerations of this nature is not necessary” before institution. Id. at *10, *19.
`
`The Board should reach the same conclusion here. Secondary considerations
`
`have not been raised, fully developed, or adjudicated by the Patent Office or a
`
`District Court. See Exs. 1602-1603. Requiring petitioners to engage in guessing
`
`games would waste the parties’ and the Board’s resources. Under these
`
`circumstances, Medtronic’s Petition did not have to raise secondary considerations,
`
`and the Board should grant institution.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00134
`Patent RE 45,760
`
`
`Dated: April 24, 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
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00134
`Patent RE 45,760
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on April
`
`24, 2020, a copy of PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE 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: April 24, 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
`
`7
`
`