`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2020-00134
`U.S. Patent RE 45,760
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner hereby submits its notice
`
`of objections to certain evidence that Petitioner submitted in connection with
`
`IPR2020-00134.
`
`Objections
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1405 to the extent Dr. Brecker has
`not disclosed materials considered other than those referenced in his
`declaration. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65(a) and (b).
`
`FRE 702, 703, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65:
`
`¶¶ 37, 48, 53-54, 93, 106, 109, 113-14, 117-19, 150, 163, 166-74,
`183, 185, 191, 196, 199-202, 204, 229-34, 239, 241-43, 245-46, 251-
`53, 257-58, 262, 264-69, 273-75, 279-81, 285, 291-92, 296-300 are
`not based on sufficient facts and data and do not reliably apply facts
`and data using scientific principles.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403:
`
`¶¶ 109, 150, 239, 257, 262 are not relevant; to the extent they are
`relevant, their probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing
`unfair prejudice and confusing the issues because they lack support
`for the contentions for which they are cited and improperly
`characterize the teachings of Ressemann.
`
` 112 contains irrelevant statements; to the extent such statements are
`relevant, their probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing
`unfair prejudice and confusing the issues because they lack support
`for the contentions for which they are cited and improperly
`characterize the teachings of Ressemann and Kataishi.
`
`¶¶ 113-117 are not relevant; to the extent they are relevant, their
`probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing unfair
`prejudice and confusing the issues because they lack support for the
`contentions for which they are cited and improperly characterize the
`teachings of Kataishi.
`
` ¶
`
`1
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`1605
`
`
`
` ¶
`
` ¶
`
` 118 is not relevant; to the extent it is relevant, its probative value is
`outweighed by the danger of causing unfair prejudice and confusing
`the issues because it lacks support for the contentions for which it is
`cited and improperly characterizes the teachings of Enger.
`
` 144 is not relevant; to the extent it is relevant, its probative value is
`outweighed by the danger of causing unfair prejudice and confusing
`the issues because it lacks support for the contentions for which it is
`cited and improperly characterizes the teachings of Itou.
`
` ¶
`
` 113 is not relevant; to the extent it is relevant, its probative value is
`outweighed by the danger of causing unfair prejudice and confusing
`the issues because it lacks support for the contentions for which it is
`cited and improperly characterizes the teachings of the ’760 patent.
`
`FRE 702, 703, 704:
`
`¶¶ 18, 248, 254, 258, 270, 274, 276, 282, 286-87, 297 and the heading
`of Section X and all subheadings thereunder state improper legal
`conclusions.
`35 U.S.C. § 102: The exhibit is not prior art.
`
`FRE 403: To the extent this document may be relevant, its probative
`value is outweighed by the danger of causing unfair prejudice,
`confusing the issues, causing undue delay, wasting time, or
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore the
`document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`
`2
`
`1607
`
`1611
`
`
`
`1614
`
`1616
`
`1617
`
`1621
`1622
`
`1623
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`FRE 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a printed
`publication.
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`FRE 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a printed
`publication.
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay
`
`3
`
`
`
`1624
`
`1627
`
`1631
`
`1637
`
`1641
`
`FRE 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a printed
`publication.
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`
`4
`
`
`
`1642
`
`1644
`
`1645
`
`1648
`
`1649
`
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1005 to the extent Dr. Hillstead has
`not disclosed materials considered other than those referenced in his
`declaration. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65(a) and (b).
`
`FRE 702, 703, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65:
`
`¶¶ 19, 25, 27, 29 (including footnote), 31-32, 39-42, 45-46, 60, 70-71,
`73-85, 87-88, 92, 94-95, 101, 104-106, 108-110, 112, 115, 118, 125-
`126, 128-129, 131, 136-137, 139-140, 142-143, 147, 149, 153-154,
`156, 158-162, 169 are not based on sufficient facts and data and do
`not reliably apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`
`FRE 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a printed
`publication.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`
`5
`
`
`
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`
`FRE 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a printed
`publication.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`
`6
`
`1652
`
`1656
`
`1660
`
`1663
`
`
`
`1664
`
`1666
`
`1668
`
`1669
`
`1674
`
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: In view of the Board’s Institution Decision, this
`exhibit is irrelevant and inadmissible under Rule 402. To the extent it
`is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing
`unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue delay, wasting
`time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore it is
`inadmissible under Rule 403.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`
`7
`
`
`
`1675
`1676
`
`1679
`1680
`
`1683
`
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102: The exhibit is not prior art.
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 106, 1002: This document is incomplete. This document has
`been modified.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: In view of the Board’s Institution Decision, this
`document is irrelevant and inadmissible under Rule 402. To the
`extent it may be relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing
`undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`evidence, and therefore it is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`8
`
`
`
`1684
`
`1688-
`1695
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: In view of the Board’s Institution Decision, these
`references are irrelevant and inadmissible under Rule 402. To the
`extent they are relevant, their probative value is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing
`undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`evidence, and therefore they are inadmissible under Rule 403.
`
`
`Dated: July 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
`
`9
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the agreement of the parties, the
`
`
`
`undersigned certifies that on July 10, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence 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)
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`