`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00126
`IPR2020-00128
`IPR2020-00129
`IPR2020-00132
`IPR2020-00134
`IPR2020-00135
`IPR2020-00137
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ SUR-SUR-REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`ADDRESSING CONCEPTION AND REDUCTION TO PRACTICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`TELEFLEX MUST PROVE PRIOR INVENTION. ...................................... 1
`II.
`III. CONCEPTION ................................................................................................ 2
`IV. REDUCTION TO PRACTICE ....................................................................... 3
`A.
`Teleflex cannot prove that VSI assembled RX
`prototypes before Itou. .......................................................................... 3
`VSI needed to test RX prototypes, and Teleflex
`does not show that it did. ....................................................................... 6
`1.
`VSI needed to conduct particular testing to demonstrate
`that RX would work for its intended purpose. ............................ 7
`Reduction to practice requires demonstrating that the
`invention would work for its intended purpose, and
`demonstrating requires testing for all but the most
`primitive inventions. ................................................................... 9
`The Board cannot evaluate whether Teleflex’s testing
`“evidence” proves that VSI demonstrated that RX would
`work for its intended purpose. ..................................................12
`V. DILIGENCE ..................................................................................................14
`VI. TELEFLEX CANNOT PROVE PRIOR INVENTION
`OF EVERY CLAIMED INVENTION. ........................................................14
`INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE ........................................................15
`VII.
`VIII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................17
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Apator Miitors ApS v. Kamstrup A/S,
`887 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 1
`Apple v. Yu,
`IPR2019-01258, 2021 WL 41670 (PTAB Jan. 5, 2021) ...................................... 2
`Bos. Sci. Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson,
`481 F. Supp. 2d 1018 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ..............................................................10
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 1
`E. Rotorcraft Corp. v. United States,
`384 F.2d 429 (Ct. Cl. 1967) ................................................................................10
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 1
`In re Stempel,
`241 F.2d 755 (C.C.P.A. 1957) ............................................................................11
`Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc.,
`79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................... 2, 9, 10
`Mason v. Hepburn,
`13 App. D.C. 86 (D.C. Cir. 1898) .......................................................................10
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01488, Paper 87 (PTAB Nov. 29, 2018) .............................................11
`REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj,
`841 F.3d 954 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 2
`Scott v. Finney,
`34 F.3d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................... 10, 12, 13
`Slip Track Sys., Inc. v. Metal-Lite, Inc.,
`304 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ..........................................................................12
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) ..............................................................................................15
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) .............................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`iv
`
`iV
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Teleflex asks the Board to conclude that VSI reduced its GuideLiner RX
`
`inventions to practice before Itou, based on conclusory, uncorroborated statements
`
`and a record devoid of meaningful documents. Even if the VSI documents are
`
`exactly what the inventors say they are, the record cannot support the inventors’
`
`sweeping assertions that they assembled and tested RX prototypes before
`
`September 23, 2005. Teleflex cannot carry its burden.
`
`II. TELEFLEX MUST PROVE PRIOR INVENTION.
`Teleflex misstates its burden—if the Board is uncertain about the CRTP
`
`evidence, then Teleflex has not satisfied its burden. Teleflex bears “the burden of
`
`going forward with evidence…and presenting persuasive argument based on” that
`
`evidence. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015). It must “establish[] that its claimed invention is entitled to an
`
`earlier priority date than an asserted prior art reference.” In re Magnum Oil Tools
`
`Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Prior invention is “effectively an
`
`affirmative defense.” Id. Teleflex must prove that VSI invented before Itou, not
`
`Medtronic prove that VSI did not. Apator Miitors ApS v. Kamstrup A/S, 887 F.3d
`
`1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The fact that Medtronic must prove unpatentability
`
`does not change that.
`
`1
`
`
`
`III. CONCEPTION
`“Reduction to practice follows conception.” Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79
`
`F.3d 1572, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj,
`
`841 F.3d 954, 958 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patentee “must either prove (1) a conception
`
`and reduction to practice…or (2) a conception…combined with diligence.”).1
`
`Teleflex appears to abandon its original conception documents and identifies
`
`later documents instead. Under Teleflex’s new theory, one document supports
`
`conception of a complete invention: Ex-2022, dated August 1, 2005. Teleflex’s
`
`other conception documents are either unwitnessed inventor documents (thus
`
`cannot corroborate), or component-part drawings that cannot show conception of
`
`every limitation of any claimed invention. Reply, 3-7; Apple v. Yu, IPR2019-
`
`01258, 2021 WL 41670, at *19 (PTAB Jan. 5, 2021) (“We disagree with Patent
`
`Owners’ contention that the [document] does not need corroboration because it is a
`
`physical exhibit. [It] is a document that has been authenticated only by the
`
`testimony of the inventors. Thus, this document is one of the inventors’ own
`
`statements and documents that depends solely on the inventor himself and,
`
`therefore, requires corroboration.”).
`
`
`1 CRTP Response, 20 (acknowledging that cases “recite conception as an element
`
`of proof [for] actual reduction to practice”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`The sole non-inventor document supporting conception of a complete
`
`invention—Ex-2022—undermines Teleflex’s reduction-to-practice timeline. At
`
`best, Teleflex shows conception in August 2005, a mere month before Itou and
`
`after VSI’s purported prototype work in April and July. Teleflex does not connect
`
`Ex-2022 to any subsequent prototype. Teleflex has shifted from arguing early 2005
`
`conception with April/July 2005 reduction to practice to August 2005 conception
`
`with no subsequent reduction to practice. But reduction to practice necessarily
`
`follows conception.
`
`IV. REDUCTION TO PRACTICE
`Reduction to practice requires constructing an embodiment of the invention
`
`and demonstrating that the invention would work for its intended purpose. Reply,
`
`7-8. The Board does not have evidence sufficient to conclude that VSI built, much
`
`less tested, RX prototypes before Itou.
`
`A. Teleflex cannot prove that VSI assembled RX prototypes before Itou.
`Teleflex failed to adduce evidence sufficient to prove RX assembly before
`
`Itou. Even if the component parts are exactly what Root says they are—two halves
`
`of an RX prototype—Teleflex offers only uncorroborated inventor say-so to prove
`
`successful assembly.
`
`Only inventors discuss assembling the “April” and “July” components
`
`(Ex-2089 with Ex-2113 and Ex-2092 with Ex-2114). No non-inventor discusses
`
`3
`
`
`
`assembling these prototypes. Erb does not discuss these prototypes or component
`
`parts in his declaration. Ex-2122. And he could not discuss an assembled “July”
`
`prototype in any detail, even when coached. Ex-1756, 93:14-95:12 (discussing
`
`only Ex-2114).
`
`No document corroborates assembly. Zalesky testified that though it does
`
`not “make a lot of sense” that VSI did not assemble prototypes, it did not—the
`
`record contains no assembly documents. Zalesky was unequivocal:
`
`
`
`Ex-2237, 208:10-25. Just before this exchange, counsel asked whether it would “be
`
`reasonable to order specialized parts…and not attach them,” and Zalesky
`
`responded, “I said too many times that there simply is no evidence of an actual
`
`assembled prototype.” Id., 205:9-21.
`
`The component-part drawings do not require pairing/assembly as the
`
`inventors discuss. The counterbore at the proximal end of the distal tubular
`
`portions (Ex-2089, Ex-2092) does not require attachment to the hypotube portions
`
`4
`
`
`
`(Ex-2113, Ex-2114). The counterbore would have enabled attachment to a variety
`
`of parts, including a proximal tubular portion, instead of an RX pushrod. Ex-1755
`
`¶¶95, 103, 179. Indeed, OTW guide catheters may be manufactured by fusing
`
`distal and proximal tubular portions, “to enable different mechanical properties at
`
`one end versus the other.” Ex-2237, 49:19-51:18.2
`
`Indeed, other documents show that VSI had trouble assembling an RX
`
`prototype and likely did not figure it out in the tight window between receiving RX
`
`parts and Itou. Assembly “took substantial engineering and testing.” Ex-1770, 15;
`
`Reply, 22-27 (citing VSI documents showing RX did not leave proof-of-concept
`
`phase in 2005-2006 and that VSI did not have a working prototype as late as
`
`2008). Teleflex does not explain these documents in its sur-reply. Moreover,
`
`Teleflex cannot explain why laboratory notebooks—including GuideLiner lead
`
`
`2 Teleflex hand-waves the similarity between OTW concept drawings and the
`
`“RX” distal portions, suggesting that the “chronology” does not work. But the
`
`record is littered with evidence that VSI was prototyping and testing OTW
`
`throughout 2005-2006. Reply, 9-10; Ex-2118 ¶19. The late-2005 OTW concept
`
`drawing is consistent with—not contrary to—OTW prototype work before then.
`
`Experimentation using different materials/dimensions goes hand-in-hand with
`
`proof-of-concept work. Ex-2237, 173:20-174:12, 181:6-19.
`
`5
`
`
`
`engineer Kauphusman’s notebooks—logging VSI’s engineering activities in
`
`2005-2006 say nothing about assembling RX prototypes. Reply, 8-11. Teleflex
`
`asks the Board to believe that VSI accomplished successful assembly at an
`
`undisclosed time between arrival of component parts in summer 2005 and
`
`September 23, 2005, when documents suggest otherwise. Indeed, assembly was no
`
`easy task, requiring trial-and-error and comparing strength, flexibility, and
`
`breaking points for numerous options. Ex-1755 ¶73.
`
`Without evidence to corroborate assembly, Teleflex tries to argue that
`
`Zalesky concedes assembly. Sur-reply, 8. Zalesky testifies to exactly the opposite.
`
`Based on years of experience with large and small companies, Zalesky opined that
`
`VSI would at least have assembly instructions if it assembled prototypes. Ex-1755
`
`¶¶66-74, 143-45; Ex-2237, 68:23-69:11, 134:8-138:3. Zalesky does not ask for too
`
`much: he delineates between early proof-of-concept documents and the more
`
`onerous regulatory phase. Ex-2337, 63:23-64:9, 66:1-9 (reduction to practice and
`
`“regulatory requirements” “are two very different issues”). Yet no document shows
`
`whether/when/how VSI assembled RX prototypes.
`
`B. VSI needed to test RX prototypes, and Teleflex does not show that it
`did.
`Even if VSI constructed an RX prototype, VSI needed to demonstrate that it
`
`would work for its intended purpose. Teleflex—for the first time in its sur-reply—
`
`contends that VSI did not need to test prototypes. But Teleflex’s new argument
`
`6
`
`
`
`departs from its previous position,3 expert and inventor testimony, and applicable
`
`law.
`
`1.
`
`VSI needed to conduct particular testing to demonstrate that RX
`would work for its intended purpose.
`The parties agree on the RX intended purpose: to increase backup support
`
`for accessing and crossing tough occlusions. Sur-reply, 9. According to the experts
`
`(Zalesky and Keith), to test whether the RX would increase backup support for
`
`accessing and crossing tough occlusions, VSI needed to set up a benchtop model
`
`simulating challenging anatomy (curvature, restrictions simulating lesions) and run
`
`the prototype through to test whether it would navigate the anatomy, access and
`
`cross simulated lesions, and stay in one piece through retrieval. Ex-1764,
`
`64:2-67:12 (confirming that the proper simulation can test backup support,
`
`whether the tip deforms under pressure, kinking, and stent hang-up); Ex-1755
`
`¶¶233-37; Ex-2237, 28:18-29:9, 37:23-38:21. Only then would VSI have
`
`demonstrated that the prototype would work for its intended purpose.
`
`Teleflex offers no evidence that VSI performed this testing. The only
`
`benchtop model Teleflex alleges VSI even owned was, according to Zalesky, “very
`
`simple.” Ex-2237, 135:5-23.
`
`
`3 CRTP Response, 25 (“Catheter inventions are routinely determined to work using
`
`benchtop models.”).
`
`7
`
`
`
`Ex-2129, 10 (showing OTW prototype)
`
`Compare VSI’s model with those designed to simulate challenging anatomy and
`
`
`
`tough occlusions:
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Ex-1055, Fig. 2
`(demonstrating improved crossing ability)
`
`
`
`Ex-1010, Fig. 1B
`(demonstrating increased backup
`support)
`
`Reduction to practice requires demonstrating that the invention
`would work for its intended purpose, and demonstrating requires
`testing for all but the most primitive inventions.
`Without exception, reduction to practice requires demonstrating that the
`
`invention would work for its intended purpose. Only primitive inventions
`
`demonstrate that workability upon construction and use, without testing. “[S]ome
`
`inventions are so simple and their purpose and efficacy so obvious that their
`
`complete construction is sufficient to demonstrate workability.” Mahurkar, 79 F.3d
`
`at 1578. Traced to its origin, “so simple” refers to rudimentary 19th-century
`
`inventions, including “a clip made in one piece instead of two.” Mason v. Hepburn,
`
`9
`
`
`
`13 App. D.C. 86, 87 (D.C. Cir. 1898). Even there, the inventors constructed and
`
`demonstrated to reduce to practice. Demonstrating that the inventions would work
`
`for their intended purposes did not require testing because the simple inventions
`
`worked upon complete construction and use. Id. at 90-91 (attaching “perfect
`
`construction” of clip to firearm magazine demonstrated that the clip was “capable
`
`of producing the result sought to be accomplished—namely, that of closing the
`
`magazine and clipping it to the barrel”). Even there, construction alone was not
`
`enough.
`
`Demonstrating that an invention would work for its intended purpose
`
`requires testing in all but simple cases. “Reduction to practice occurs when the
`
`workability of an invention can be demonstrated….And this requires testing the
`
`invention.” E. Rotorcraft Corp. v. United States, 384 F.2d 429, 431 (Ct. Cl. 1967).
`
`“Complex inventions…require laboratory tests that accurately duplicate actual
`
`working conditions in practical use.” Scott v. Finney, 34 F.3d 1058, 1062 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994). Catheters, in particular, require testing. Mahurkar, 79 F.3d at 1578; Bos.
`
`Sci. Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1018, 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2007)
`
`(reduction to practice after patentee “submitted documentation of the successful
`
`test results of a catheter embodying the…invention”). Teleflex conceded as much
`
`in its opening brief. CRTP Response, 24-25.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Teleflex cites neither case law4 nor evidence to support its new “no testing”
`
`argument. It conflates obviousness with reduction to practice. Arguments regarding
`
`what would have been obvious to a POSITA do not relieve VSI of its obligation to
`
`demonstrate that the invention would work for its intended purpose. Inferring
`
`cannot replace demonstrating. Teleflex cannot repurpose Medtronic’s invalidity
`
`expert by misapplying his testimony, and its own witnesses undermine its “no
`
`testing” theory. Keith did not offer a “no testing” opinion. Ex-1764, 49:8-14. And
`
`Root testified that VSI needed to test the prototype to confirm that it would work
`
`for its intended purpose. Ex-1762, 99:25-102:3.
`
`
`4 Teleflex cites a non-precedential Board decision and a CCPA opinion. Sur-reply,
`
`9. Neither provides guidance regarding testing to reduce to practice. In Pfizer v.
`
`Genentech, patent owner offered “a detailed account of the construction and
`
`testing” of antibodies. IPR2017-01488, Paper 87 at 21 (PTAB Nov. 29, 2018)
`
`(emphasis added). The Board determined that patent owner did not need to show
`
`that it performed certain other tests because the claims did not require that
`
`particular characteristic. Id. at 23-24. The dispute concerned testing and the scope
`
`of intended purpose. Stempel had nothing to do with reduction-to-practice
`
`testing—it concerned antedating a species reference. 241 F.2d 755, 759 (C.C.P.A.
`
`1957).
`
`11
`
`
`
`3.
`
`The Board cannot evaluate whether Teleflex’s testing “evidence”
`proves that VSI demonstrated that RX would work for its
`intended purpose.
`The Board cannot determine that VSI demonstrated that an RX prototype
`
`would work for its intended purpose based on Teleflex’s conclusory,
`
`uncorroborated evidence. The Board judges “[t]he adequacy of
`
`a reduction to practice…by what one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude
`
`from the results of the tests.” Slip Track Sys., Inc. v. Metal-Lite, Inc., 304 F.3d
`
`1256, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The Board considers “whether the testing in fact
`
`demonstrated a solution to the problem intended to be solved by the invention.”
`
`Scott, 34 F.3d at 1063.
`
`Teleflex offers no testing evidence that the Board can evaluate. The
`
`inventors offer conclusory say-so.5 Regardless, no one corroborates them. No
`
`
`5 Root offers conclusory statements that VSI’s undated testing in non-descript
`
`benchtop models “was sufficient” and showed that the “prototypes worked.”
`
`Ex-2118 ¶¶18, 35; Ex-1762, 105:18-106:13 (testifying only “[w]e would test it in
`
`different anatomies and different angles and different vessels” and [w]e tested it in
`
`different take-offs and different simulated anatomy in the different benchtop
`
`models”), 100:18-22 (conceding “you could define [benchtop model] a lot of
`
`ways”).
`
`12
`
`
`
`non-inventor discusses testing the April or July prototypes with any specificity.
`
`Erb offers no testimony regarding testing these prototypes, and he conceded that he
`
`“was not personally involved in” purported tests “involving the delivery of stents
`
`and balloons.” Ex-2122 ¶¶11-12; Ex-1756, 71:11-73:20. Erb does not explain how
`
`any testing demonstrated that the prototype would work for its intended purpose—
`
`Erb does not even mention the intended purpose. Ex-2122 ¶13 (stating only “we
`
`knew from our early testing of prototypes of the device that it would work”).
`
`Schmalz offers less than Erb. She has no first-hand knowledge of any testing,
`
`cannot judge whether a prototype would work for its intended purpose, and can
`
`only assume that engineers outside her department tested prototypes based on an
`
`unreliable, unauthenticated document that she did not prepare. Reply, 21; Paper
`
`106/109/110/111/112 (Motion to Exclude Ex-2024). Cf. Scott, 34 F.3d at 1063
`
`(wherein the Court had the opportunity to evaluate a video showing specific testing
`
`of a prosthetic implant). The Board needs something to judge.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`Under the rule of reason, VSI did not reduce to practice before Itou. Indeed,
`
`Zalesky, a POSITA with a long history of developing interventional cardiology
`
`catheters, opined that it is not reasonable to conclude that VSI assembled and
`
`tested RX prototypes before Itou. Ex-2237, 41:13-42:17, 228:10-229:8, 232:2-16
`
`(testifying that it is not reasonable to infer that the record supports assembly and
`
`13
`
`
`
`testing, as “[i]t’s inconceivable that you wouldn’t retain at least that small minimal
`
`subset [of documents] I mentioned”).
`
`V. DILIGENCE
`Teleflex offers no rebuttal to Medtronic’s diligence arguments.
`
`VI. TELEFLEX CANNOT PROVE PRIOR INVENTION OF EVERY
`CLAIMED INVENTION.
`Teleflex needed to adduce evidence sufficient to prove prior invention of
`
`each claimed invention. Reply, 2-3. Teleflex did not argue prior invention claim-
`
`by-claim in its opening brief. And its attempt to backdoor claim-by-claim proof by
`
`arguing against Zalesky’s claim-by-claim rebuttal falls short and cannot satisfy its
`
`burden of production.
`
`Zalesky understood the claims (though he did not provide claim construction
`
`opinions) and considered Root’s arguments related to the April and July RX
`
`prototypes in light of the claims. Ex-2237, 200:2-12, 217:23-218:6. Zalesky shows
`
`how Root’s arguments do not satisfy every limitation of every claimed invention.
`
`Ex-1755, App’xs A-E. Teleflex is missing evidence that the RX prototypes met at
`
`least these claim limitations:
`
`Claims
`’032, claims 1, 11
`’380, claims 1, 12
`
`’032, claims 3, 4
`
`Missing Limitation
`“substantially rigid portion…[operably] connected
`to…flexible tip portion”
`
`“the tubular structure further comprises structure
`defining a proximal side opening” or “the side
`
`14
`
`
`
`’380, claims 3, 4, 36
`
`opening is incorporated with the proximal end of the
`reinforced portion”
`
`’776, claims 25, 52, 53
`’760, claims 25, 48, 51, 53
`
`’776, claim 48
`
`’032, claims 6, 11
`’380, claims 1, 12, 25
`’776, claim 44
`’379, claims 25, 38
`’760, claims 35, 51
`
`“a segment defining a [side opening/partially
`cylindrical opening positioned between a distal end
`of the substantially rigid segment and a proximal
`end of the tubular structure]”
`
`“the partially cylindrical opening and the tubular
`structure comprise a reinforced portion of the guide
`extension catheter”
`
`“reinforced portion proximal to the flexible distal
`tip portion” (and similar limitations)
`July prototype does not satisfy.
`Neither prototype satisfies when claiming flexible
`tip segment distinct from reinforced segment.
`
`’032, claims 8, 17
`’380, claims 8, 18, 32
`’776, claims 30, 53
`’379, claim 34
`’760, claims 25, 48, 51, 53
`
`“the cross-sectional inner diameter of the coaxial
`lumen of the [flexible distal portion/tubular
`structure] is not more than one French smaller than
`the cross-sectional inner diameter of the guide
`catheter” (and similar limitations)
`July prototype does not satisfy.
`
`
`
`Even if the Board considers Root’s claim-by-claim arguments, they cannot
`
`fill these holes in Teleflex’s record.
`
`VII. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
`Teleflex concedes that it incorporated Root’s claim-by-claim arguments by
`
`reference, in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Instead of disputing its rule
`
`violation, Teleflex argues that its case is unique and warrants its departure from
`
`the Board’s rules because it has “invested substantial resources” in its case and
`
`15
`
`
`
`wants a decision on the merits. Sur-reply, 18-20. Teleflex pleads for exceptional
`
`treatment.
`
`Teleflex never objected to the Board’s order for consolidated CRTP briefing.
`
`It never suggested that it would not be able to meet its burden in light of applicable
`
`briefing rules and orders. Indeed, the consolidated briefing schedule “made sense”
`
`to Teleflex, and they chose to prioritize arguments untethered to “the specific
`
`language of a particular claim in a particular patent.” Ex-2233, 6:3-14. Teleflex
`
`chose the issues it briefed. It chose to ignore its claim-by-claim burden.
`
`This is not the first time that Teleflex has argued for special treatment when
`
`presenting its CRTP case. It argued against equal briefing between the parties,
`
`wanting more words than Medtronic. Ex-1099/1299/1699, 8:5-10:19. It tried to
`
`obtain an advisory opinion from the Board regarding Medtronic’s incorporation by
`
`reference argument. Ex-2233, 10:9-23. In filing its sur-replies, it departed from the
`
`Board’s order consolidating briefing and submitted five different briefs in an
`
`attempt to salvage its claim-by-claim arguments. The Board should disregard the
`
`additional briefing as a violation of the word count.
`
`Teleflex’s suggestion that Medtronic’s “procedural” argument is
`
`inappropriate or late is meritless. Medtronic raised the issue in its reply to
`
`Teleflex’s infringing CRTP brief. Medtronic had no obligation to raise the issue
`
`related to Teleflex’s burden any earlier.
`
`16
`
`
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION
`Teleflex cannot prove invention before Itou.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 23, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Petitioners
`
`17
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATION
`
`I certify that Petitioners’ Sur-Sur-Reply to Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`Addressing Conception and Reduction to Practice consists of 2,800 words not
`
`including its incorporation by reference section, and 268 words in its incorporation
`
`by reference section, in 14-point Times New Roman font, as calculated by the
`
`word count feature of Microsoft Office 2016, in compliance with 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.24(a)(i). This word count is inclusive of all text and footnotes but does not
`
`include the table of contents, table of authorities, mandatory notices under § 42.8,
`
`certificate of service, certificate of word count, or appendix of exhibits or claim
`
`listing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Cyrus A. Morton/
`Cyrus A. Morton
`Reg. No. 44,954
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`2800 LaSalle Plaza
`800 LaSalle Avenue
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on February 23, 2021, a copy of PETITIONERS’ SUR-SUR-
`
`REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY ADDRESSING CONCEPTION
`
`AND REDUCTION TO PRACTICE 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
`
`Joseph W. Winkels
`jwinkels@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Peter M. Kohlhepp
`pkohlhepp@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Tara C. Norgard
`tnorgard@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Alexander S. Rinn
`pkohlhepp@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Megan E. Christner, Reg. No. 78,979
`mchristner@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Cyrus A. Morton/
`Cyrus A. Morton
`Reg. No. 44,954
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`Dated: February 23, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
