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
`Patent RE 45,760
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`Patent RE 45,760
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
` Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2024 Is the August 24, 2005 Product Requirements Document
`Supporting that GuideLiner Rapid Exchange Had Been Tested and Shown to
`Work for its Intended Purpose by At Least That Date .................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`Exhibit 2024 Is Authenticated Under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 ............. 3
`
`III. Exhibit 2024 Is Admissible Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) ........... 10
`
`IV. The Authority Relied on by Petitioner Is Unhelpful and Distinguishable .... 10
`
`V.
`
`Petitioner’s Objections Should Also Be Overruled for Failure to Satisfy Rule
`42.64(b) ......................................................................................................... 13
`
`VI. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHRORITES
`
`
`Cases
`
`Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Veveo, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00237, Paper 59 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2020) .................................................... 9
`
`Conoco Inc. v. Department of Energy,
`99 F.3d 387 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ...................................................................................... 9
`
`Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. F’Real Foods, LLC,
`IPR2016-01107, Paper 40 (PTAB Dec. 19, 2017) .................................................. 10
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC,
`IPR2019-00929, Paper 53 (PTAB Sept. 21, 2020) ........................................... 10, 11
`
`Lexington Ins. Co. v. Western Pa. Hosp.,
`423 F.3d 318 (3d Cir. 2005) ....................................................................................... 4
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Micrel, Inc.,
`275 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................ 11
`
`Riverbed Tech. Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC,
`IPR2016-00978, Paper 67 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2017) ................................................... 12
`
`Schroeder v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc.,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17830 (D. Nev. Feb. 11, 2014) .......................................... 13
`
`Tremont LLC v. Halliburton Energy Servs.,
`696 F. Supp. 2d 741 (S.D. Tex. March 11, 2010) ..................................................... 3
`
`United States v. Dhinsa,
`243 F.3d 635 (2d Cir. 2001) ....................................................................................... 3
`
`United States v. Ruggiero,
`928 F.2d 1289 (2d Cir. 1991) ..................................................................................... 3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) ............................................................................................ 14
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) ................................................................................................. 10
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1) ..................................................................................... 4, 6, 8
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibit 2024 (Paper 111 (“MTE”)) should be
`
`denied. The motion attempts to exclude a highly relevant, potentially case-
`
`dispositive business document on inconsequential grounds that, at best, could go to
`
`the weight of the evidence. No authority cited by Petitioner gives grounds to
`
`exclude Exhibit 2024. Substantial testimony and surrounding evidence support the
`
`authenticity of this regularly kept business record. From beginning to end,
`
`Petitioner’s motion falls flat on exclusion and instead, only further exposes that
`
`Petitioner simply cannot overcome Patent Owner’s overwhelming evidence that
`
`the GuideLiner patents were conceived and reduced to practice before Itou’s
`
`priority date.
`
`I.
`
`Exhibit 2024 Is the August 24, 2005 Product Requirements Document
`Supporting that GuideLiner Rapid Exchange Had Been Tested and
`Shown to Work for its Intended Purpose by At Least That Date
`
`At Vascular Solutions, Inc. (“VSI”), the Product Requirements document at
`
`Exhibit 2024 marked the beginning of the formal regulatory process, or design
`
`history process, for bringing the GuideLiner project to market. Ex-2119, ¶44; Ex-
`
`2039, ¶6. The document defined “the safety and performance requirements for the
`
`[VSI] GuideLiner (OTW) and rapid exchange (RX) guide catheter support
`
`system.” Ex-2024, ¶1.1.
`
`As VSI’s founder, CEO, and GuideLiner RX inventor Howard Root
`
`explained, Exhibit 2024 would not have been drafted, and the formal regulatory
`
`1
`
`
`
`process that it signaled would not have begun, “if the rapid exchange GuideLiner
`
`had not been determined to work for its intended purpose.” Ex-2118, ¶54. Indeed,
`
`it was VSI’s business practice to only create the Product Requirements document
`
`after a product was “prototyped, thoroughly tested, and shown to work for its
`
`intended purpose.” Ex-2039, ¶6; see also Ex-1926, ¶18 (“The document was made
`
`as a regular practice of developing a product at VSI and was maintained in the
`
`regular course of VSI’s business on its network.”). As that business practice was
`
`applied here, Exhibit 2024 was created after the April 2005 and July 2005
`
`GuideLiner RX prototypes were built, tested, and shown to work for their intended
`
`purpose. Ex-2119, ¶21-22, 44; Ex-2039, ¶6. From the time this document was
`
`created on August 24, 2005 forward, VSI continued to refine GuideLiner RX
`
`prototypes for purposes of manufacturability and commercialization. Ex-2119,
`
`¶44.
`
`As shown on the face of the document, Exhibit 2024 is the first revision,
`
`“[p]re-release” of this document, not the final Product Requirements document for
`
`the product. Ex-2024 at 4 (“Rev. 01” and “Pre-release”). The August 24, 2005
`
`date of this document is consistent throughout, twice on the first page of the
`
`document, and again on the last. Id., at 1, 4. It is also consistently labeled as “Rev.
`
`01” in the top right-hand corner of each of the document’s four pages. Id., at 1-4.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s witnesses explained that Exhibit 2024 marked the beginning
`
`of, and was further developed as part of, VSI’s formal regulatory process.
`
`Additional information was added to the document as the project progressed
`
`through that process, ultimately culminating in a final version. Ex-1766, 62:18-25;
`
`see also Ex-1762, 120:10-121:1; id. at 121:15-18. Formal sign-off of the final
`
`document did not occur until the product was actually ready to be made. Ex-1762,
`
`117:16-118:8. In the 2005 time period, VSI’s regulatory files were maintained in
`
`hard copy. Thus, although Exhibit 2024 was created and maintained in Word, the
`
`final and formal version of that document was developed over time, and then
`
`signed and maintained in hard copy. Ex-1766, 57:11-25.
`
`II. Exhibit 2024 Is Authenticated Under Federal Rule of Evidence 901
`
`Patent Owner provides an abundance of evidence that is more than
`
`“sufficient to support a finding that” Exhibit 2024 is authentic under Federal Rule
`
`of Evidence 901. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). “The requirement under Rule 901 is
`
`satisfied ‘if sufficient proof has been introduced so that a reasonable juror could
`
`find in favor of authenticity or identification.’” United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d
`
`635, 658 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Ruggiero, 928 F.2d 1289, 1303
`
`(2d Cir. 1991)); see also, e.g., Tremont LLC v. Halliburton Energy Servs., 696 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 741, 752-53 n.8 (S.D. Tex. March 11, 2010) (quoting United States v.
`
`Dhinsa, 243 F.3d at 658) (noting Rule 901’s “not . . . particularly high hurdle”);
`
`3
`
`
`
`Lexington Ins. Co. v. Western Pa. Hosp., 423 F.3d 318, 329 (3d Cir. 2005)
`
`(explaining that the burden of proof for authentication is “slight”) (citation
`
`omitted)).
`
`Four separate witnesses have submitted sworn testimony that Exhibit 2024 is
`
`what it purports to be. Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1). Dean Peterson, who has been a
`
`Principle Research and Development Engineer for VSI (and now Patent Owner)
`
`since 2005, submitted a sworn declaration about what this document is:
`
`Exhibit 2024 is a true and correct copy of an August 24, 2005 Product
`
`Requirements document for the GuideLiner Catheter System. This Product
`
`Requirements document was made by VSI personnel with knowledge of the
`
`issues contained therein on or near the date of the document. The document
`
`was made as a regular practice of developing a product at VSI and was
`
`maintained in the regular course of VSI’s business on its network.
`
`Ex-1926, ¶18. Medtronic chose not to depose Peterson. They have no basis to
`
`dispute his testimony.
`
`Peterson’s testimony does not stand alone.
`
`
`
`Deborah Schmalz, the Vice President of Regulatory and Clinical Affairs for
`
`VSI from 2000 to 2008, submitted a sworn declaration and deposition testimony
`
`further authenticating Exhibit 2024. Ex-2039, ¶¶6-10; Ex-1766, 44:20-46:8;
`
`47:12-48:1; 48:8-50:12; 56:9-62:25. She explained what the document is, how it
`
`was used, and what it signified, specifically, that the GuideLiner RX was
`
`4
`
`
`
`“prototyped, thoroughly tested, and shown to work for its intended purpose” before
`
`Exhibit 2024 was created. Ex-2039, ¶6; see also id., at ¶¶6-7; Ex-1766, 44:20-
`
`46:8; 47:12-48:1; 48:8-50:12; 56:9-62:25.
`
`As the person in charge of the regulatory process at VSI, Schmalz had first-
`
`hand knowledge of the purpose of this document, which “marked the start of the
`
`Regulatory department’s formal quality process, which ensured regulatory
`
`compliance and quality control for products in the commercialization stage.” Ex-
`
`2039, ¶6. What is more, Schmalz testified that she personally and
`
`contemporaneously reviewed the document that is Exhibit 2024. Ex-1766, 45:19-
`
`46:4 (“Q: . . . Did you review this product requirement document when you were at
`
`VSI? A: To the best of my knowledge, yes, I did review it.”). And unrebutted, she
`
`testified to the circumstances of the creation of Exhibit 2024: “I specifically recall
`
`that a working prototype of the rapid exchange version of GuideLiner was created
`
`prior to creation of the August 24, 2005 Products Requirements document.” Ex-
`
`2039, ¶7.
`
`Lest there be any doubt, Schmalz testified about additional evidence further
`
`corroborating that Exhibit 2024 is what it purports to be, including Exhibit 2025,
`
`“a Clinical Technical Report dated August 26, 2005 . . . [which] confirms that by
`
`this time, the rapid exchange version of GuideLiner had advanced beyond the
`
`concept development phase.” Ex-2039, ¶¶6, 9-10 (also describing Exhibit 2040, a
`
`5
`
`
`
`memorandum addressed to her confirming the same); Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1).
`
`Schmalz is first-hand, comprehensive, and unrebutted in demonstrating that
`
`Exhibit 2024 is what it purports to be.
`
`Howard Root provides additional, unrebutted authenticating testimony that
`
`is in full accord. Root demonstrates personal knowledge of Exhibit 2024,
`
`specifically attesting to its being a true and accurate copy, and confirms this with
`
`his personal knowledge of the surrounding circumstances of its creation. Ex-2118,
`
`¶54; Ex-1762, 116:11-122:3; Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1). Although he did not prepare
`
`“the first draft” of Exhibit 2024, he “certainly reviewed it.” Ex-1762, 116:18-24.
`
`Like Schmalz, Root explained that this Product Requirements document marked
`
`the beginning of the formal quality process at VSI, which “would not have begun if
`
`the rapid exchange GuideLiner had not been determined to work for its intended
`
`purpose.” Ex-2118, ¶54. Root’s testimony is detailed and specific, explaining that
`
`“[t]his formal quality program for the rapid exchange GuideLiner began shortly
`
`after” the April 2005 and July 2005 GuideLiner RX prototypes “were made, tested
`
`and determined to work” and achieved one of the goals of that product, which was
`
`that the GuideLiner RX would be “capable of being used by one physician.” Id.
`
`In short, Root explained that by the time Exhibit 2024 was created on August 24,
`
`2005, the details for manufacturing and commercialization still needed to be
`
`6
`
`
`
`finalized but VSI knew the GuideLiner RX would work for its intended purpose.
`
`Ex-2118, ¶54; Ex-1762, 116:11-122:3.
`
`Gregg Sutton is yet another witness whose declaration and deposition
`
`testimony is fully in accord with the others in explaining and authenticating
`
`Exhibit 2024. Sutton, a co-inventor on the patent and Vice President of Research
`
`& Development for VSI from 2004 to mid-2006, was involved first-hand in
`
`building the GuideLiner RX prototypes in early to mid-2005 and testified about
`
`tests that were performed to determine the durability of the device, detailed
`
`measurements that were taken to ensure the device would fit inside guide catheters,
`
`and the heart models that were used for simulating the use of the GuideLiner RX in
`
`the body. Ex-2119, ¶41 (“We used both two-dimensional acrylic heart models and
`
`three-dimensional glass heart models to simulate the use of the rapid exchange
`
`GuideLiner prototypes. Sometimes tests involving these models were performed
`
`in a heated water bath. Other times the tests were performed using dry models.”).
`
`He went on to detail how the tests specifically involved observation of “the forces
`
`involved in navigating the GuideLiner through the guide catheter and beyond to
`
`determine that it provided backup support,” and included the use of stents and
`
`balloons. Id.
`
`Sutton explained how that testing of the GuideLiner RX led to Exhibit 2024:
`
`7
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2024 is the Products Requirements document for the GuideLiner,
`
`dated August 24, 2005. This is one of the first documents that is part of the
`
`design history process. At VSI we did not spend the time to create this
`
`document unless or until we had gone through feasibility and prototyping of
`
`a device and were ready to move forward with commercialization efforts.
`
`From this point forward, we continued to refine prototypes of the
`
`GuideLiner rapid exchange for purposes of manufacturability and
`
`commercialization.
`
`Id. at ¶44; Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1). Sutton has personal knowledge of this
`
`document, and of documents in the month before Exhibit 2024 as well as one dated
`
`a mere two days after. Id. at ¶43 (“Exhibit 2036 is a July 2005 Research &
`
`Development Update that I wrote for the Board”); ¶45 (“Exhibit 2025 is a Clinical
`
`Technical Report, dated August 26, 2005”).
`
`The weight of the evidence provided by these four witnesses, and the
`
`additional corroborating documents they cite, amply establishes the authenticity of
`
`Exhibit 2024 and overcomes Petitioner’s attempts to exclude it. Petitioner’s
`
`arguments that the document “does not provide a reliable date,” or that it is “an
`
`incomplete draft,” or that it does not identify a sole author, are untenable in the
`
`face of this authenticating evidence.
`
`As shown on the face of the document, as well as by the testimony of
`
`Schmalz, Root, Sutton, and Peterson, Exhibit 2024 was created on or by August
`
`24, 2005. The text of the document and testimony of each of these witnesses is
`
`8
`
`
`
`supported by corroborating documents and circumstances. E.g., Ex-1926, ¶18; Ex-
`
`2039, ¶¶6-10 (Schmalz testifying that Exhibit 2024 was created after a working
`
`prototype, and before a regulatory document, Exhibit 2025, and a memo to her
`
`confirming the same, Exhibit 2040); Ex-2118, ¶¶54-57 (same); Ex-2119, ¶¶44-46
`
`(same).
`
`That Exhibit 2024 is an early version of a document, which by design was
`
`updated as part of the regulatory quality process, is of no consequence to its
`
`authenticity. Indeed, it was VSI’s express business practice to start with a draft of
`
`the document and develop and finalize the details of its content as the company
`
`moved toward regulatory approval and commercialization. Ex-1762, 120:19-
`
`121:1; 121:15-18; Ex-1766, 62:18-25.
`
`And contrary to Petitioner’s argument, Patent Owner is not required to
`
`advance testimony of the author of the document to authenticate it. Conoco Inc. v.
`
`Department of Energy, 99 F.3d 387, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Courts have made
`
`clear . . . that the ‘custodian or other qualified witness’ who must authenticate
`
`business records need not be the person who prepared or maintained the
`
`records . . . as long as the witness understands the system used to prepare the
`
`records.”); Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Veveo, Inc., IPR2019-00237, Paper
`
`59, at 72-75 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2020) (CTO of patent owner’s company at the time
`
`of contested email who he was neither the sender nor recipient of could
`
`9
`
`
`
`authenticate it as he had knowledge of the system used to prepare the documents
`
`and of “the team’s ongoing activities at the time”); Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v.
`
`F’Real Foods, LLC, IPR2016-01107, Paper 40, at 32-34 (PTAB Dec. 19, 2017)
`
`(witness was in management position and was involved in company’s business,
`
`R&D, and sales and could authenticate sales data from a particular time-frame).
`
`The authenticity of Exhibit 2024 is well-established by the evidence
`
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 901 and the caselaw applying it.
`
`III. Exhibit 2024 Is Admissible Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6)
`
`Petitioner only makes hints at objecting on the basis of hearsay (see MTE, at
`
`3, 5) but Exhibit 2024 has been shown to be a business record with a recognizable
`
`form satisfying all parts of Rule 803(6) as attested to by Peterson, Schmalz, Root,
`
`and Sutton. Fed. R. Evid. 803(6); Ex-1926, ¶18; Ex-2039, ¶¶6, 9-10; Ex-1762,
`
`116:18-118:8; Ex-2119, ¶44. Petitioner has not shown that the method or
`
`circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness and does not
`
`dispute the authenticity of any of the other exhibits so close in time which the
`
`witnesses also attest to as authentic. Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)(E); e.g., Ex-2025; Ex-
`
`2021; Ex-2017; Ex-1926, ¶¶14, 17, 18, and 19.
`
`IV. The Authority Relied on by Petitioner Is Unhelpful and Distinguishable
`
`Unlike the Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC decision cited by Petitioner
`
`(MTE, at 5), there is ample supporting testimony that Exhibit 2024 is what Patent
`
`10
`
`
`
`Owner claims it is. Compare supra Parts I-II with Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE,
`
`LLC, IPR2019-00929, Paper 53, at 99 (PTAB Sept. 21, 2020) (“In the absence of
`
`any supporting testimony, Patent Owner has not met its burden of showing that
`
`Exhibit 2114 is what Patent Owner claims it is.” (emphasis added)). The Ingenico
`
`petition involved an exhibit claimed to be a letter that was mailed to a recipient,
`
`but that bore no indicia that it was ever in fact mailed. Ingenico, IPR2019-00929,
`
`at 98-99. Additionally, there was no supporting testimony that the letter was
`
`mailed or that it was even a letter. Id. at 99. By stark contrast, Exhibit 2024 has
`
`been shown to be the first revision of the Product Requirements document for the
`
`GuideLiner RX, establishing that by at least August 24, 2005, the GuideLiner RX
`
`prototypes had been made, tested, and shown to work for their intended purposes,
`
`and that the product was advancing to the formal quality stage of the company’s
`
`product development and commercialization process. See supra Parts I & II.
`
`In the Linear case cited by Petitioner (MTE, at 5, 7, and 8), and relied on by
`
`the PTAB in Ingenico, the facts are very similar: exhibits claimed to be letters that
`
`were sent to customers bore no indicia of “having ever been mailed to a customer.”
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Micrel, Inc., 275 F.3d 1040, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The
`
`Court noted that the exhibits bore no company letterhead and no signature, and the
`
`fact that the letters were not “three-hole punched” like other documents kept in a
`
`“reading file” undermined testimony that the exhibits were mailed letters. Id. The
`
`11
`
`
`
`party proffering the evidence did not submit any testimony that the exhibits were
`
`ordinarily kept in the form they were introduced (not three-hold punched) or
`
`testimony about “the circumstances surrounding the Stenstrom letters.” Id. at
`
`1056. These letters at issue were found in the files of an independent sales
`
`representative and were purportedly authored by another independent sales
`
`representative, Stenstrom. Id. at 1054-55. But neither person had any recollection
`
`of mailing the letters, and there being no outward indicia of their being mailed, nor
`
`stored in their produced form, the court found they were not authenticated. Id.
`
`Here, again by stark contrast, multiple witnesses have testified about their first-
`
`hand knowledge of Exhibit 2024 and the circumstances surrounding its creation.
`
`See supra Parts I & II.
`
`Riverbed Tech. Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC involved an exhibit excluded
`
`where “Patent Owner ha[d] provided no evidence” that the paper was a true and
`
`correct copy, unaltered, or where the expert “found it.” IPR2016-00978, Paper 67,
`
`at 40 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2017). Additionally, Patent Owner did not offer any
`
`supplemental evidence to overcome Petitioner’s objection, and Patent Owner
`
`stated that the expert did not rely on the document. Id. at 41. Riverbed could not
`
`be more inapposite to the case at hand, and Exhibit 2024, in particular. See supra
`
`Parts I & II.
`
`12
`
`
`
`In Schroeder v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., an attorney’s testimony
`
`that “he ‘received’ [photos] from [the defendant grocery store]” was held
`
`insufficient to authenticate video surveillance footage and photos of an alleged slip
`
`and fall. 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17830, at *1, 5-6 (D. Nev. Feb. 11, 2014). Unlike
`
`the attorney in Schroeder, here, four separate witnesses have testified about their
`
`first-hand understanding and recollection of Exhibit 2024 and that testimony is
`
`further supplemented by corroborating documents. See supra Parts I & II.
`
`In Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc., the PTAB stated that when
`
`considering exhibits that were webpage printouts offered to “prove the website’s
`
`contents, the proponent of the evidence must authenticate the information from the
`
`website itself, not merely the printout.” IPR2014-00148, Paper 41, at 10 (PTAB
`
`April 23, 2015). The proponent of the screenshot exhibit “ha[d] not provided
`
`testimony of any witness with personal knowledge of the information on the
`
`website(s) or the associated printouts at issue.” Id. at 12. Nor had the proponent
`
`even “identified the website(s) from which [the exhibits] were downloaded.” Id.
`
`The facts in Standard Innovation could not be more different than the facts
`
`supporting Exhibit 2024 here. See supra Parts I & II.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections Should Also Be Overruled for Failure to Satisfy
`Rule 42.64(b)
`
`So weak is Petitioner’s motion to exclude that it even failed on the threshold
`
`requirement for particularity. Under Rule 42.64(b), Petitioner’s objections were
`
`13
`
`
`
`timely but deficient as they did not “identify the grounds for the objection with
`
`sufficient particularity to allow correction in the form of supplemental evidence.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1); Ex-1923 (Patent Owner responding to objections on the
`
`basis that they lacked particularity). Petitioner cannot now justly move to exclude
`
`Exhibit 2024 by claiming the supplemental evidence served by Patent Owner was
`
`not particular enough to meet its hidden objection to Exhibit 2024 under Rule 901
`
`or Rule 802, Petitioner’s now narrowed objection grounds. See MTE, at 1; Paper
`
`25, at 1 (section II. where “Exhibits 2002-2011, 2013-14, 2016-38, . . . :
`
`Documents/Evidence Submitted with Mr. Root Declaration” lists Rules 802 and
`
`901 among others).
`
`VI. Conclusion
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has put forward ample evidence that Exhibit 2024 is a true and
`
`correct copy of the August 24, 2005 Product Requirements document for the
`
`GuideLiner RX. Petitioner has not presented any affirmative case that casts doubt
`
`on the authenticity of Exhibit 2024, and a reasonable person could find that it is
`
`what it is claimed to be. The Federal Rules of Evidence, the caselaw, and the
`
`weight of the evidence surrounding Exhibit 2024 overwhelmingly support its
`
`authenticity and admissibility. Exhibit 2024 should not be excluded and
`
`Petitioner’s motion should be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Dated: March 1, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`15
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the agreement of the parties, the
`
`
`
`undersigned certifies that on March 1, 2021, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner’s Response to Petitioners’ Motion to Exclude 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)
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
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
