`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 IPR2020-00135
`Patent RE 45,776
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PETER T. KEITH
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Peter Keith, hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by the owner of U.S. Patent No. RE45,776 (“the
`
`’776 patent”), whom I will refer to in this declaration as “Teleflex,” to provide my
`
`independent expert opinions in this matter. I understand that petitions for inter
`
`partes review have been filed against certain claims of the ’776 patent. The
`
`following provides my opinions in support of Teleflex’s Patent Owner Preliminary
`
`Response in this matter.
`
`I.
`
`PERSONAL BACKGROUND
`2.
`I summarize my educational background and career history in the
`
`following paragraphs. My complete qualifications are provided in my curriculum
`
`vitae, which is attached to this declaration as Appendix A.
`
`3.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering
`
`with High Distinction from the University of Minnesota in 1987. During my
`
`undergraduate training, I began working as an engineering intern in the research
`
`and development (R&D) department at SCIMED, which was later acquired by
`
`Boston Scientific Corporation. I joined SCIMED full-time after graduation, and I
`
`remained with the company until 1996. During this time I rose from engineering
`
`intern to full-time R&D engineer to Director of R&D. Throughout my various
`
`roles at SCIMED, the focus of my work was on medical devices in the field of
`
`interventional cardiology, particularly catheter design.
`
`1
`
`
`Page 2
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Since 1997, I have served as an independent consultant for early stage
`
`medical device companies in the areas of product design and intellectual property
`
`development. Several of my consulting clients have developed successful products
`
`that are on the market and in hospitals today. A number of the products have been
`
`in the field of interventional cardiology, particularly catheters.
`
`5.
`
`In addition to my work as an independent consultant, since 2000 I
`
`have engaged in a number of entrepreneurial ventures in the field of medical
`
`devices. In many of these ventures, I held chief responsibility for product design
`
`and development. Several of these products have been in the area of interventional
`
`cardiology. I have also done considerable work outside the area of interventional
`
`cardiology, including in treatments for orthopedics for extremities such as feet and
`
`ankles and treatment of spinal disorders. In 2006, I co-founded Entellus Medical, a
`
`company focused on catheter based treatments for chronic sinusitis. As Chief
`
`Technology Officer, I led the product development and research teams. Entellus
`
`went public in 2015, and was acquired by Stryker in 2018.
`
`6.
`
`Between my work at SCIMED, my independent consulting, and my
`
`entrepreneurial ventures, I have been named as an inventor on over 140 issued U.S.
`
`patents, as well as many corresponding patents in foreign countries. Numerous
`
`patent applications on which I am a named inventor are still pending.
`
`2
`
`
`Page 3
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`7.
`
`I have prior experience with patent litigation involving the technology
`
`at issue and the patent families at issue in this case. Among other things, I
`
`provided expert infringement and validity opinions on behalf of Teleflex in the
`
`case of QXMédical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions LLC, et al., No. 0:17-cv-01969 (D.
`
`Minn.) (the QXM case). In the QXM case, among the patents asserted were four
`
`of the five patents at issue in these IPRs: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,048,032; RE45,380;
`
`RE45,760; and RE45,776. U.S. Patent No. RE47,379 had not yet issued when the
`
`QXM case was filed, but it is in the same family as the other four patents listed
`
`above that were asserted in the QXM case.
`
`8.
`
`I have also provided expert opinions concerning all five patents at
`
`issue in these proceedings on behalf of Teleflex in the case of Vascular Solutions
`
`LLC, et al. v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-01760 (D. Minn.). Those opinions
`
`were provided in connection with Teleflex’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
`
`9.
`
`In writing this declaration, I have considered my own knowledge and
`
`experience, including my work experience in designing interventional cardiology
`
`devices and my experience in working with others involved in the field of
`
`interventional cardiology devices, including medical doctors working as
`
`interventional cardiologists. I have also considered the information that a POSITA
`
`would have been aware of in May 2006, including the documents I discuss in this
`
`declaration.
`
`3
`
`
`Page 4
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`10.
`
`I am being compensated at $525 per hour for my time, my standard
`
`rate for this type of consulting activity. My compensation is not contingent on the
`
`results of these or any other legal proceedings.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`11.
`I am not an attorney and I have not independently researched the law
`
`on patentability. I have been informed by counsel of the legal standards below.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`12.
`I understand that patent claims are to be interpreted in view of a
`
`patent’s specification and prosecution history. I understand that claim construction
`
`starts with the plain language of the claims as understood by a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that the parties agreed to constructions for certain claim
`
`terms in the QXM case. I understand that those constructions are provided in the
`
`document filed by the Petitioner in this inter partes review as Exhibit 1012. Other
`
`than as specifically discussed in this declaration, I do not at this time offer any
`
`opinions regarding those constructions. Rather, I apply them for the purpose of
`
`this declaration.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that a patent may be its own lexicographer, so long as the
`
`definition of a specific term is clearly set forth in the specification and it is clear
`
`the inventor intended to define the term.
`
`4
`
`
`Page 5
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`15. For any claim terms not explicitly noted as construed, I have applied
`
`the plain and ordinary meanings as would be understood by a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in 2006.
`
`B. Anticipation
`16.
`I understand that a claim is invalid as anticipated if a single prior art
`
`reference discloses each and every limitation of the claimed invention.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that a reference may be anticipatory regardless of
`
`whether the prior art and the claimed invention are directed to achieving the same
`
`purpose, if it contains the claim elements in the same order as claimed and would
`
`inherently provide any claimed function.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference may anticipate a claim without
`
`expressly disclosing a feature of the claimed invention if that missing feature is
`
`necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating reference.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that inherency requires more than a probability or
`
`possibility that a claimed feature is present in the prior art, but rather that the
`
`feature or characteristic is a necessary part of the prior art. I also understand that a
`
`POSITA does not necessarily need to recognize the inherency at the time of
`
`purported invention.
`
`5
`
`
`Page 6
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`C. Obviousness
`20.
`I understand that obviousness is determined based on (1) the scope
`
`and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the claims and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective indicia of
`
`nonobviousness.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that there must be a reason to modify a single prior art
`
`reference, or to combine multiple references, to achieve the claimed invention. I
`
`understand that this motivation may come from a teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation to combine. I also understand that a specific teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation is not required.
`
`22.
`
`I also understand that “objective indicia of nonobviousness” must be
`
`considered, such as commercial success of the claimed invention, whether others
`
`copied the invention, and whether others in the field praised the invention.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that after consideration of all of these factors, a patent is
`
`not obvious unless the difference between the subject matter sought to be patented
`
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art to which said subject matter pertains.
`
`6
`
`
`Page 7
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`III. SCOPE OF OPINIONS
`24.
`I have been asked only to provide my independent opinions and
`
`analysis of the issues I specifically discuss in this declaration. I note that the
`
`Petition (and the evidence it cites) appears to raise many other issues, but I have
`
`not been asked to provide my opinions as to any of those other issues.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`25.
`I understand that the Petitioner and Dr. Brecker have proposed a
`
`definition of a person of ordinary skill: “a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention would have had (a) a medical
`
`degree; (b) completed a coronary intervention training program, and (c)
`
`experience working as an interventional cardiologist. Alternatively, a POSITA
`
`would have had (a) an undergraduate degree in engineering, such as mechanical
`
`or biomedical engineering; and (b) three years of experience designing medical
`
`devices, including catheters or catheter-deployable devices. [. . .] Extensive
`
`experience and technical training might substitute for education, and advanced
`
`degrees might substitute for experience. Additionally, a POSITA with a medical
`
`degree may have access to a POSITA with an engineering degree, and one with an
`
`engineering degree might have access to one with a medical degree.” E.g. Ex.
`
`1005, ¶31. While I do not necessarily agree with this proposed definition, my
`
`opinions below are provided with respect to this definition of a POSITA.
`
`7
`
`
`Page 8
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`26.
`
`I have an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering and more
`
`than three years designing medical devices, including catheters or catheter-
`
`deployable devices. Therefore I meet the definition provided by the Petitioner and
`
`Dr. Brecker of a POSITA.
`
`V. THE ’776 PATENT
`27.
`I have reviewed the claims and specification of the ’776 Patent. I have
`
`also reviewed the prosecution history of the ’776 patent.
`
`28. The ’776 Patent includes three independent claims—claims 25, 52,
`
`and 53.
`
`29. Claim 25 of the ‘776 patent recites:
`
`A guide extension catheter for use with a guide catheter, comprising:
`a substantially rigid segment;
`a tubular structure defining a lumen and positioned distal to the
`substantially rigid segment; and
`a segment defining a partially cylindrical opening positioned
`between a distal end of the substantially rigid segment and a
`proximal end of the tubular structure, the segment defining the
`partially cylindrical opening having an angled proximal end,
`formed from a material more rigid than a material or material
`combination forming the tubular structure, and configured to
`receive one or more interventional cardiology devices there-
`through when positioned within the guide catheter,
`
`8
`
`
`Page 9
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`wherein a cross-section of the guide extension catheter at the
`proximal end of the tubular structure defines a single lumen.
`
`
`30. Claim 52 is similar to claim 25, but additionally requires that the
`
`segment defining the angled proximal end of the partially cylindrical opening
`
`includes at least two inclined regions. Claim 53 is similar to claim 52, except that
`
`(1) it additionally requires the tubular structure to have a lumen having a uniform
`
`cross-sectional inner diameter that is not more than one French size smaller than
`
`the cross-sectional inner diameter of the lumen of the guide catheter; and (2) does
`
`not require that the segment defining a partially cylindrical opening to be formed
`
`from a material having a greater flexural modulus than a flexural modulus of the
`
`tubular structure.
`
`VI. MEDTRONIC’S REFERENCES
`A.
`Itou (Ex. 1007)
`31. The Itou reference discloses an intravascular suction catheter that
`
`includes a distal tubular portion attached to a wire-like portion for sucking out
`
`foreign matter such as a thrombus located within a blood vessel:
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`Page 10
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`Ex. 1007, 1:53-65.
`
`32. The distal tubular portion 24 comprises three parts: tubular body
`
`portion 21 (green) joined to a distal tip 22 (blue) at the distal end of the tubular
`
`body portion, and joined to a proximal tip 23 (yellow) at the proximal end of the
`
`tubular body portion.
`
`
`
`Id., at 3:50-58; Fig. 3 (color added). The proximal tip 23 is formed by “obliquely
`
`cutting one end of a metal pipe” and then coating the inner and outer faces of the
`
`pipe with a “resin.” Id., 4:25-42. The proximal tip is welded to the distal end of a
`
`push wire 25. Id.
`
`33.
`
`Itou also discloses a “protective catheter 5” that is pre-loaded into the
`
`suction catheter (i.e., inserted outside of the body) prior to delivery:
`
`10
`
`
`Page 11
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 1007, 4:44 and Fig. 1E. Itou explains this pre-loading process: it explains
`
`that using the suction catheter involves first putting a guide catheter in place in a
`
`coronary artery, then inserting a “combination” of the suction catheter and the
`
`protective catheter “into the guiding catheter” to the target location, then pulling
`
`the protective catheter out, and finally suctioning out the foreign matter. Id., 7:4-
`
`26.
`
`B. Kataishi (Ex. 1025)
`
`
`11
`
`
`Page 12
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`Ex. 1025, Fig. 1. The distal end opening 12 has a “cut surface 16” with a concave
`
`
`
`portion 161.
`
`35. The distal portion of Kataishi’s suction catheter is a multi-lumen tube
`
`containing at least two lumens. In addition to an evacuation lumen 11 that extends
`
`the entire length of the catheter, a guidewire lumen 15 extends from insertion point
`
`13 shown above in Figure 1 all the way to the distal end of the catheter. Id.,
`
`[0029]. Figure 2 provides a cutaway view of the distal end of the suction catheter
`
`device showing both lumens:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1025, Fig. 2. The evacuation lumen 11 of Kataishi is not circular in cross-
`
`section anywhere along its length, including at the distal end shown above in
`
`Figure 2. See Figs. 4-5.
`
`36.
`
` The interaction of Kataishi’s distal end with the thrombus is shown
`
`in Figure 10, below.
`
`12
`
`
`Page 13
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 10. The distal end opening of Kataishi’s suction catheter is designed to be
`
`“flexible,” in order to increase its ability to absorb/suction the thrombus. Id. at
`
`[0027] and Fig. 10 (“The concave portion 161 is a means for improving flexibility
`
`of the catheter distal end and enabling the cut surface 16 to adsorb an expanded
`
`atheroma AT by suction, when the atheroma AT as shown in FIG. 10 is covered
`
`with the distal end opening 12”). Kataishi’s flexible, angled distal end allows a
`
`coronary lesion to be enveloped by the opening and suctioned through the side of
`
`the catheter. Id. at [0010], [0027], Fig. 10. Both the flat portion 162 and the
`
`concave portion 161 are intended to improve the flexibility of the catheter’s distal
`
`end and thereby improve its ability to envelop and absorb/suction the thrombus.
`
`Id. at [0027]-[0028].
`
`C. Ressemann (Ex. 1008)
`37. U.S. Patent No. 7,604,612 (“Ressemann”), Ex. 1008, discloses an
`
`evacuation sheath assembly used to treat occluded vessels, which reduces the risk
`
`of distal embolization during vascular interventions. Ex. 1008, Abstract. The
`
`13
`
`
`Page 14
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`multi-lumen tube contains multiple offset lumens. E.g., Ex. 1008, 6:35-36, Figs.
`
`1A, 1B, 16D, and 16E. These multiple lumens result in the evacuation (suction)
`
`lumen being axially offset from the guide catheter lumen. Therefore the
`
`evacuation lumen is not coaxial with the guide catheter lumen. Figures 1A and 1B
`
`show an embodiment of Ressemann’s evacuation sheath assembly:
`
`
`
`The cross-sectional view of Figure 1B shows both the evacuation lumen 140 and
`
`the inflation lumen 142, each of which is offset from the longitudinal axis of the
`
`guide catheter. See id., 6:35-65.
`
`38. Figures 16A-16J show “another aspect of the present invention,” and
`
`“many of the elements present in previous embodiments are also shown in Figs.
`
`16A-16J.” Ex. 1008, 22:29-37. This embodiment includes a metal support collar
`
`shown in isolation in Figure 16J:
`
`14
`
`
`Page 15
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`
`
`39.
`
`In the assembled product, the collar 2141 (red) is not exposed as
`
`shown in this Figure, but rather is embedded within the polymer material, with the
`
`tab portion 2141b located underneath the lumen containing core wire 2135:
`
`Collar 2141
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`Page 16
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`Ex. 1008, Fig. 16D (color added).1 Figure 16D also shows encapsulation material
`
`2133 (blue circle), which covers the support collar 2141, located below the core
`
`wire lumen (containing core wire 2135), and therefore below (i.e. outside of) the
`
`multi-lumen tube. See Ex. 1008 at Fig. 16D, 16E.
`
`40. At the proximal end of Ressemann’s evacuation head, the full
`
`cylindrical portion of Ressemann’s support collar 2141 is embedded in
`
`encapsulation layer 2133, which is outside the multi-lumen tube 2138 (which
`
`includes evacuation lumen 2140, inflation lumen 2142 and core wire lumen 2142).
`
`This is plain from Figure 16D above. Encapsulation material 2133 covers and
`
`adheres to the “windows” of support collar 2141. Ex. 1008, 25:4-6. In the cross
`
`section below2, the encapsulation material 2133 is visible on the outside of the
`
`multilumen tube. The annotated figure below illustrates where the support collar,
`
`covered by and embedded in the encapsulation material, is located:
`
`
`1 All figures from Ressemann reproduced herein are from the original drawings
`
`submitted with U.S. Patent. App. 10/214,712 (Ex. 2052), which are of higher
`
`resolution than the figures in Ex. 1008.
`
`2 While this section is taken at the distal occlusion balloon, the shaft structure of
`
`the distal tubular shaft is the same near the proximal end, where the fully
`
`circumferential portion of the collar is positioned.
`
`16
`
`
`Page 17
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`
`
`Encapsulation material
`
`Collar Position
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 16E (color added). This confirms that in the assembled device, the tab
`
`portion 2141b of Ressemann’s collar is located outside of the multi-lumen tube
`
`2138 and below where the core wire lumen and inflation lumen attach to the shaft
`
`2120.
`
`41. Ressemann explains that the support collar 2141 “serves to reinforce
`
`the proximal opening of the evacuation lumen 2140 in the presence of deforming
`
`forces, particularly torsional stresses,” and the tab portion “provides a flexibility
`
`transition.” Id., 24:47-67.
`
`17
`
`
`Page 18
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`D. Enger (Ex. 1050)
`42. Enger discloses a balloon catheter for use in the coronary arteries. Ex.
`
`1050 at Abstract. Figure 1 shows the general structure of the balloon catheter,
`
`which includes, in proximal to distal direction, a long, relatively stiff segment
`
`defining an inflation lumen 36, a shorter, flexible plastic segment 30 having two
`
`lumens, and a single lumen segment on which a balloon is mounted. Id.; see also
`
`id. 4:67-5:13.
`
`
`
`43. Enger’s balloon catheter structure includes an inflation lumen 36 and
`
`a separate guidewire lumen, terminating at proximal opening 46. Enger also
`
`discloses a metal tube 28 containing the inflation lumen 36, that is mated to the
`
`intermediate segment 30 at a location spaced apart proximally from the guidewire
`
`lumen opening 46. Ex. 1050, 7:1-5, Fig. 7. As shown in Figure 7, below, a “neck”
`
`is formed where the metal tube 28 is inserted into the proximal end of the
`
`intermediate segment 30.
`
`18
`
`
`Page 19
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`“Neck” located at
`point where the metal
`tube 28 mates
`
`
`
`Ex. 1050, Fig. 7 (arrow and annotation added). Enger does not describe what
`
`shape the outer surface of the proximal end portion of intermediate segment 30
`
`has, although it is evident from Figure 7 that it is not concave on the surface
`
`between the “neck” and the guidewire lumen opening 46. Given that the purpose
`
`of that proximal portion is solely to engage the metal tube 28, one would expect
`
`the proximal end portion of the intermediate segment to be generally circular in
`
`cross-section.
`
`44. Enger’s opening 46 would be considered to be a partially cylindrical
`
`opening. However, the segment defining an angled proximal end of this partially
`
`cylindrical opening does not have at least two inclined regions. The partially
`
`cylindrical opening in Enger is defined by the portion of intermediate segment 30
`
`immediately surrounding the side opening 46. The neck where metal tube 28
`
`mates with the proximal end of intermediate segment is a completely separate
`
`portion of the device that plays no role in defining the side opening. It would not
`
`19
`
`
`Page 20
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`be considered part of a “segment defining the angled proximal end of the partially
`
`cylindrical opening.”
`
`45. To operate Enger’s balloon catheter, guidewire 12 is first inserted into
`
`the body and advanced through the stenosis to be treated. Id. at 6:54-57. Then,
`
`“the balloon catheter 26 of the present invention is advanced over the guidewire 12
`
`and within the guide catheter 14.” Id. This means that during operation, the
`
`guidewire 12 is introduced to the distal end of the balloon catheter lumen,
`
`indicating that the guidewire 12 passes through the proximal opening 46 in a distal-
`
`to-proximal direction. The red arrow below indicates the motion of the guidewire
`
`12 relative to the advancing balloon catheter lumen 46:
`
`
`VII. ITOU’S SUCTION CATHETER IS NOT A GUIDE EXTENSION
`CATHETER
`46. Guide catheters were well known at the time the original priority
`
`application for the ’776 patent was filed in 2006. They are used in interventional
`
`cardiology procedures to guide a variety of interventional cardiology devices,
`
`including stent and balloon catheters, from a location outside the body to the heart
`
`or other location deep inside the vasculature.
`
`20
`
`
`Page 21
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`47. As the name indicates, a “guide extension catheter” extends the
`
`effective length of a guide catheter while still maintaining the guiding functionality
`
`of receiving interventional cardiology devices and guiding them to a desired
`
`location inside the vasculature. This is consistent with the structure and function
`
`of all embodiments of the guide extension catheters disclosed in the ’776 patent.
`
`48.
`
`Itou’s suction catheter is not a guide extension catheter. Itou does not
`
`disclose that its suction catheter guides any interventional cardiology devices.
`
`Medtronic cites two references, Ressemann (Ex. 1008) and U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,398,773 (“Bagaoisan”) (Ex. 1019), as teaching that suction catheters may
`
`function as guide extension catheters through which interventional cardiology
`
`devices may be inserted. See Paper 1 at 18. Medtronic characterizes the aspiration
`
`catheters in these references as “similar to” Itou’s aspiration catheter. Id. This is
`
`an oversimplification. Not all suction catheters are structurally equivalent, and not
`
`all suction catheters necessarily are configured such that balloon catheters, stents,
`
`and stent catheters are insertable therethrough. In addition, a person of skill in the
`
`art would appreciate that the suction catheters disclosed in Ressemann and
`
`Bagaoisan are structurally different from Itou’s suction catheter, and these
`
`references would not lead him/her to believe that Itou’s suction catheter was
`
`necessarily capable of functioning as a guide extension catheter by passing balloon
`
`catheters, stents, and stent catheters.
`
`21
`
`
`Page 22
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`VIII. ITOU’S SUCTION CATHETER DOES NOT HAVE A SEGMENT
`CONFIGURED TO RECEIVE ONE OR MORE INTERVENTIONAL
`CARDIOLOGY DEVICES THERETHROUGH WHEN POSITIONED
`WITHIN THE GUIDE CATHETER
`49.
`Independent claims 25, 52 and 53 of the ’776 patent all require a
`
`segment defining a partially cylindrical opening that, inter alia, is “configured to
`
`receive one or more interventional cardiology devices therethrough when
`
`positioned within the guide catheter.” Itou’s suction catheter does not have such a
`
`segment.
`
`50. The sole basis identified in the Petition for why this limitation is
`
`allegedly met is Itou’s disclosure that the tubular portion of suction catheter 2 is
`
`“large enough” to receive the distal end protective catheter 5. Petition at 24-25.
`
`As previously discussed, however, Itou only discloses pre-loading the protective
`
`catheter into the suction catheter outside the body. See ¶ 33 above. Thus, Itou’s
`
`disclosure regarding the protective catheter does not meet the claim language.
`
`51. Pre-loading the protective catheter outside the body is not the same as
`
`advancing an interventional cardiology device into a partially cylindrical opening
`
`that is positioned within a guide catheter. Loading the protective catheter into the
`
`suction catheter outside the body allows the loading to occur when the suction
`
`catheter is in a straight position, and with direct manually controllable insertion
`
`under direct vision from the operator. When the suction catheter is inside the body
`
`at the distal end of a guide catheter, it will always be in a curved position, and at a
`
`22
`
`
`Page 23
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`remote position deep distally in the guide catheter, with no direct manual control of
`
`entry, which negatively affects the ease and feasibility of passing stents and
`
`balloon catheters therethrough
`
`IX. A POSITA WOULD NOT COMBINE THE DISTAL END OF
`KATAISHI’S THROMBUS SUCTION CATHETER WITH THE
`PROXIMAL TIP OF ITOU’S SUCTION CATHETER (PETITION
`GROUND 3)
`52. The portion of Kataishi’s thrombus suction catheter relied on in the
`
`Petition is located at the distal tip of the catheter. As taught by Kataishi, the multi-
`
`lumen distal tip portion is flexible, and is designed to envelop a thrombus attached
`
`to the vessel wall and suck it through the side of the catheter in a distal-to-proximal
`
`direction. Ex. 1025 at [0027] and Fig. 10 (“The concave portion 161 is a means for
`
`improving flexibility of the catheter distal end and enabling the cut surface 16 to
`
`adsorb an expanded atheroma AT by suction, when the atheroma AT as shown in
`
`FIG. 10 is covered with the distal end opening 12”). The Petition relies on Figure
`
`10, below, which shows how Kataishi’s distal tip conforms to the thrombus in
`
`preparation for sucking it through the side of the catheter.
`
`23
`
`
`Page 24
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition at 49 (citing Ex. 1025, Fig. 10). Kataishi never discloses any
`
`interventional devices being passed through its thrombus suction catheter, let alone
`
`any devices passing through the distal tip of the catheter in the distal-to-proximal
`
`direction. Indeed, a thrombus suction catheter was designed to be used as an
`
`alternative to stents catheters and balloon catheters, not in conjunction with such
`
`devices. Id. at [0004]. Kataishi also does not disclose anything (thrombus or
`
`otherwise) being advanced through its distal tip in an axial direction.
`
`53. An opening designed to suction thrombus in through the side of the
`
`distal end of a suction catheter is far different from a proximal opening designed to
`
`facilitate insertion of balloon catheters, stents, and stent catheters into the proximal
`
`end of a suction catheter. Given the distinct requirements of such openings, and
`
`the different considerations implicated in designing a device to perform these
`
`specific tasks, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not look to the distal end
`
`of Kataishi’s thrombus suction catheter when trying to modify the proximal end of
`
`24
`
`
`Page 25
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`a suction catheter to enable insertion of interventional cardiology devices
`
`therethrough.
`
`54.
`
`I also disagree with the assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would be motivated to incorporate Kataishi’s angled distal tip onto the proximal
`
`tip of Itou’s suction catheter to “minimize kinking during insertion.” Petition at
`
`50. First, Itou already contains a proximal tip having an angled opening and made
`
`of metal, which is rigid. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not believe that
`
`Itou’s proximal tip portion would be prone to kinking. Second, the concave and
`
`flat portions of Kataishi’s distal end opening are designed to increase flexibility.
`
`E.g., Ex. 1025, Abstract and [0027] (“The concave portion 161 is a means for
`
`improving flexibility of the catheter distal end”). Increased flexibility would, if
`
`anything, increase the risk of kinking. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking
`
`to make Itou’s proximal opening less prone to kinking would not be motivated to
`
`adopt modifications that increased the risk of kinking.
`
`X.
`
`IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS TO COMBINE
`RESSEMANN’S SUPPORT COLLAR WITH THE PROXIMAL TIP
`OF ITOU’S SUCTION CATHETER (PETITION GROUND 4)
`55. The Petition asserts that it would have been obvious to combine Itou
`
`and Ressemann in a very specific way that results in claim limitations of claims
`
`such as independent claims 52 and 53 and dependent claims 32 and 36-38 being
`
`25
`
`
`Page 26
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`met. The Petition provides the following illustration of what the resulting structure
`
`would allegedly look like:
`
`
`
`E.g. Petition at 74.
`
`56. Even assuming that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be
`
`motivated to modify Itou’s suction catheter to facilitate insertion of interventional
`
`cardiology devices through the proximal opening of Itou’s tubular portion (a
`
`premise I do not agree with), it would not have been obvious to combination Itou
`
`and Ressemann in the very specific way shown above in order to achieve this
`
`objective.
`
`57. As discussed above, Ressemann’s support collar, and in particular tab
`
`portion 2141b, is buried inside and under other components of Ressemann’s
`
`suction catheter. See ¶¶ 38-40 above.
`
`58. The following illustration from Figure 16E of Ressemann shows
`
`where the cylindrical part of the support collar is located:
`
`26
`
`
`Page 27
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`Collar Position
`
`
`
`Ex. 1008, Fig. 16E (red circle added to generally indicate positioning of support
`
`collar 2141 adjacent to the exterior walls of the multi-lumen tube 2138).
`
`59. Ressemann expressly teaches to position the tab portion 2141b of the
`
`collar “adjacent the exterior walls of the multi-lumen tube 2138,”—i.e., outside of
`
`the walls of the tube containing the suction lumen. Ex. 1008, 24:62-64 (emphasis
`
`added). Figure 16D shows the tab portion 2141b of the collar on the underside of
`
`the junction where shaft 2120 connects to inflation lumen 2142 and core wire
`
`lumen 2143:
`
`27
`
`
`Page 28
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2042
`Medtronic v. Te