`Vascular Solutions LLC et al.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`Court File No. 0:19-cv-1760 (PJS/TNL)
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RULE 30(b)(6) NOTICE
`OF DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS ON
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ISSUES
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`Medtronic, Inc. et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`TO: Plaintiffs and their attorneys of record, J. Derek Vandenburgh, Tara C. Norgard,
`Joseph W. Winkels, Alexander S. Rinn, and Shelleaha L. Jonas of Carlson,
`Caspers, Vandenburgh, & Lindquist, P.A., 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200,
`Minneapolis, MN 55402.
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure, Defendants will take the deposition of Plaintiffs collectively by oral
`
`examination before a duly qualified notary public or other person authorized by law to
`
`administer oaths at Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., 200 South 6th Street, Suite 4000,
`
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, on Monday, September 30, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., and
`
`thereafter by adjournment until the same shall be completed. The deposition will be
`
`recorded by stenographic and/or videographic means.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), Plaintiffs shall designate one or more officers, directors,
`
`or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on their behalf, to testify on
`
`each of the topics set forth on attached Exhibit A. Please notify Defendants of the names
`
`and positions of the person(s) who will testify on Plaintiffs’ behalf for each of the topics
`
`in Exhibit A at least ten (10) days prior to the scheduled deposition.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 3, 2019 fl Kurt J. Niederluecke (#0271597)
`
`Lora M. Friedemann (#0259615)
`
`Laura L. Myers (#0387116)
`
`Anne E. Rondoni Tavernier (#0398516)
`FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.
`200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000
`Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425
`Telephone: 612.492.7000
`Facsimile: 612.492. 7077
`
`kniederluecke@fredlaw.com
`lfriedemann@fredlaw.com
`lmyers@fredlaw.com
`arondonitavemier@fredlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`2
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on September 3, 2019, I caused the foregoing document
`
`DEFENDANTS' RULE 30(b)(6) NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS ON
`
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ISSUES to be served electronically with prior
`
`consent' upon the following counsel for Plaintiffs:
`
`J. Derek Vandenburgh (#224145)
`Tara C. Norgard (#307683)
`Joseph W. Winkels (#349707)
`Alexander S. Rinn (#385616)
`Shelleaha L. Jonas (#398417)
`CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH & LINDQUIST, P.A.
`225 South 6th Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: 612.436.9600
`Facsimile: 612.436.9605
`
`E-mail address: VSI-MDT@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Dated: September 3, 2019
`
`67800895
`
`lmyers@fredlaw.com
`
`1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(F).
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`DEFINITIONS
`
`1.
`
`“Teleflex,” “Plaintiffs,” “you,” or “your” means Vascular Solutions LLC,
`
`Teleflex Innovations S.à r.l., Arrow International, Inc., and Teleflex LLC, individually
`
`and collectively, their predecessor and successor companies, affiliates, parents, any
`
`partnership or joint venture to which they may be a party, and each of their employees,
`
`agents, officers, directors, representatives, consultants, accountants, and attorneys,
`
`including any person who served in any of these capacities during any relevant time
`
`period.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. are collectively
`
`referred to herein as “Medtronic.”
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“GuideLiner” means all versions of Teleflex’s GuideLiner catheter.
`
`“Telescope™” means all versions of Medtronic’s Telescope™ Guide
`
`Extension Catheter.
`
`5.
`
`“Complaint” means Teleflex’s Complaint in the above entitled action and
`
`any subsequent amendment thereto.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`“BSC” means third-party Boston Scientific Corporation.
`
`“BSC Litigation” means the case entitled Vascular Solutions, Inc. v. Boston
`
`Scientific Corporation, Case No. 0:13-cv-01172-JRT-SER in the United States District
`
`Court for the District of Minnesota.
`
`8.
`
`“BSC Appeal” means the Federal Circuit appeal entitled Boston Scientific
`
`Corporation v. Vascular Solutions, Appeal Nos. 14-1185 and 14-1259.
`
`1
`
`
`
`9.
`
`“Interventional Cardiology Market” means the market for interventional
`
`cardiology devices that includes, but is not limited to, catheters, stents, valves, balloons,
`
`guidewires, and other cardiac interventional instruments.
`
`10.
`
`“Asserted Patents” means U.S. Patent Nos. 8,048,032 (the “ ’032 patent”),
`
`RE45,380 (the “ ’380 patent”), RE45,776 (the “ ’776 patent”), RE47,379 (the “ ’379
`
`patent”), and RE45,760 (the “ ’760 patent”).
`
`11.
`
`“Prior Art” means all Documents, information, acts, or things that qualify
`
`as prior art under any subsection of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, including all systems,
`
`methods, apparatus, publications, patents, or uses.
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION TOPICS
`
`TOPIC NO. 1: Teleflex’s sales of GuideLiner, both in and outside the United
`
`States.
`
`
`
`TOPIC NO. 2: Teleflex’s market share in the U.S. Interventional Cardiology
`
`Market and any submarkets thereof from 2009 to the present.
`
`
`
`TOPIC NO. 3: Teleflex’s U.S. market share of guide extension catheters from
`
`2009 to the present.
`
`
`
`TOPIC NO. 4: Teleflex’s projected market share in the U.S. Interventional
`
`Cardiology Market.
`
`
`
`TOPIC NO. 5: Teleflex’s projected U.S. market share of guide extension
`
`catheters.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`TOPIC NO. 6: Teleflex’s list price and sales price of guide extension catheters
`
`sold in the U.S. from 2009 to the present.
`
`
`
`TOPIC NO. 7: Teleflex’s license with BSC, including without limitation the
`
`negotiations related thereto and BSC’s royalty payments thereunder.
`
`
`
`TOPIC NO. 8: Comparisons between GuideLiner and any other guide extension
`
`catheter.
`
`
`
`TOPIC NO. 9: The U.S. Interventional Cardiology market from 2009 to the
`
`present.
`
`
`
`TOPIC NO. 10: The U.S. market for guide extension catheters from 2009 to the
`
`present.
`
`
`
`TOPIC NO. 11: Competition between Teleflex and any third-party with respect
`
`to guide extension catheters.
`
`
`
`TOPIC NO. 12: Teleflex’s target market, sales channels, and customers for guide
`
`extension catheters in the U.S.
`
`TOPIC NO. 13: The impact of Medtronic’s launch and sales of the Telescope™
`
`guide extension catheter products on competitive market shares of guide extension
`
`catheters, the U.S. Interventional Cardiology Market, or Teleflex’s sales of guide
`
`extension catheters.
`
`TOPIC NO. 14: Licenses in the Interventional Cardiology Market of which
`
`Teleflex is aware.
`
`TOPIC NO. 15: The “significant harm” Teleflex alleges it suffered and will
`
`continue to suffer as a result of its license with BSC.
`
`3
`
`
`
`TOPIC NO. 16: Teleflex’s current contracts with group purchasing
`
`organizations, integrated delivery networks, and hospitals with respect to guide extension
`
`catheters.
`
`TOPIC NO. 17: Any harm to Teleflex due to any competitors’ entry or presence
`
`in the U.S. Interventional Cardiology Market.
`
`TOPIC NO. 18: Any harm to Teleflex due to any competitors’ sales of guide
`
`extension catheters, including each type of “irreparable harm” Teleflex claims it suffered
`
`as a result of Medtronic’s Telescope™ guide extension catheter.
`
`TOPIC NO. 19: Any impact sales of GuideLiner have had on any Teleflex
`
`product.
`
`TOPIC NO. 20: The applications, health benefits, side effects, safety issues,
`
`MAUDE reports, and shortcomings of GuideLiner.
`
`TOPIC NO. 21: Teleflex’s pre-suit communications with Medtronic referring or
`
`relating to any of the Asserted Patents.
`
`TOPIC NO. 22: Teleflex’s allegation in the Complaint that Telescope™ is a
`
`“copy” of GuideLiner.
`
`TOPIC NO. 23: Teleflex’s investment in research and development based on its
`
`annual revenues from GuideLiner and Teleflex’s total annual investment in research and
`
`development from 2009 to the present.
`
`TOPIC NO. 24: For each of the Asserted Patents, the date of conception and
`
`each reduction to practice, including without limitation the facts and circumstances
`
`related thereto and the identity of documents that can substantiate the foregoing.
`
`4
`
`
`
`TOPIC NO. 25: Prior Art to the Asserted Patents.
`
`TOPIC NO. 26: The BSC Litigation and BSC Appeal.
`
`TOPIC NO. 27: Documents produced by Teleflex.
`
`TOPIC NO. 28: Teleflex’s discovery responses.
`
`TOPIC NO. 29: The bases for Teleflex’s assertion in its Memorandum in
`
`Support of motion for Preliminary Injunction that it is likely to succeed in establishing
`
`that Medtronic infringes the asserted patents.
`
`TOPIC NO. 30: The bases for Teleflex’s assertion in its Memorandum in
`
`Support of motion for Preliminary Injunction that the asserted claims are likely to
`
`withstand any validity challenge.
`
`
`
`67800896 v1
`
`5
`
`