`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 RE45,776
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner hereby submits its notice
`
`of objections to certain evidence that Petitioner submitted in connection with
`
`IPR2020-00135.
`
`Objections
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1005 to the extent Dr. Brecker has
`not disclosed materials considered other than those referenced in his
`declaration. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65(a) and (b).
`
`FRE 702, 703, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65:
`
`¶¶ 37, 48, 53-54, 94, 107, 110, 115-16, 119-21, 161, 166, 168, 171,
`179, 191-93, 195-96, 198, 200-01, 203-06, 208, 216-17, 219-21, 223,
`233, 235-37, 238, 240, 252, 254-56, 258-60, 262, 264, 273, 275-78,
`284, 287, 289-92, 304, 306-08, 314, 317, 319-22 are not based on
`sufficient facts and data and do not reliably apply facts and data using
`scientific principles.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403:
`
`¶¶ 110, 240, 259, 277 are not relevant; to the extent they are relevant,
`their probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing unfair
`prejudice and confusing the issues because they lack support for the
`contentions for which they are cited and improperly characterize the
`teachings of Ressemann.
`
` 114 contains irrelevant statements; to the extent such statements are
`relevant, their probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing
`unfair prejudice and confusing the issues because they lack support
`for the contentions for which they are cited and improperly
`characterize the teachings of Ressemann and Kataishi.
`
`¶¶ 116-119, 203, 221 are not relevant; to the extent they are relevant,
`their probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing unfair
`prejudice and confusing the issues because they lack support for the
`
` ¶
`
`1
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`1005
`
`
`
`contentions for which they are cited and improperly characterize the
`teachings of Kataishi.
`
`¶¶ 120, 306-07 are not relevant; to the extent they are relevant, their
`probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing unfair
`prejudice and confusing the issues because they lack support for the
`contentions for which they are cited and improperly characterize the
`teachings of Enger.
`
`¶¶ 147, 161, 168, 171 are not relevant; to the extent they are relevant,
`their probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing unfair
`prejudice and confusing the issues because they lack support for the
`contentions for which they are cited and improperly characterize the
`teachings of Itou.
`
` ¶
`
` 204 is not relevant; to the extent it is relevant, its probative value is
`outweighed by the danger of causing unfair prejudice and confusing
`the issues because it lacks support for the contentions for which it is
`cited and improperly characterizes the teachings of Abrahamson.
`
`¶¶ 115, 134, 165-66, 170, 185, 189-90, 200, 206, 219 are not relevant;
`to the extent they are relevant, their probative value is outweighed by
`the danger of causing unfair prejudice and confusing the issues
`because they lack support for the contentions for which they are cited
`and improperly characterize the teachings of the ’776 patent.
`
`FRE 702, 703, 704:
`
`¶¶ 18, 127, 159, 161, 165-66, 192, 200, 205-06, 210, 224, 226, 236-
`38, 247, 254, 257, 260-61, 266, 280, 297, 310, 319 and the headings
`of Sections IX, X, X.B, XI, XI.B, XII, and XII.B state improper legal
`conclusions.
`35 U.S.C. § 102: The exhibit is not prior art.
`
`FRE 403: To the extent this document may be relevant, its probative
`value is outweighed by the danger of causing unfair prejudice,
`confusing the issues, causing undue delay, wasting time, or
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore the
`document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`
`2
`
`1007
`
`
`
`1011
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`FRE 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a printed
`publication.
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay
`FRE 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a printed
`publication.
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay
`
`3
`
`
`
`1024
`
`1027
`
`1031
`
`1034
`
`1037
`
`FRE 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a printed
`publication.
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`1042
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1048
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1005 to the extent Dr. Hillstead has
`not disclosed materials considered other than those referenced in his
`declaration. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65(a) and (b).
`
`FRE 702, 703, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65:
`
`¶¶ 19, 25, 27, 30-31, 38-41, 44-45, 54, 58, 73, 76-81, 91-92, 95-96,
`102, 105-109, 111-13, 115, 117-18, 121-23, 126, 128-30, 132, 135
`are not based on sufficient facts and data and do not reliably apply
`facts and data using scientific principles.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`
`FRE 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`1049
`
`1052
`
`1056
`
`1060
`
`1063
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a printed
`publication.
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`
`FRE 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a printed
`publication.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`
`6
`
`
`
`1066
`
`1067
`
`1068
`
`1069
`
`1074
`
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`7
`
`
`
`1075
`1076
`
`1079
`1080
`
`1081
`
`1082
`
`1083
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102: The exhibit is not prior art.
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 106, 1002: This document is incomplete. This document has
`been modified.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: In view of the Board’s Institution Decision, this
`document is irrelevant and inadmissible under Rule 402. To the
`extent it may be relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing
`undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`evidence, and therefore it is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: In view of the Board’s Institution Decision, these
`references are irrelevant and inadmissible under Rule 402. To the
`extent they are relevant, their probative value is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing
`undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`evidence, and therefore they are inadmissible under Rule 403.
`
`1084
`
`1088-
`1095
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Dated: June 22, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/J. Derek Vandenburgh /
`J. Derek Vandenburgh (Lead Counsel)
`Registration No. 32,179
`Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh
` & Lindquist, P.A.
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 436-9600
`Facsimile: (612) 436-9650
`Email:
`DVandenburgh@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`10
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the agreement of the parties, the
`
`
`
`undersigned certifies that on June 22, 2020, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence was served via electronic mail
`
`upon the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cyrus A. Morton (Reg. No. 44,954)
`Sharon Roberg-Perez (Reg. No. 69,600)
`Christopher A. Pinahs (Reg. No. 76,375)
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
`Minneapolis, MN 55401
`Phone: 349-8500
`Fax: 612-339-4181
`Email: Cmorton@robinskaplan.com
`Email: Sroberg-perez@robinskaplan.com
`Email: Cpinahs@robinskaplan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/J. Derek Vandenburgh/
`J. Derek Vandenburgh (Lead Counsel for Patent Owner)
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`