`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF HOWARD ROOT SUBMITTED IN CONNECTION
`WITH PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`Page 1
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`I, Howard Root, hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I make this Declaration in connection with Patent Owner’s Responses
`
`to Petitions filed in response to the following IPR Petitions:
`
`IPR No.
`IPR2020-00126
`IPR2020-00128
`IPR2020-00129
`IPR2020-00132
`IPR2020-00134
`IPR2020-00135
` IPR2020-00137
`
`Patent No.
`8,048,032
`RE45,380
`RE45,380
`RE 45,760E
`RE 45,760E
`RE45,776
`RE47,379
`
` refer to the patents in this table collectively as “the GuideLiner patents,” as they
`
` I
`
`are the patents that were obtained for and protect the GuideLiner® guide extension
`
`catheter, which was the most successful product introduced by Vascular Solutions,
`
`Inc. (“VSI”), a company that I founded and was the Chief Executive Officer of for
`
`20 years. I am also a named inventor on the GuideLiner patents.
`
`2.
`
` I was originally trained as a lawyer and worked in private practice
`
`from 1985-1990. In 1990, I left private practice to serve as General Counsel at
`
`ATS Medical, Inc., a medical device company, which has since been acquired by
`
`Medtronic, Inc. I left ATS Medical in 1996 and founded VSI in 1997. I acted as
`
`the CEO of VSI from 1997 until 2017. In 2017, VSI was acquired by Teleflex
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`Page 2
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`Incorporated, the current owner of the GuideLiner patents (through a subsidiary
`
`entity).
`
`3.
`
`I am aware that Teleflex has filed suit against Medtronic, Inc. and
`
`Medtronic Vascular, Inc. (“Medtronic”) for infringement of the GuideLiner
`
`patents. I have been retained as a consultant on behalf of Teleflex in connection
`
`with that lawsuit and the present IPR Petitions. However, I have no ongoing
`
`involvement in the Teleflex business and I have no financial interest in the
`
`outcome of the litigation.
`
`4.
`
`VSI was a relatively small medical company that developed, among
`
`other things, specialty catheters for interventional cardiology procedures.
`
`Throughout my time at VSI, I was personally active in, among other things,
`
`product conception and development, legal and marketing efforts, and sales. I was
`
`involved with the GuideLiner project and product embodiments at the time the
`
`inventions of the GuideLiner patents were conceived and reduced to practice, and
`
`at the time the applications that ultimately resulted in the patents-in-suit were filed.
`
`Conception of GuideLiner
`
`5.
`
`I attended the annual Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics
`
`(“TCT”) conference in 2004, which took place in Washington, D.C. from
`
`September 27 to October 1. By that time I had recognized issues physicians were
`
`experiencing with guide catheter backout in complex interventional coronary
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`Page 3
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`procedures. I realized that there was a need for a solution in complex
`
`interventional coronary procedures that provided better guide positioning, device
`
`delivery, and procedural conveniences than what then existed.
`
`6.
`
`Around the time of the 2004 TCT conference, I conceived of the idea
`
`for a guide extension catheter that would provide improved back-up support with
`
`rapid exchange delivery, which would offer far more convenience than other
`
`options available at the time. Sometime after the TCT conference, but before
`
`2005, my co-inventors and I met to discuss particular ideas for how to make such a
`
`device.
`
`7.
`
`At a high level, the device we developed was a guide extension
`
`catheter to be used within a one French size larger guide catheter. The guide
`
`extension catheter included a substantially rigid proximal portion comprising a
`
`“rail” structure and a tubular portion with a lumen distal of the proximal portion,
`
`which together were longer than the overall length of a standard guide catheter.
`
`The distal tube portion was reinforced with a braid or coil, and it could have a
`
`highly flexible atraumatic “bumper tip.” In use, a standard guide catheter would be
`
`inserted first into the vasculature until the distal end of the guide catheter was
`
`located in the ostium of a cardiac artery within the heart. Our guide extension
`
`catheter would then be inserted through the guide catheter until the tubular
`
`portion’s distal end extended past the distal end of the guide catheter and into the
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`Page 4
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`cardiac artery. An interventional cardiology device, such as a balloon catheter or a
`
`stent, would then be inserted through the guide catheter (running alongside the rail
`
`of our guide extension catheter), into the proximal end of the tubular portion of our
`
`guide extension catheter, and ultimately out of the distal end of the tubular portion
`
`and into the cardiac artery.
`
`8. We also contemplated that the guide extension catheter would
`
`optionally be used together with a dilator. The dilator would be inserted into the
`
`tubular portion outside the body and would further assist with guiding the
`
`extension catheter past the end of the guide catheter and into the cardiac artery.
`
`The dilator would then be removed from the body prior to insertion of an
`
`interventional cardiology device such as a stent or balloon catheter.
`
`9.
`
`Exhibit 2002 is a true and correct copy of pages from co-inventor
`
`Gregg Sutton’s laboratory notebook. Conception of the inventions claimed in the
`
`GuideLiner patents by the beginning of 2005 is reflected by an entry in Mr.
`
`Sutton’s lab notebook signed and dated January 4, 2005. This lab notebook entry
`
`is called “Guide-Liner Device” (the hyphen was later dropped). The recorded
`
`device was described as providing additional back-up support for the delivery of
`
`interventional cardiology devices. It was further described as allowing for rapid
`
`exchange convenience and fitting in a standard 6 French guide catheter and being
`
`one French size smaller than the standard guide catheter. The notebook entry also
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`Page 5
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`illustrates and describes a cut away (partial-round), stainless steel proximal section,
`
`joined to a softer, distal tube section. The distal tube section is at least partially
`
`reinforced (e.g., by a coil and/or braid), has a radiopaque marker and a bumper tip,
`
`and has an outer diameter of 0.065” and an inner diameter of 0.054”. The overall
`
`device length is stated as being 105-115 cm, which is longer than a standard 100
`
`cm guide catheter. One of the drawings appearing in this lab notebook entry is
`
`nearly identical to Figure 2 of the GuideLiner patents:
`
`
`
`
`
`10. Mr. Sutton’s lab notebook also contained a sketch showing how the
`
`GuideLiner would be used:
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`Page 6
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`
`
`11. By early February 2005, I realized that the device we had conceived
`
`would have substantial market potential. Exhibit 2003 is a true and correct copy
`
`of a February 4, 2005 memo regarding Market Feasibility for the GuideLiner
`
`catheters. (See also Exhibit 2127, which is a public, redacted version of Exhibit
`
`2003.) Such memos were drafted only after I had developed high confidence that a
`
`concept would work, at which time other people in the company beyond the
`
`inventors, such as regulatory personnel and engineers, would be included in the
`
`project to help bring the new product to market. As this memo reflects, by
`
`February 4, 2005, I (and others) had recognized a substantial market potential
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`Page 7
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`specifically for a rapid exchange GuideLiner device. In the memo I also described
`
`the rapid exchange GuideLiner as we had conceived it: the rapid exchange
`
`GuideLiner would be delivered inside a standard guide catheter for use in
`
`interventional cardiology procedures; it had a short distal tube segment to allow for
`
`rapid exchange delivery; it was inserted through the existing hemostatic valve; and
`
`it was about one catheter size (one French size) smaller than the guide catheter it
`
`was used with. The memo also notes some evaluations that were performed to
`
`determine the space necessary between the outer diameter of the GuideLiner’s
`
`distal tubing and the inner diameter of the guide catheter it was used with to allow
`
`delivery.
`
`12. Exhibit 2004 is a true and correct copy of hand-written notes made by
`
`me on February 7, 2005. Conception of the inventions claimed in the GuideLiner
`
`patents is further reflected by these notes, which also show features of the rapid
`
`exchange GuideLiner device, including a depiction of a side opening section,
`
`transitioning from a partial-round, proximal portion, to a full round portion
`
`connected to a distal tube section. My February 7, 2005 notes also describe the
`
`dimensions of three sizes of GuideLiner, each being one French size smaller than
`
`an associated guide catheter. My drawings on page 1 of Exhibit 2004 are similar
`
`to the drawings appearing as Figure 1 of the GuideLiner patents:
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`Page 8
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13. An important feature of GuideLiner is a “side opening” at the
`
`transition between the proximal rail structure and the distal tubular portion that
`
`facilitates entry of interventional cardiology devices into the proximal end of the
`
`tubular portion. This feature is reflected in the crude shading between the rail
`
`structure and the tubular portion shown in the sketch above from my February 7,
`
`2005 notes.
`
`14. Another side opening concept is shown on page 3 of Exhibit 2004:
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`Page 9
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`This sketch shows a side opening structure that is cut-away in several segments
`
`including, from left (distal) to right (proximal): a full round portion; a first angled
`
`transition portion; a first partial round portion; a second angled transition portion;
`
`and a second partial round portion. Pages 2-3 of Exhibit 2004 are undated, but
`
`they were made contemporaneously with my notes on page 1 of Exhibit 2004.
`
`Reduction to Practice
`
`15. Between January and August of 2005, prototypes of the rapid
`
`exchange GuideLiner were built and tested. I recall Mr. Sutton and Mr. Welch
`
`(another of the named inventors) leading the efforts to make the first such
`
`prototype.
`
`16. During the January to March 2005 time period, one of VSI’s
`
`machinists named Steve Erb, worked with Mr. Sutton and/or Mr. Welch to
`
`mechanically cut stainless steel hypotubes into the proximal portion of a rapid
`
`exchange GuideLiner prototype. At least some of these initial prototypes were
`
`made of a machined-down hypotube with a profile that was full circumference at
`
`the distal end and a roughly half-round profile at the proximal end. The
`
`mechanically cut stainless steel hypotube was then combined with a polymer distal
`
`section to create the first prototypes of the rapid exchange GuideLiner. Even these
`
`first prototypes made in-house were subjected to testing. I very quickly
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`Page 10
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`understood, even based on just these earliest prototypes that the rapid exchange
`
`GuideLiner would work and could be a commercially viable product.
`
`17. Testing was performed in a bench-top, coronary model that simulated
`
`the native anatomy and environment. An example of such a coronary model is
`
`shown in the following photographs from a July 2005 PowerPoint presentation,
`
`discussed further below:
`
`
`
`(Exhibit 2018, 2129.) Such coronary models were commonly used by VSI and
`
`other medical device companies to test interventional cardiology catheters and
`
`devices and to determine that they would serve their purpose inside a human heart.
`
`We already had such coronary models at VSI at the time we began to build and test
`
`GuideLiner prototypes.
`
`18.
`
` Testing of the GuideLiner prototypes consisted of simulating a
`
`procedure in which the GuideLiner would be used, including inserting a standard
`
`guide catheter into the coronary model, advancing the prototype into the guide
`11
`
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`catheter until the distal end of the prototype extended beyond the distal end of the
`
`standard guide catheter, and then delivering a stent or balloon catheter into the
`
`guide catheter, into and through the tubular portion of the GuideLiner prototype
`
`and out the distal end of the GuideLiner prototype. We also observed the forces
`
`involved in navigating the GuideLiner prototype through such a model, and
`
`performed pull tests to assess the durability of the prototype. Such testing,
`
`including testing the rapid exchange GuideLiner prototypes in a bench-top model
`
`such as this was sufficient to determine that the concept would work for its
`
`intended purpose, namely that a rapid exchange guide extension catheter could
`
`deliver interventional cardiology devices, such as a stent or balloon catheter,
`
`alongside the rail segment, into the side opening and distal tubular portion, and
`
`then out the distal end of the distal tubular portion and into challenging coronary
`
`anatomy.
`
`19. The original idea for GuideLiner was a rapid exchange guide
`
`extension catheter, as confirmed in the earliest drawings of GuideLiner, for
`
`example, in Mr. Sutton’s lab notebook, my early 2005 drawings, and my February
`
`4, 2005 Market Feasibility memo. (Exhibits 2002-2004.) Sometime between
`
`February and June of 2005, a decision was made to concurrently pursue
`
`development of an over-the-wire (“OTW”) version of GuideLiner. The OTW
`
`GuideLiner was not part of the inventions of the GuideLiner patents, but rather was
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`Page 12
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`akin to the prior art “mother-in-child” design that is discussed in the background of
`
`the GuideLiner patents (see, e.g., the ’032 patent, col. 2:17-44). Between February
`
`and the end of August 2005, we prototyped and tested both OTW and rapid
`
`exchange versions of GuideLiner. Some of the documents discussed herein relate
`
`to both the OTW and rapid exchange versions of GuideLiner, but many of them
`
`relate only to the rapid exchange version that is the subject of the GuideLiner
`
`patents. The OTW version of GuideLiner was pursued because it was believed at
`
`the time that it could be brought to market quicker with less regulatory clearance
`
`challenges than the rapid exchange version. While development work on an OTW
`
`version of GuideLiner was performed in 2005 and early 2006 at VSI, development
`
`of the rapid exchange GuideLiner remained the development priority and regular
`
`work continued on its commercial development as it was believed to be a
`
`completely new product with a significant unique market potential.
`
`20. Teleflex no longer has many development documents from the 2005
`
`time frame. For example, a number of engineering drawings were created for the
`
`rapid exchange GuideLiner product between February and the end of August of
`
`2005, but VSI did not maintain those drawings. The only reason that we were able
`
`to locate the engineering drawings that are discussed in the declaration (see
`
`Exhibits 2019, 2022, 2089, 2092, 2113, and 2114) is because they were sent to
`
`VSI’s vendors to facilitate ordering components or to VSI’s patent prosecution law
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`Page 13
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`firm to facilitate preparation of a patent application, and the vendors and/or law
`
`firm maintained them in their files.
`
`21. VSI did maintain some records relating to the purchase of components
`
`for the GuideLiner prototyping and development, including invoices. Exhibit
`
`2005 is a true and correct copy of a February 11, 2005 to June 30, 2006 spend
`
`report relating to the GuideLiner development. This report confirms that
`
`significant expenditures were made on the development of GuideLiner throughout
`
`2005 and 2006. This spreadsheet does not capture all of the expenditures on
`
`GuideLiner; for example, it does not capture internal work performed at VSI using
`
`existing materials that VSI already had in its inventory.
`
`22. The entries on Exhibit 2005 are charged under two different project
`
`names. Generally, the entries before May 2005 are charged to “New Modalities.”
`
`This is the account that we used for early stage work on new ideas before a project
`
`account was created. In May of 2005, we opened an account specific to the
`
`“Guideliner project,” indicating that development had advanced to the point that
`
`we were confident we would proceed toward commercialization.
`
`23. As discussed above with respect to the early prototypes made in-
`
`house, an early plan for the substantially rigid proximal portion of the rapid
`
`exchange GuideLiner was to use a “cut-down hypotube,” i.e., a round metal tube
`
`that was full circumference at one end but was cutaway along the majority of its
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`Page 14
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`length. Exhibit 2110 is a true and correct copy of an invoice showing delivery of
`
`stock stainless steel hypotubing by Microgroup to VSI on January 14, 2005.
`
`Exhibits 2006 and 2007 are true and correct copies of invoices showing delivery
`
`of special stainless steel hypotubing by Microgroup to VSI on January 14,
`
`February 8, and March 4, 2005. These invoices are for metal hypotubing that was
`
`purchased by the foot, and thus were likely used for the earliest evaluations of the
`
`rapid exchange GuideLiner concept.
`
`24. From the earliest stages of the project, the plan was to combine the
`
`substantially rigid proximal portion of the rapid exchange GuideLiner with a distal
`
`polymer tubular portion that would be at least partially reinforced with coil or
`
`braid. For the very earliest prototypes made in-house in January and February
`
`2005, this distal tubular portion was sometimes made out of a portion of a standard
`
`guide catheter that was cut to the appropriate length. For subsequent prototypes
`
`we designed distal tubular portions specific to the rapid exchange GuideLiner.
`
`25. Exhibit 2089 is a copy of an invoice, packing list, certificate of
`
`conformance, sales order acknowledgement, quotation, purchase order, and
`
`engineering drawing obtained from the files of Medical Engineering & Design,
`
`which was VSI’s supplier for the distal tubular portion of the rapid exchange
`
`GuideLiner prototypes at the time. The engineering drawing shown in Exhibit
`
`2089 shows that it was drawn on February 10, 2005 by Jim Kauphusman, who was
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`Page 15
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`an engineer at VSI working on the GuideLiner project. Among other things, the
`
`drawing and quote in Exhibit 2089 indicate that the tubular portion that was drawn
`
`and ordered from Medical Engineering & Design included a PTFE liner, three
`
`sections of different Pebax, reinforcing braid, a soft tip where braid is excluded
`
`from the distal-most section of Pebax, and a platinum-iridium alloy marker band.
`
`The drawing and quote also indicate that the proximal end of the tubular portion
`
`should be counter bored, which would facilitate attachment to a cut-down
`
`hypotube forming the proximal portion of the rapid exchange GuideLiner. The
`
`11.8” length of the tubular portion shown in the quotation and drawing also
`
`demonstrates it could only have been for the rapid exchange version of
`
`GuideLiner, as any tubular portion for an over-the-wire version would have been
`
`much longer. The purchase order of Exhibit 2089 indicates that 20 such distal
`
`tubular portions were ordered from Medical Engineering & Design on February
`
`17, 2005 and were delivered to VSI on or about April 5, 2005. Full featured tubes
`
`like in Exhibit 2089 were only for rapid exchange GuideLiner prototypes and were
`
`not used for the OTW version of GuideLiner. An annotated version of the drawing
`
`in Exhibit 2089 is below:
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Three Reinforced Pebax Portions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proximal End
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Soft Tip
`
`Distal End
`
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`Pebax
`Braid
`
`PTFE
`
`
`
`26. Exhibit 2008 is a true and correct copy of invoices and a
`
`corresponding payment check for GuideLiner dilators and shafts purchased from
`
`the polymer extrusion company Medical Profiles & Engineering. The invoices are
`
`dated February 24 and February 28, 2005, and indicate that the polymer dilators
`
`and shafts purchased were white. This is consistent with my recollection that an
`
`early prototype used white polymer for the dilator, while blue polymer was used
`
`for the distal portion of the rapid exchange GuideLiner (and the entire length of the
`
`OTW GuideLiner), with the exception of the bumper tip, which was sometimes
`
`was yellow.
`
`27. Exhibit 2009 is a true and correct copy of an invoice, packing slip and
`
`email relating to the purchase of 11 hypotubes from Microgroup that were shipped
`
`to VSI on or about March 10, 2005. The documents indicate that the order was
`
`placed by Jeff Welch, a VSI engineer who is a named inventor on the GuideLiner
`
`patents and who was involved in the early prototyping work. This invoice shows
`
`the hypotubes were purchased by individual pieces (11 total) rather than by the
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`Page 18
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`foot, and shows engineering charges indicating that Microgroup customized the
`
`hypotubes for VSI’s use.
`
`28. Exhibit 2090 is a true and correct copy of invoices and corresponding
`
`payment check relating to the purchase of different sized forming tips from
`
`Farlow’s Scientific Glassblowing Inc. The invoices are dated March 15, 2005.
`
`Forming tips like this would have been used for forming the distal tip of a
`
`GuideLiner prototype, including reforming a distal tubular portion purchased from
`
`Medical Engineering & Design like that shown in Exhibit 2089.
`
`29. Exhibit 2091 is a true and correct copy of an invoice, packing slip and
`
`corresponding payment check relating to the purchase of 300 feet of stainless steel
`
`hypotube from Microgroup that were shipped to VSI on or about March 18, 2005.
`
`This stainless steel hypotube would have been used to make proximal rigid
`
`portions of rapid exchange GuideLiner prototypes.
`
`30. Exhibit 2010 is a true and correct copy of an invoice and packing slip
`
`relating to the machining of 8 “Guideliner hypotube parts” from Mountain
`
`Machine, Inc. that were shipped to VSI on or about March 23, 2005. The order
`
`was placed by Jim Kauphusman, who was a VSI engineer working for Jeff Welch
`
`on the GuideLiner project. This invoice shows that the hypotubes purchased from
`
`Microgroup were machined to create the profile required for construction of the
`
`rapid exchange GuideLiner prototype.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`Page 19
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`31. Exhibit 2011 is a true and correct copy of an invoice and packing slip
`
`along with a corresponding payment check obtained from VSI’s files relating to
`
`the purchase of the 22 “Guide Liner Distal Sections” from Medical Engineering &
`
`Design Inc. discussed above in connection with Exhibit 2089. As described with
`
`respect to Exhibit 2089, this invoice is for early samples of the distal tubular
`
`portion of rapid exchange GuideLiner prototypes. The price of $145.45 each
`
`further indicates that this was not simply a polymer extrusion, but instead was a
`
`multi-component part that was manufactured to our specifications as shown in
`
`Exhibit 2089. This is consistent with the fact that our rapid exchange GuideLiner
`
`prototypes had a metal coil embedded between a Teflon inner liner and an outer
`
`polymer extrusion with a softer polymer bumper distal tip.
`
`32. Exhibit 2013 is a true and correct copy of invoices and a
`
`corresponding payment check for laser cutting of stainless steel hypotubes by
`
`SPECTRAlytics, which was one of VSI’s vendors for laser cutting hypotubes for
`
`use in rapid exchange GuideLiner prototypes. The order date is listed as March 21,
`
`2005, and indicates that 8 cut hypotubes were shipped to VSI on or about April 4,
`
`2005 and another 12 cut hypotubes were shipped to VSI on or about April 5, 2005.
`
`A stainless steel hypotube was cut using a laser to form the proximal portion of a
`
`rapid exchange GuideLiner prototype. The documents indicate that
`
`SPECTRAlytics laser cut “blanks” supplied by the customer. This is consistent
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`Page 20
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`with at least Exhibits 2006, 2007, 2009, 2091, and 2110 above, which relate to
`
`hypotubes purchased by VSI from Microgroup in the preceding weeks.
`
`33. Exhibit 2095 is a copy of two certificates of completion and a sales
`
`acknowledgement obtained from the files of SPECTRAlytics. These certificates of
`
`completion correspond to the invoices for laser cutting of stainless steel hypotubes
`
`from Exhibit 2013. The laser cut hypotubes supplied by SPECTRAlytics for VSI
`
`were only for rapid exchange GuideLiner prototypes and were not used for the
`
`OTW version of GuideLiner.
`
`34. Exhibit 2113 is a three page exhibit showing copies of a VSI
`
`engineering drawing for a cut stainless steel hypotube obtained from the files of
`
`SPECTRAlytics. The underlying engineering drawing is the same in each page,
`
`with the first page indicating that it was received by SPECTRAlytics on March 22,
`
`2005, and pages 2-3 indicating that it was received by SPECTRAlytics on March
`
`29, 2005. This drawing was for the proximal portion of the rapid exchange
`
`GuideLiner and indicates that it was drawn by VSI’s engineer Jim Kauphusman on
`
`February 4, 2005. The title of the drawing is “SS HYPO TUBE, CUT” and the
`
`drawing number is “SS HYPO X04.” This drawing corresponds to the certificates
`
`of completion of Exhibit 2095 and the invoices of Exhibit 2013. For example, the
`
`certificates of completion of Exhibit 2095 specify that the part that was made was
`
`“SS HYPO X04.” The invoices of Exhibit 2013 also refer to “SS HYPO TUBE”
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`Page 21
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`and the “Purchase Order” number 718686 matches the “Customer P.O. #” on the
`
`certificates of completion. The drawing of Exhibit 2113 thus shows what the
`
`prototype part looked like that was suppled to VSI by SPECTRAlytics in April
`
`2005. The drawings show a design of the proximal portion for the rapid exchange
`
`GuideLiner that had multiple angled transition regions bookending non-inclined
`
`regions:
`
`Side opening
`
`Machined end for connecting
`to tubular portion
`
`
`
`Rail structure
`
`
`
`35. As described above with respect to the work done at VSI by Mr.
`
`Sutton and Mr. Erb, VSI had already built prototype rapid exchange GuideLiners
`
`prior to this order from SPECTRAlytics; however, as work on the prototypes
`
`progressed, VSI built more formal prototypes of the rapid exchange GuideLiner
`
`based on parts received from vendors such as MED and SPECTRAlytics. Once we
`
`received the laser cut hypotubes from SPECTRAlytics, we promptly combined this
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`Page 22
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`with tubular sections already obtained (likely the “Guide Liner Distal Sections”
`
`from Medical Engineering & Design that were shipped to VSI around April 5,
`
`2005 (Exhibits 2089 and 2011) to make more refined rapid exchange GuideLiner
`
`prototypes. These prototypes were then tested in one or more of the cardiac
`
`models discussed above to confirm that they provided increased backup support
`
`and facilitated delivery of balloon catheters and stents past the distal end of the
`
`guide catheter deep within the “coronary artery” of the model. I quickly realized
`
`these prototypes worked as well. Therefore, by April 2005 we had built formal
`
`rapid exchange prototypes of GuideLiner that were tested and understood to have
`
`worked for their intended purpose.
`
`36. Exhibit 2016 is a true and correct copy of an invoice and Delivery
`
`Note for five Launcher Guide Catheters (size 6 French) purchased from Medtronic
`
`USA, Inc. for use in GuideLiner testing. The invoice is dated April 6, 2005. This
`
`is further confirming evidence that GuideLiner devices were being tested in a
`
`cardiac model with guide catheters in early 2005.
`
`37. Exhibit 2017 is a true and correct copy of a June 23, 2005 Memo on
`
`Market Feasibility for the GuideLiner catheters. (See also Exhibit 2128, which is
`
`a public, redacted version of Exhibit 2017.) This memo is similar to the February
`
`4, 2005 Market Feasibility Memo (Exhibits 2003, 2127) and confirms that as of
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`Page 23
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`June 23, 2005 the rapid exchange version of GuideLiner was still being developed,
`
`with an OTW GuideLiner now added to the development project.
`
`38. Exhibit 2018 is a true and correct copy of a July 2005 PowerPoint
`
`presentation titled “New Products on the Horizon.” (See also Exhibit 2129, which
`
`is a public, redacted version of Exhibit 2018.) This presentation was presented by
`
`me at the July 2005 Vascular Solutions national sales meeting, as indicated by the
`
`products shown and the last modified date on the PowerPoint presentation of July
`
`11, 2005. Beginning on page 10, pictures are shown of an OTW version of
`
`GuideLiner being tested in a bench-top coronary model, including the following:
`
`
`
`The pictures show an OTW GuideLiner prototype extending past the distal end of a
`
`guide catheter deep into the simulated anatomy. The portion of the OTW
`
`GuideLiner that can be seen extending past the end of the guide catheter and into
`
`the simulated coronary artery is very similar to the rapid exchange GuideLiner
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`Page 24
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`prototypes we had created and tested by this time. Another picture in Exhibits
`
`2018, 2129 shows a balloon catheter being inserted into the guide catheter,
`
`confirming that the simulated delivery of coronary devices was a part of the testing
`
`procedure for GuideLiner. Similar tests were performed on rapid exchange
`
`versions of GuideLiner by this time, but pictures were not included in this
`
`presentation prepared for the sales people, because the rapid exchange GuideLiner
`
`was expected to take longer to bring to market than the OTW version.
`
`39.
`
`In addition to the prototypes discussed above that were assembled in-
`
`house from January to March 2005 and from parts purchased in early April of
`
`2005, records show that updated prototypes were built and tested in at least June-
`
`July of 2005.
`
`40. Exhibit 2094 is a true and correct copy of an invoice, packing slip and
`
`corresponding payment check relating to the purchase of cut-to-length hypotubes
`
`from Microgroup that were shipped to VSI on or about April 20, 2005. These
`
`stainless steel hypotubes would have been used to make proximal rigid portions of
`
`rapid exchange GuideLiner prototypes.
`
`41. Exhibit 2114 is a true and correct copy of a VSI engineering drawing
`
`of a rapid exchange GuideLiner proximal portion obtained from the files of
`
`SPECTRAlytics. The five drawings on that page correspond closely to Figures 12-
`
`16 of the GuideLiner patents:
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`Page 25
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`Side opening
`
`Rail Structure
`
`Machined End for
`Connecting to Tubular
`P ti
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`26
`
`
`Page 26
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2118
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`
`
`The document shows that it was drawn at VSI on June 21, 2005 and received by
`
`Spectralytics on June 28, 2005. The drawings show, in a distal to proximal
`
`direction, a full round section that transitions to a first short angled section. This is
`
`followed by an extended non-inclined section that is partially cut away, which
`
`transitions into a second short angled section and then into a second non-inclined
`
`section that extends to the e
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
