`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