`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.A.R.L.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00135
`Patent RE 45,776
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S 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.
`
`Patent Owner notes that Petitioner cites or relies on evidence in its
`
`Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend that was previously filed in this or
`
`other IPRs and does not refile that evidence in connection with its
`
`Opposition. Thus, in addition to the objections set forth below, Patent Owner
`
`reasserts and preserves all objections previously made to each such previously-
`
`filed exhibit.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to any declaration testimony previously filed in
`
`this or any other IPR proceeding, in the absence of an opportunity for Patent
`
`Owner to depose the declarant specifically in the context of the Petitioner’s
`
`Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend and during the discovery period
`
`for Patent Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to the Motions to
`
`Amend. Absent this opportunity, Patent Owner objects to the previously-filed
`
`testimony as hearsay (FRE 802).
`
`1904
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1904 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:
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`¶¶ 14-22, 26, 32-34, 38-50, 52-84, 89-95, 98-130, 133-
`143, 145-159, 161-190, 192, 199-219, and 221-225 are not
`based on sufficient facts and data and do not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403:
`
`¶¶ 4, 6-10, 33, 55, 88-90, 142, 144, 150, 194-198, 203,
`and 220 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.
`
`FRE 702, 703, 704:
`
`¶¶ 18, 20, 37, 41, 49, 50, 56, 60, 69, 70, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81,
`84, 91, 101, 102, 105, 109, 111, 112, 114, 123, 124, 129,
`130, 134, 137, 138, 143, 175, 180, 184, 192, 204, 219,
`221, and the headings of §§ IV-X (including all
`subheadings thereunder) state improper legal conclusions.
`
`FRE 602:
`
`¶¶ 4, 6-11, 97, 179, and 220 are not based on personal
`knowledge.
`
`Patent Owner additionally objects to Exhibit 1904 under
`FRE 802 (hearsay) to the extent that Patent Owner does
`not have the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Brecker
`regarding his declaration.
`
`Patent Owner additionally objects to Exhibit 1904 to the
`extent it incorporates arguments from Dr. Brecker’s
`previously-filed declarations. Patent Owner reasserts and
`incorporates herein all objections previously made to Dr.
`Brecker’s previously-filed declarations.
`
`Patent Owner additionally objects to Exhibit 1904 to the
`extent it incorporates arguments from Dr. Hillstead’s
`
`2
`
`
`
`1905
`
`1906
`
`1908
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`previously-filed declarations. Patent Owner reasserts and
`incorporates herein all objections previously made to Dr.
`Hillstead’s previously-filed declarations.
`Patent Owner reasserts and incorporates herein all
`objections previously made to Dr. Hillstead’s previously-
`filed declaration.
`
`Patent Owner additionally objects to Exhibit 1905 under
`FRE 802 (hearsay) to the extent that Patent Owner does
`not have the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Hillstead
`specifically regarding the claims and arguments discussed
`in the Petitioner’s Opposition to the Motion to Amend,
`during the discovery period available to Patent Owner
`following the filing of Petitioner’s Opposition to the
`Motion to Amend.
`Rule 106: Petitioner has filed only certain excerpts of the
`file history. Patent Owner reserves the right to introduce
`all or any portion of the cited file history that in fairness
`ought to be considered at the same time.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: The cited portion of this document is
`not relevant to the proposition it purportedly supports. To
`the extent this portion is relevant to the proposition for
`which it is cited, 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.
`Rule 106: Petitioner has cited only certain excerpts of the
`file history. Patent Owner reserves the right to introduce
`all or any portion of the cited file history that in fairness
`ought to be considered at the same time.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: The cited portion of this document is
`not relevant to the proposition it purportedly supports. To
`the extent this portion is relevant to the proposition for
`which it is cited, its probative value is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`causing undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore the
`document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1919 to the extent Dr.
`Zalesky 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:
`
`¶¶ 28, 32-35, 37, 41, 43-46, 48-69, and 71-75 are not
`based on sufficient facts and data and do not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`FRE 702, 703, 704:
`
`¶¶ 28, 46-47, 49, 52, 54, 56, 59, 62, 67 and 69 state
`improper legal conclusions.
`
`FRE 602:
`
` ¶
`
` 44 is not based on personal knowledge.
`
`
`Patent Owner additionally objects to Exhibit 1919 under
`FRE 802 (hearsay) to the extent that Patent Owner does
`not have the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Zalesky
`regarding his declaration.
`
`4
`
`1919
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 4, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the agreement of the parties, the
`
`
`
`
`
`undersigned certifies that on January 4, 2021, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner’s Objections to Petitioner’s 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)
`William E. Manske
`Emily J. Tremblay
`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
`Email: WManske@robinskaplan.com
`Email: ETremblay@robinskaplan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/J. Derek Vandenburgh/
`J. Derek Vandenburgh (Lead Counsel for Patent Owner)
`
`
`
`