1
`
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________________________________
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC
`VASCULAR, INC.,
`
` Petitioners,
`
` vs.
`
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.A.R.L.,
`
` Patent Owner.
`___________________________________________________
` IPR2020-00126 (Patent 8,048,032 B2)
` IPR2020-00127 (Patent 8,048,032 B2)
` IPR2020-00128 (Patent RE45,380 E)
` IPR2020-00129 (Patent RE45,380 E)
` IPR2020-00130 (Patent RE45,380 E)
` IPR2020-00132 (Patent RE45,760 E)
` IPR2020-00134 (Patent RE45,760 E)
` IPR2020-00135 (Patent RE45,776 E)
` IPR2020-00136 (Patent RE45,776 E)
` IPR2020-00137 (Patent RE47,379 E)
` IPR2020-00138 (Patent RE47,379 E)
`___________________________________________________
`
` VOLUME I
` REMOTE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
` MICHAEL JONES
`
`DATE: January 18, 2021
`TIME: 8:00 a.m. (Pacific)
`PLACE: Veritext Virtual Videoconference
`
`PAGES: 1 to 189
`JOB NO.: MW 4402816
`REPORTED BY: Merilee Johnson, RDR, CRR, CRC, RSA
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`
`Page 1
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2239
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`1 E X H I B I T S
` (Continued)
`
`2 3
`
`Exhibit 1033 United States Patent Application . 141
`4 Publication, US 2004/0236215 A1,
`5 Pub. Date: November 24, 2004
`6 Exhibit 1114 Deposition transcript of Howard .. 38
`7 Charles Root, dated June 27, 2013
`8 CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`9 VSIQXM_E00055124 to 55172
`10 Exhibit 1242 Declaration of Richard A. ........ 70
`11 Hillstead, Ph.D., FAHA
`12 Exhibit 1807 Declaration of Michael Jones .....
`13 Submitted in Support of
`14 Petitioner's Replies
`15 Exhibit 1829 United States Patent No. ........ 91
`16 6,361,529 B1, Date of Patent:
`17 March 26, 2002
`18 Exhibit 2228 Diagram........................... 170
`19 Exhibit 2229 Diagram........................... 174
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1 A P P E A R A N C E S
` (All appearing remotely via videoconference)
`
`23
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
`4 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`BY: Cyrus A. Morton, Esq.
`5 Christopher A. Pinahs, Esq.
` Shelley R. Gilliss, Ph.D.
`6 800 LaSalle Avenue
` Suite 2800
`7 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
` Phone: (612) 349-8500
`8 Email: CMorton@RobinsKaplan.com
` Email: CPinahs@RobinsKaplan.com
`9 Email: SGilliss@RobinsKaplan.com
`10
`11 ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNERS:
`12 CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH,
`LINDQUIST & SCHUMAN, PA
`13 BY: Joseph W. Winkels, Esq.
` Peter M. Kohlhepp, Esq.
`14 225 South Sixth Street
` Suite 4200
`15 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
` Phone: (612) 436-9600
`16 Email: JWinkels@CarlsonCaspers.com
` Email: PKohlhepp@CarlsonCaspers.com
`
`17
`18 ALSO APPEARED:
`19 Greg Smock (Teleflex)
` Peter Keith (Teleflex)
`20 Howard Cyr (Teleflex)
` Justin Bond (Videographer)
`
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 5
`
`1 (PROCEEDINGS, 01/18/2021, 8:00 a.m.)
`2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. Today
`3 is January 18, 2021. We're on the record at
`4 8:00 a.m. Today we'll take the videotaped
`5 deposition in Case No. IPR2020-00138. This
`6 deposition is being held remotely.
`7 Counsel, please state your appearance and
`8 affiliation for the record.
`9 MR. WINKELS: On behalf of patent
`10 owner, Joe Winkels with the Carlson Caspers firm.
`11 With me, from my firm, is Peter Kohlhepp. As well,
`12 Pete Keith is with us today. And two
`13 representatives from Teleflex, Howard Cyr and
`14 Greg Smock, are with us today.
`15 MR. MORTON: This is Cyrus Morton, law
`16 firm of Robins Kaplan, representing petitioner,
`17 Medtronic. With me in the room are also Chris
`18 Pinahs and Shelley Gilliss.
`19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you. Would
`20 you please swear the witness.
`21 MICHAEL JONES,
`22 duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
`23 EXAMINATION
`24 BY MR. WINKELS:
`25 Q. Good morning, Mr. Jones.
`
`1 I N D E X
`
`2 3
`
`WITNESS: MICHAEL JONES PAGE
`4 Examination by Mr. Winkels....................... 5
`5 Examination by Mr. Morton........................178
`6 Further Examination by Mr. Winkels...............186
`
`7 8
`
`CAUTION OR INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO ANSWER:
`9 Page 75, Line 14
`10 Page 76, Line 11
`11
`12 E X H I B I T S
`13
`14 EXHIBITS MARKED AND FIRST REFERRED TO: PAGE
`15 Exhibit 1007 United States Patent No. ......... 32
`16 7,736,355 B2,
`17 Date of Patent: June 15, 2010
`18 Exhibit 1008 United States Patent No. ......... 78
`19 7,604,612 B2,
`20 Date of Patent: October 20, 2009
`21 Exhibit 1030 United States Patent No. ......... 132
`22 5,413,560,
`23 Date of Patent: May 9, 1995
`24
`25
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`2 (Pages 2 - 5)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`Page 2
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2239
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`1 A. Good morning.
`2 Q. So I understand it's 8:00 a.m. your time.
`3 It's 10:00 a.m. our time. I think we'll need to
`4 take a lunch break at some point today. I'm happy
`5 to do that whenever you would like to. You know,
`6 I'm happy to go through our lunch break, so I was
`7 kind of -- you know, if we went for maybe three,
`8 three and a half hours, something like that, is
`9 kind of what I would think for a lunch break. Does
`10 that sound fine with you?
`11 A. That sounds like a decent plan.
`12 Q. Okay. So we'll stick with that.
`13 Have you ever been deposed before?
`14 A. Yes, I have.
`15 Q. How many times?
`16 A. I believe it's twice.
`17 Q. And when were you last deposed?
`18 A. I think it was early November of 2020.
`19 And, I mean, if you need a specific date, I could
`20 look it up, but it was late October/early
`21 November of 2020.
`22 Q. Okay. And what type of matter was that
`23 that you were deposed in?
`24 A. Products liability case.
`25 Q. Okay. And who were you testifying on
`
`1 about that case, but -- so since you've been
`2 deposed in November of 2020, was that deposition
`3 virtually done via Zoom or WebEx or something
`4 like we're -- a platform like we have today?
`5 A. Yes, a platform --
`6 Q. And so -- yeah. So I just did exactly what
`7 we're not supposed to do. And that's what I wanted
`8 to caution both of us to do is not talk over each
`9 other because it's going to make our court
`10 reporter's job very difficult. So I will do my
`11 best to not interrupt you when you're answering a
`12 question, if you can do your best to not interrupt
`13 me, when I'm asking a question, even if you know
`14 what my question is and you're anticipating it.
`15 Just let's try to -- try not to talk over each
`16 other. Okay?
`17 A. Yes, sir.
`18 Q. All right. The patent litigation case, the
`19 SenoRx, is that the --
`20 A. SenoRx. S-e-n-o-R-x.
`21 Q. SenoRx. And who was the defendant in that
`22 case?
`23 A. I believe we were the defendant.
`24 Q. That was -- that was SenoRx is who
`25 you represented?
`
`Page 7
`
`1 behalf of?
`2 A. The plaintiff.
`3 Q. Okay. Just generally, what was the
`4 technology at issue? What was the general nature
`5 of that case?
`6 A. I'm trying to figure what I -- I'm trying
`7 to figure out what I can tell you.
`8 Q. Let me ask this: Did it relate to a
`9 medical device?
`10 A. Yes, it did.
`11 Q. Okay. Did it relate to a medical device
`12 that would be used in the coronary arteries?
`13 A. No, it did not.
`14 Q. Okay. Did it relate to a medical device
`15 that had anything to do with the heart?
`16 A. No, it did not.
`17 Q. Okay. And you said you've been deposed
`18 twice. One time was in early November of last
`19 year. What was the other time that you've been
`20 deposed?
`21 A. The other time was in a patent litigation
`22 between SenoRx, Inc., which -- and Scitech, over a
`23 radiation balloon catheter that I was an inventor
`24 of.
`25 Q. Okay. I want to ask some more questions
`
`Page 9
`1 A. Well, SenoRx, that was the -- an inventor
`2 of their radiation balloon catheter.
`3 Q. Okay.
`4 A. And they were being sued by Scitech.
`5 Q. And what year were you deposed in that
`6 case?
`7 A. 2007 or 2008, I believe.
`8 Q. Okay. Did that case go to trial?
`9 A. No, it did not.
`10 Q. Were you only deposed once in that case?
`11 A. Yes.
`12 Q. And you said it was about a radiation
`13 balloon catheter. What's a radiation balloon
`14 catheter?
`15 A. A radiation balloon catheter is used by
`16 radiation oncologists. It's a catheter. It goes
`17 into a -- specifically in the case for what we were
`18 making and selling, went into a woman's breast
`19 after surgery to remove a cancerous lesion. It
`20 filled the cavity and then it provided high-dose
`21 radiation therapy over a short period of time for
`22 follow-up treatment after surgery.
`23 Q. Do you recall what year was the filing date
`24 of that invention?
`25 A. I don't recall directly.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`3 (Pages 6 - 9)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`Page 3
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2239
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`1 Q. Sometime before 2007, though?
`2 A. Yes.
`3 Q. Do you think it was before 2005?
`4 A. I honestly can't recall that far back.
`5 It's -- I'm almost a hundred percent certain it's
`6 in my CV.
`7 Q. Okay.
`8 A. With the -- not necessarily the invention
`9 date but the date the patent was issued.
`10 Q. Okay. And that radiation balloon catheter,
`11 that was not a catheter that was used in the
`12 coronary arteries, correct?
`13 A. That is correct.
`14 Q. Now, have you done any work for Medtronic
`15 before?
`16 A. Not to the best of my recollection, I have
`17 not.
`18 Q. Have you ever received any grants from
`19 Medtronic for any work?
`20 A. No, I have not.
`21 Q. Have you ever licensed any of your patents
`22 to Medtronic?
`23 A. I think -- not directly. I was an inventor
`24 on a number of products at Micro Therapeutics.
`25 Micro Therapeutics was -- through a number of sales
`
`Page 12
`1 Q. Have you spoken to any of the other experts
`2 in this case?
`3 A. No, I have not.
`4 Q. So you have not spoken to Dr. Hillstead; is
`5 that right?
`6 A. I have not spoken with Dr. Hillstead.
`7 Q. You have not spoken with Dr. Brecker,
`8 correct?
`9 A. I have not.
`10 Q. And you have not spoken with Mr. Zalesky,
`11 correct?
`12 A. No, I have not.
`13 Q. Do you have any understanding of why
`14 Mr. Hillstead is not offering any reply opinions in
`15 this matter?
`16 A. No, I do not.
`17 Q. Have you spoken with anyone else in this
`18 case other than counsel from Medtronic?
`19 A. No, I have not.
`20 Q. Now, when were you hired to perform any
`21 work in this matter?
`22 A. I believe it was late June or early July of
`23 2019.
`24 Q. Late June/early July 2019, did you do any
`25 work in connection with the district court
`
`Page 11
`
`Page 13
`
`1 of the entity, those products ended up in
`2 Medtronic's product portfolio.
`3 Q. Are you still receiving royalty payments
`4 from Medtronic?
`5 A. No, never received any royalty payments
`6 from Medtronic.
`7 Q. Had you sold any companies to Medtronic?
`8 A. I have not.
`9 Q. Have any companies that you've been a
`10 shareholder in been sold to Medtronic?
`11 A. Well, Micro Therapeutics was sold to
`12 Medtronic. I was a shareholder of Micro
`13 Therapeutics. I believe I was -- I believe I had
`14 sold all my stock in Micro Therapeutics well before
`15 Medtronic ended up purchasing the remnants of the
`16 company.
`17 Q. Now, what did you do to prepare for your
`18 deposition today?
`19 A. I've reviewed my declaration. I've
`20 reviewed the key exhibits in regards to my
`21 declaration. I've had declaration preparation with
`22 my attorneys.
`23 Q. Did you speak with anyone other than the
`24 Medtronic attorneys?
`25 A. No, I did not.
`
`1 litigation in this case?
`2 A. I believe so.
`3 Q. And starting in late June/early July, did
`4 you also do some work in connection with the IPRs
`5 in this case?
`6 A. Not that -- not to my knowledge.
`7 Q. When did you first start doing any work on
`8 the IPRs in this case?
`9 A. I believe that was in late September or
`10 early October of 2020.
`11 Q. What were you hired to do in late
`12 September/early October of 2020 in connection with
`13 the IPRs?
`14 A. To produce a -- sorry. To produce an
`15 expert report or declaration to review patents and
`16 make comments as a person of skill in the art.
`17 Q. Did you understand at that time that you
`18 were going to be providing a declaration in support
`19 of petitioners' replies in the IPRs?
`20 A. Yeah, I believe that was explained.
`21 Q. Did you gain any understanding of why
`22 Mr. Hillstead was not providing any declaration in
`23 support of the replies?
`24 A. No, I do not.
`25 MR. MORTON: Asked and answered.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`4 (Pages 10 - 13)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`Page 4
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2239
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
`Page 16
`
`1 BY MR. WINKELS:
`2 Q. Now, what have you all reviewed in
`3 connection with this case? You said in preparation
`4 for the deposition you reviewed your declaration
`5 and some of the key exhibits. But in your work on
`6 this case, what documents have you all reviewed?
`7 A. Well, I believe --
`8 MR. MORTON: Objection.
`9 A. -- let's see -- so I've looked at, read --
`10 trying to think what the best way to go through the
`11 list is.
`12 Q. I'll start identifying some things and you
`13 can tell me, yes or no, you've reviewed it, and
`14 then we'll see if I missed anything.
`15 A. Okay.
`16 Q. Have you reviewed the five patents that are
`17 at issue in these IPRs?
`18 A. Can you cite the patent numbers? Because
`19 I've reviewed the one -- a Root patent, 8,048,032.
`20 Q. Okay. And in your binder, that's listed as
`21 Exhibit 1001, right?
`22 A. Yes.
`23 Q. Have you also reviewed the next tab in your
`24 binder, which is also Exhibit 1001 but it's in a
`25 different IPR, and it's the patent that is the
`
`1 claim.
`2 Q. And then lastly, the next tab in your
`3 binder is Exhibit 1001. It's Patent RE47,379. Am
`4 I correct that you did not review the '379 patent
`5 or the '379 claims?
`6 A. Same thing. I looked at the cover page,
`7 verify what it was, and then did not review the
`8 claims.
`9 Q. Did you review the '032 patent claims?
`10 A. I think I looked at Claim 1 of the '032
`11 when I originally was interviewed for the case.
`12 Q. But in connection with your work on these
`13 IPRs, you have not reviewed all of the claims of
`14 the '032 patent, right?
`15 A. That is correct.
`16 Q. Okay. Have you reviewed the file histories
`17 for the five patents that we just went over?
`18 A. No, I have not.
`19 Q. Have you reviewed any aspect of the file
`20 histories?
`21 A. No, I have not.
`22 Q. Now, based on your declaration, I take it
`23 you've reviewed some prior patents, correct?
`24 A. Yes, I have.
`25 Q. Have you reviewed any prior patents that
`
`Page 15
`
`Page 17
`
`1 No. RE45,380?
`2 A. I have not. I think I just looked at the
`3 cover page to verify it's a re-exam patent, but I
`4 haven't reviewed the contents of it.
`5 Q. Okay. So you have not looked at the claims
`6 of the '380 patent; is that right?
`7 A. That is correct.
`8 Q. And the next tab in your binder is
`9 Patent RE45,760. Have you reviewed the '760
`10 patent?
`11 A. Same thing. Just looked at the cover page
`12 of it and that was all.
`13 Q. And so you have not reviewed the claims of
`14 the '760 patent, correct?
`15 A. No, I have not.
`16 Q. And if I refer to patent numbers by their
`17 last three numbers, will you understand what I'm
`18 referring to?
`19 A. Yes.
`20 Q. Okay. Next tab in your binder is
`21 Exhibit 1001, Patent No. RE45,776. Am I correct
`22 that you have not reviewed the '776 patent or
`23 patent claims?
`24 A. Same thing. I've looked at the cover page,
`25 verify what it is, and then did not review the
`
`1 are not identified in your declaration?
`2 A. Oh. No. No. I think the declaration
`3 covers pretty much everything that -- or everything
`4 that we reviewed or referenced in my declaration.
`5 Q. Okay. Have you reviewed the declarations
`6 that Dr. Brecker or Mr. Hillstead provided in this
`7 case?
`8 A. I reviewed the declaration of
`9 Dr. Hillstead. I don't think I've seen the
`10 declaration of Dr. Brecker.
`11 Q. And did you just review one declaration of
`12 Dr. Hillstead?
`13 A. Yes. I believe it was just one.
`14 Q. And have you reviewed any declarations from
`15 Mr. Zalesky?
`16 A. Not to my knowledge, I have not.
`17 Q. Have you reviewed the declarations from
`18 patent owners' expert Mr. Keith?
`19 A. Yes.
`20 Q. Do you recall how many declarations from
`21 Mr. Keith you reviewed?
`22 A. No, I don't. I think it was -- I believe
`23 it to be just one.
`24 Q. Have you reviewed the declaration or
`25 declarations from Dr. Graham, who was a
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`5 (Pages 14 - 17)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`Page 5
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2239
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
`Page 20
`
`1 cardiologist in the case?
`2 A. I don't recall seeing his name on any
`3 declaration.
`4 Q. Have you reviewed any declaration from
`5 Dr. Thompson or Dr. Azzalini, who are also
`6 cardiologists?
`7 A. No, I have not.
`8 Q. Have you reviewed any deposition testimony
`9 that has taken place in connection with these IPRs?
`10 A. I don't think I've reviewed any
`11 deposition -- any depositions that have taken
`12 place. I think it was solely declaration.
`13 Q. And just to put a final point on it: Am I
`14 correct you have not reviewed the deposition
`15 testimony from Mr. Hillstead in this case?
`16 A. I believe I've only reviewed his
`17 declaration. I don't think I have seen his
`18 deposition.
`19 Q. Now, in your declaration you discuss
`20 various aspects of opinions that Mr. Hillstead had,
`21 correct?
`22 A. Yes.
`23 Q. Do you think it would be important for you
`24 to review the deposition testimony of Mr. Hillstead
`25 to gain an understanding of what he testified in
`
`1 A. I think it was roughly 30 hours in
`2 conjunction with drafting or review -- I should
`3 say, in conjunction with reviewing prior art,
`4 reviewing declarations, and drafting my
`5 declaration. And probably about 20 hours in -- or
`6 slightly more than that reviewing -- or reviewing
`7 all of the exhibits cited here and my declaration.
`8 Q. So up to today, roughly 50 hours? Is that
`9 roughly accurate?
`10 A. I think that's a good estimate of it.
`11 Q. Okay. Now I want to introduce
`12 Exhibit 1807.
`13 (Exhibit No. 1807 was marked for
`14 identification.)
`15 Q. I've already loaded it into Exhibit Share.
`16 A. Yeah.
`17 Q. What is Exhibit 1807?
`18 A. I have it over here in front of me.
`19 Exhibit 1807 is the patent issued to Itou, last
`20 three digits '355, on June 15, 2010.
`21 Q. And I think we got our wires crossed. I
`22 may have been talking too fast.
`23 What is Exhibit 1807? 1807. I believe
`24 it's your declaration.
`25 A. 1807.
`
`Page 19
`
`Page 21
`
`1 regards to those opinions?
`2 A. I wasn't asked to do that. I was look- --
`3 I was asked to review his declaration and provide
`4 my comments relative to his declaration.
`5 Q. Right. And now sitting here today,
`6 understanding that he's now been deposed with
`7 respect to those opinions in his declaration, do
`8 you think it would have been helpful for you to
`9 review that deposition testimony from
`10 Mr. Hillstead?
`11 A. No, I don't.
`12 Q. It doesn't matter to you what Mr. Hillstead
`13 said about his opinions in the declaration; is that
`14 right?
`15 A. I was asked to comment on his declaration.
`16 I commented on his declaration, where I agree with
`17 it. I assume his testimony followed his
`18 declaration.
`19 Q. And if his testimony did not follow his
`20 declaration, would you find that to be an important
`21 thing that you should have known prior to
`22 submitting your opinion in this case?
`23 A. No, not necessarily.
`24 Q. How many hours have you spent on this case
`25 in connection with the IPRs?
`
`1 Q. Yeah, my apologies.
`2 A. I may not have heard you correctly,
`3 so . . .
`4 1807 is -- yeah, 1807 is my declaration --
`5 Q. And --
`6 A. -- in this case.
`7 Q. And just to confirm: You submitted one
`8 declaration in this case, which would have been
`9 filed in the IPRs that are identified at the bottom
`10 of the first page of 1807, right?
`11 A. Well, those are cut off on my copy of it,
`12 but there -- it gives me -- so I guess maybe if you
`13 want to go to Exhibit Share, there are a number
`14 of -- there are a number of numerals that are
`15 partially available on the bottom of this copy.
`16 Q. Yep. And I was having that same problem
`17 with the printing. So why don't we just go to the
`18 Exhibit Share because I do just want to confirm
`19 this point.
`20 A. Okay.
`21 Q. You've worked with lawyers before and
`22 understand there are some points we need to
`23 confirm, and we'll just have to do it.
`24 A. Okay.
`25 Q. If you could go to 1807 on the
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`6 (Pages 18 - 21)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`Page 6
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2239
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
`Page 24
`
`1 Exhibit Share.
`2 A. Okay. Where will I find it?
`3 Q. Right. So if you go -- you need to find --
`4 when I pull it up, there's three folders that say
`5 Medtronic -- or two folders that say Medtronic v
`6 Teleflex.
`7 Do you see that on the left side?
`8 A. I see a folder, Medtronic and Teleflex, and
`9 then I see Depositions.
`10 Q. Okay. So open up the Depositions folder.
`11 You should see another folder that says "Deposition
`12 of Mike Jones 1-18-2021."
`13 A. Marked Exhibits?
`14 Q. Yep. And in there, you should see
`15 Exhibit 1807.
`16 Do you see that there?
`17 A. Yes, I do.
`18 Q. Okay.
`19 A. And I see IPR2020-00126/-127/-128/-129/
`20 -130/-132/-134/-135/-136/-137 and -138.
`21 Q. Okay. So Exhibit 1807, 1-8-0-7, is the
`22 single declaration that you filed in support of all
`23 of the IPRs, correct?
`24 A. That is correct.
`25 Q. Okay. If we go to paragraph 7. My
`
`1 A. As an education or as in practical
`2 experience?
`3 Q. Well, let's talk about practical
`4 experience.
`5 A. Yeah. Mechanical engineering probably
`6 focuses more on -- there's a lot of overlap in
`7 there. Heat transfer and fluids being probably the
`8 primary areas of overlap between the two.
`9 Chemical engineering focuses more on
`10 structure, structural integrity. I think those
`11 would be the -- probably the primary differences in
`12 function between a chemical engineer and a
`13 mechanical engineer.
`14 Chemical engineer would be designing
`15 reactors, reactor vessels. Mechanical engineer
`16 would be responsible for their mechanical
`17 performance and suitability.
`18 Q. How does chemical engineering differ from
`19 biomedical engineering?
`20 A. I think you'd have to look at the
`21 individual -- again, are we talking about by
`22 education or by practice?
`23 Q. Let's talk about practical experience.
`24 A. Chemical engineering -- so can you rephrase
`25 that question just so I make sure I answer the
`
`Page 23
`
`Page 25
`
`1 intention is we're just basically going to walk
`2 through your declaration, Mr. Jones. And I'll try
`3 to go in order as much as possible, and I'll try to
`4 draw your attention to various paragraphs to let
`5 you know what I'm talking about and keep things
`6 moving.
`7 A. Okay.
`8 Q. If you go to paragraph 7. I just want to
`9 discuss your education briefly. You received a
`10 degree in chemical engineering, right?
`11 A. That is correct.
`12 Q. How would you describe what chemical
`13 engineering is?
`14 A. Chemical engineering is an engineering
`15 specialty that basically bridges a gap between
`16 chemistry and mechanical engineering. It's
`17 responsible for designing reactors, chemical
`18 processes, distillation, polymerization.
`19 It's evolved a little bit now into protein
`20 engineering and its use in -- its use in chemical
`21 processes. It also encompasses heat transfer, mass
`22 transfer, fluid dynamics. I'm trying to think
`23 in -- sort of briefly includes material science.
`24 Q. How does chemical engineering differ from
`25 mechanical engineering?
`
`1 right one, please?
`2 Q. Yep, yep. How does chemical engineering
`3 differ from biomedical engineering?
`4 A. I think biomedical engineering is maybe a
`5 little more focused on physiology, physiologic
`6 systems. Also including -- which would include
`7 sort of the electrical system of the body, or the
`8 body's response to electrical stimuli. So common
`9 areas that would be shared between them would be,
`10 again, fluids, heat transfer. Probably similar in
`11 chemical processes.
`12 Q. And you don't have an undergraduate degree
`13 in mechanical or biomedical engineering, right?
`14 A. That's correct. I have a degree in --
`15 bachelor of science from Berkeley in 1984 in
`16 chemical engineering. You are correct.
`17 Q. Now in paragraph 8 of your declaration you
`18 describe some catheters that you've worked on. And
`19 I'd like to just talk about these briefly and get
`20 an understanding of what type of catheters these
`21 were.
`22 A. Okay.
`23 Q. The first one you talk about is
`24 thromboembolic stroke catheter, or a catheter for
`25 treating thromboembolic stroke.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`7 (Pages 22 - 25)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`Page 7
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2239
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
`Page 28
`
`1 A. That's correct.
`2 Q. Where is that catheter used in the body?
`3 A. So those catheters are used -- they're
`4 introduced through a vascular introducer into
`5 typically the femoral or iliac artery of the
`6 patient. Advanced up over the aortic arch and then
`7 subsequently introduced into the left -- I'm sorry,
`8 right common carotid artery, left carotid artery,
`9 or left subclavian artery for navigating up into
`10 the cerebral vasculature.
`11 Q. Maybe I can short circuit some of this. Do
`12 any of the catheters that you've identified in
`13 paragraph 8 go into the coronary arteries?
`14 A. No, they do not.
`15 Q. Do you have any experience designing
`16 catheters for use in the coronary arteries?
`17 A. No, I do not.
`18 Q. And the catheter that you identified from
`19 your experience in paragraph 8 refers to this work
`20 being done in the mid-1980s through the late 1990s;
`21 is that right?
`22 A. That is correct.
`23 Q. Do you have any experience designing
`24 catheters of any type after the late 1990s?
`25 A. Yes. I think I referred to the radiation
`
`1 stroke. Catheters for treating subarachnoid
`2 hemorrhages. I don't believe -- I do not believe
`3 the balloon catheters we developed ended up
`4 going -- becoming commercial.
`5 Electrosurgical balloon catheters.
`6 Embolectomy catheters. And then the -- same thing.
`7 I believe the angioplasty catheters, a product that
`8 I developed or transferred to Shiley, all became
`9 commercial.
`10 Q. And just so the record's clear, you would
`11 include -- the electrosurgical balloon catheter
`12 would be included --
`13 A. Yes.
`14 Q. -- in a product that's become commercial?
`15 A. Yes.
`16 Q. Okay. Now, in paragraph 9, you talk
`17 about -- since '97, you've worked at a company
`18 called Design Development and Fabrication, right?
`19 A. That's correct.
`20 Q. And you say there that the work of that
`21 company is focused on product design and
`22 development, right?
`23 A. That's correct.
`24 Q. Are those two different things: product
`25 design and development?
`
`Page 27
`
`Page 29
`
`1 therapy balloon was a catheter.
`2 Q. And that was the radiation therapy balloon
`3 that is used to treat breast cancer?
`4 A. Yes.
`5 Q. Other than the radiation therapy balloon,
`6 do you have any experience designing catheters
`7 after the late 1990s?
`8 A. Well, yes, my current job. We're designing
`9 a catheter.
`10 Q. You're saying today you're working on
`11 designing a catheter?
`12 A. Yes.
`13 Q. And is that catheter going to be used in
`14 the coronary arteries?
`15 A. No, it is not.
`16 Q. What part of the body is that catheter
`17 going to be used in that you're currently
`18 designing?
`19 A. It's used in the aorta.
`20 Q. Now, the catheters that you worked on that
`21 you identify in paragraph 8, have any of those
`22 catheters become commercial products?
`23 A. Let's see. Yes.
`24 Q. And which ones?
`25 A. Catheters for treating thromboembolic
`
`1 A. They're similar. One leads to the other.
`2 So typically you have to have a design for a
`3 product, refine the design. And then once you've
`4 done that, then you develop that design to prepare
`5 for transfer to manufacturing.
`6 Q. Now at the bottom of paragraph 9, you list
`7 some clients you've worked with.
`8 A. Yes.
`9 Q. First question is: The work you've done
`10 for those clients, does any of that work designing
`11 the devices relate to any devices that are used in
`12 the coronary arteries?
`13 A. (Reviewing document.) The Edwards
`14 Lifesciences was a -- is a surgical device to be
`15 used in conjunction with the coronary artery bypass
`16 surgery but not for use as a catheter in coronary
`17 arteries.
`18 Q. When you say it was a surgical device, did
`19 that relate to an open heart surgical device?
`20 A. That's correct.
`21 Q. And by "open heart," that's where the
`22 patient's chest is actually cracked open to expose
`23 the heart?
`24 A. Through either a port or an opening in the
`25 sternum, yes. Either way.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`8 (Pages 26 - 29)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`Page 8
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2239
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`IPR2020-00135
`
`

`

`Page 30
`1 Q. Now paragraph 10, you say you've been a
`2 named inventor in over a hundred patents. Do you
`3 have any patents related to cardiac catheters?
`4 A. I'd have to look at the list of patents to
`5 answer that. So the answer is I don't -- I don't
`6 know.
`7 Q. And so at least, sitting here right now,
`8 you can't identify any patents that you have that
`9 relate to cardiac catheters; is that right?
`10 A. Not with specific claims that I'm aware of
`11 to cardiac or coronary artery interventions.
`12 Q. Okay. Let's transition and talk about the
`13 Itou reference. You talk about that in your
`14 declaration, correct?
`15 A. Yes, I do.
`16 Q. And I believe your discussion of Itou
`17 starts around paragraph 28, right?
`18 A. Okay. So -- yep. When you get to 28.
`19 Okay.
`20 Q. In paragraph 30 of your declaration you
`21 refer to "Table 1 of Itou teaching that the inner
`22 diameter of catheter 2 is 1.5 millimeters, which is
`23 0.059 inches," right?
`24 A. Yes, that's how -- that's the reference.
`25 Q. And then in that same paragraph you also
`
`Page 31
`1 refer to a 5 French Heartrail catheter that has an
`2 inner diameter of 0.059 inches, right?
`3 A. Yes.
`4 Q. And then 0.059 inches, that's the same as
`5 1.5 millimeters, right?
`6 A. Yes.
`7 Q. Then the next sentence you say, "Such an
`8 inner diameter can 'accept normal balloons or stent
`9 delivery systems less than 4 millimeters in
`10 diameter.'"
`11 Do you see where you say that in paragraph
`12 30?
`13 A. Yes.
`14 Q. Obviously, 4 millimeters is not less than
`15 1.5 millimeters, right?
`16 A. Say -- I'm sorry. Say that again.
`17 Q. 4 millimeters is not less than 1.5
`18 millimeters, right?
`19 A. That's correct. The 4-millimeter