`
`
`
`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 RESPONSE TO
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
` Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2024 Is the August 24, 2005 Product Requirements Document
`Supporting that GuideLiner Rapid Exchange Had Been Tested and Shown to
`Work for its Intended Purpose by At Least That Date .................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`Exhibit 2024 Is Authenticated Under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 ............. 3
`
`III. Exhibit 2024 Is Admissible Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) ........... 10
`
`IV. The Authority Relied on by Petitioner Is Unhelpful and Distinguishable .... 10
`
`V.
`
`Petitioner’s Objections Should Also Be Overruled for Failure to Satisfy Rule
`42.64(b) ......................................................................................................... 13
`
`VI. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHRORITES
`
`
`Cases
`
`Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Veveo, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00237, Paper 59 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2020) .................................................... 9
`
`Conoco Inc. v. Department of Energy,
`99 F.3d 387 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ...................................................................................... 9
`
`Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. F’Real Foods, LLC,
`IPR2016-01107, Paper 40 (PTAB Dec. 19, 2017) .................................................. 10
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC,
`IPR2019-00929, Paper 53 (PTAB Sept. 21, 2020) ........................................... 10, 11
`
`Lexington Ins. Co. v. Western Pa. Hosp.,
`423 F.3d 318 (3d Cir. 2005) ....................................................................................... 4
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Micrel, Inc.,
`275 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................ 11
`
`Riverbed Tech. Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC,
`IPR2016-00978, Paper 67 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2017) ................................................... 12
`
`Schroeder v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc.,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17830 (D. Nev. Feb. 11, 2014) .......................................... 13
`
`Tremont LLC v. Halliburton Energy Servs.,
`696 F. Supp. 2d 741 (S.D. Tex. March 11, 2010) ..................................................... 3
`
`United States v. Dhinsa,
`243 F.3d 635 (2d Cir. 2001) ....................................................................................... 3
`
`United States v. Ruggiero,
`928 F.2d 1289 (2d Cir. 1991) ..................................................................................... 3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) ............................................................................................ 14
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) ................................................................................................. 10
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1) ..................................................................................... 4, 6, 8
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibit 2024 (Paper 111 (“MTE”)) should be
`
`denied. The motion attempts to exclude a highly relevant, potentially case-
`
`dispositive business document on inconsequential grounds that, at best, could go to
`
`the weight of the evidence. No authority cited by Petitioner gives grounds to
`
`exclude Exhibit 2024. Substantial testimony and surrounding evidence support the
`
`authenticity of this regularly kept business record. From beginning to end,
`
`Petitioner’s motion falls flat on exclusion and instead, only further exposes that
`
`Petitioner simply cannot overcome Patent Owner’s overwhelming evidence that
`
`the GuideLiner patents were conceived and reduced to practice before Itou’s
`
`priority date.
`
`I.
`
`Exhibit 2024 Is the August 24, 2005 Product Requirements Document
`Supporting that GuideLiner Rapid Exchange Had Been Tested and
`Shown to Work for its Intended Purpose by At Least That Date
`
`At Vascular Solutions, Inc. (“VSI”), the Product Requirements document at
`
`Exhibit 2024 marked the beginning of the formal regulatory process, or design
`
`history process, for bringing the GuideLiner project to market. Ex-2119, ¶44; Ex-
`
`2039, ¶6. The document defined “the safety and performance requirements for the
`
`[VSI] GuideLiner (OTW) and rapid exchange (RX) guide catheter support
`
`system.” Ex-2024, ¶1.1.
`
`As VSI’s founder, CEO, and GuideLiner RX inventor Howard Root
`
`explained, Exhibit 2024 would not have been drafted, and the formal regulatory
`
`1
`
`
`
`process that it signaled would not have begun, “if the rapid exchange GuideLiner
`
`had not been determined to work for its intended purpose.” Ex-2118, ¶54. Indeed,
`
`it was VSI’s business practice to only create the Product Requirements document
`
`after a product was “prototyped, thoroughly tested, and shown to work for its
`
`intended purpose.” Ex-2039, ¶6; see also Ex-1926, ¶18 (“The document was made
`
`as a regular practice of developing a product at VSI and was maintained in the
`
`regular course of VSI’s business on its network.”). As that business practice was
`
`applied here, Exhibit 2024 was created after the April 2005 and July 2005
`
`GuideLiner RX prototypes were built, tested, and shown to work for their intended
`
`purpose. Ex-2119, ¶21-22, 44; Ex-2039, ¶6. From the time this document was
`
`created on August 24, 2005 forward, VSI continued to refine GuideLiner RX
`
`prototypes for purposes of manufacturability and commercialization. Ex-2119,
`
`¶44.
`
`As shown on the face of the document, Exhibit 2024 is the first revision,
`
`“[p]re-release” of this document, not the final Product Requirements document for
`
`the product. Ex-2024 at 4 (“Rev. 01” and “Pre-release”). The August 24, 2005
`
`date of this document is consistent throughout, twice on the first page of the
`
`document, and again on the last. Id., at 1, 4. It is also consistently labeled as “Rev.
`
`01” in the top right-hand corner of each of the document’s four pages. Id., at 1-4.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s witnesses explained that Exhibit 2024 marked the beginning
`
`of, and was further developed as part of, VSI’s formal regulatory process.
`
`Additional information was added to the document as the project progressed
`
`through that process, ultimately culminating in a final version. Ex-1766, 62:18-25;
`
`see also Ex-1762, 120:10-121:1; id. at 121:15-18. Formal sign-off of the final
`
`document did not occur until the product was actually ready to be made. Ex-1762,
`
`117:16-118:8. In the 2005 time period, VSI’s regulatory files were maintained in
`
`hard copy. Thus, although Exhibit 2024 was created and maintained in Word, the
`
`final and formal version of that document was developed over time, and then
`
`signed and maintained in hard copy. Ex-1766, 57:11-25.
`
`II. Exhibit 2024 Is Authenticated Under Federal Rule of Evidence 901
`
`Patent Owner provides an abundance of evidence that is more than
`
`“sufficient to support a finding that” Exhibit 2024 is authentic under Federal Rule
`
`of Evidence 901. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). “The requirement under Rule 901 is
`
`satisfied ‘if sufficient proof has been introduced so that a reasonable juror could
`
`find in favor of authenticity or identification.’” United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d
`
`635, 658 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Ruggiero, 928 F.2d 1289, 1303
`
`(2d Cir. 1991)); see also, e.g., Tremont LLC v. Halliburton Energy Servs., 696 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 741, 752-53 n.8 (S.D. Tex. March 11, 2010) (quoting United States v.
`
`Dhinsa, 243 F.3d at 658) (noting Rule 901’s “not . . . particularly high hurdle”);
`
`3
`
`
`
`Lexington Ins. Co. v. Western Pa. Hosp., 423 F.3d 318, 329 (3d Cir. 2005)
`
`(explaining that the burden of proof for authentication is “slight”) (citation
`
`omitted)).
`
`Four separate witnesses have submitted sworn testimony that Exhibit 2024 is
`
`what it purports to be. Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1). Dean Peterson, who has been a
`
`Principle Research and Development Engineer for VSI (and now Patent Owner)
`
`since 2005, submitted a sworn declaration about what this document is:
`
`Exhibit 2024 is a true and correct copy of an August 24, 2005 Product
`
`Requirements document for the GuideLiner Catheter System. This Product
`
`Requirements document was made by VSI personnel with knowledge of the
`
`issues contained therein on or near the date of the document. The document
`
`was made as a regular practice of developing a product at VSI and was
`
`maintained in the regular course of VSI’s business on its network.
`
`Ex-1926, ¶18. Medtronic chose not to depose Peterson. They have no basis to
`
`dispute his testimony.
`
`Peterson’s testimony does not stand alone.
`
`
`
`Deborah Schmalz, the Vice President of Regulatory and Clinical Affairs for
`
`VSI from 2000 to 2008, submitted a sworn declaration and deposition testimony
`
`further authenticating Exhibit 2024. Ex-2039, ¶¶6-10; Ex-1766, 44:20-46:8;
`
`47:12-48:1; 48:8-50:12; 56:9-62:25. She explained what the document is, how it
`
`was used, and what it signified, specifically, that the GuideLiner RX was
`
`4
`
`
`
`“prototyped, thoroughly tested, and shown to work for its intended purpose” before
`
`Exhibit 2024 was created. Ex-2039, ¶6; see also id., at ¶¶6-7; Ex-1766, 44:20-
`
`46:8; 47:12-48:1; 48:8-50:12; 56:9-62:25.
`
`As the person in charge of the regulatory process at VSI, Schmalz had first-
`
`hand knowledge of the purpose of this document, which “marked the start of the
`
`Regulatory department’s formal quality process, which ensured regulatory
`
`compliance and quality control for products in the commercialization stage.” Ex-
`
`2039, ¶6. What is more, Schmalz testified that she personally and
`
`contemporaneously reviewed the document that is Exhibit 2024. Ex-1766, 45:19-
`
`46:4 (“Q: . . . Did you review this product requirement document when you were at
`
`VSI? A: To the best of my knowledge, yes, I did review it.”). And unrebutted, she
`
`testified to the circumstances of the creation of Exhibit 2024: “I specifically recall
`
`that a working prototype of the rapid exchange version of GuideLiner was created
`
`prior to creation of the August 24, 2005 Products Requirements document.” Ex-
`
`2039, ¶7.
`
`Lest there be any doubt, Schmalz testified about additional evidence further
`
`corroborating that Exhibit 2024 is what it purports to be, including Exhibit 2025,
`
`“a Clinical Technical Report dated August 26, 2005 . . . [which] confirms that by
`
`this time, the rapid exchange version of GuideLiner had advanced beyond the
`
`concept development phase.” Ex-2039, ¶¶6, 9-10 (also describing Exhibit 2040, a
`
`5
`
`
`
`memorandum addressed to her confirming the same); Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1).
`
`Schmalz is first-hand, comprehensive, and unrebutted in demonstrating that
`
`Exhibit 2024 is what it purports to be.
`
`Howard Root provides additional, unrebutted authenticating testimony that
`
`is in full accord. Root demonstrates personal knowledge of Exhibit 2024,
`
`specifically attesting to its being a true and accurate copy, and confirms this with
`
`his personal knowledge of the surrounding circumstances of its creation. Ex-2118,
`
`¶54; Ex-1762, 116:11-122:3; Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1). Although he did not prepare
`
`“the first draft” of Exhibit 2024, he “certainly reviewed it.” Ex-1762, 116:18-24.
`
`Like Schmalz, Root explained that this Product Requirements document marked
`
`the beginning of the formal quality process at VSI, which “would not have begun if
`
`the rapid exchange GuideLiner had not been determined to work for its intended
`
`purpose.” Ex-2118, ¶54. Root’s testimony is detailed and specific, explaining that
`
`“[t]his formal quality program for the rapid exchange GuideLiner began shortly
`
`after” the April 2005 and July 2005 GuideLiner RX prototypes “were made, tested
`
`and determined to work” and achieved one of the goals of that product, which was
`
`that the GuideLiner RX would be “capable of being used by one physician.” Id.
`
`In short, Root explained that by the time Exhibit 2024 was created on August 24,
`
`2005, the details for manufacturing and commercialization still needed to be
`
`6
`
`
`
`finalized but VSI knew the GuideLiner RX would work for its intended purpose.
`
`Ex-2118, ¶54; Ex-1762, 116:11-122:3.
`
`Gregg Sutton is yet another witness whose declaration and deposition
`
`testimony is fully in accord with the others in explaining and authenticating
`
`Exhibit 2024. Sutton, a co-inventor on the patent and Vice President of Research
`
`& Development for VSI from 2004 to mid-2006, was involved first-hand in
`
`building the GuideLiner RX prototypes in early to mid-2005 and testified about
`
`tests that were performed to determine the durability of the device, detailed
`
`measurements that were taken to ensure the device would fit inside guide catheters,
`
`and the heart models that were used for simulating the use of the GuideLiner RX in
`
`the body. Ex-2119, ¶41 (“We used both two-dimensional acrylic heart models and
`
`three-dimensional glass heart models to simulate the use of the rapid exchange
`
`GuideLiner prototypes. Sometimes tests involving these models were performed
`
`in a heated water bath. Other times the tests were performed using dry models.”).
`
`He went on to detail how the tests specifically involved observation of “the forces
`
`involved in navigating the GuideLiner through the guide catheter and beyond to
`
`determine that it provided backup support,” and included the use of stents and
`
`balloons. Id.
`
`Sutton explained how that testing of the GuideLiner RX led to Exhibit 2024:
`
`7
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2024 is the Products Requirements document for the GuideLiner,
`
`dated August 24, 2005. This is one of the first documents that is part of the
`
`design history process. At VSI we did not spend the time to create this
`
`document unless or until we had gone through feasibility and prototyping of
`
`a device and were ready to move forward with commercialization efforts.
`
`From this point forward, we continued to refine prototypes of the
`
`GuideLiner rapid exchange for purposes of manufacturability and
`
`commercialization.
`
`Id. at ¶44; Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1). Sutton has personal knowledge of this
`
`document, and of documents in the month before Exhibit 2024 as well as one dated
`
`a mere two days after. Id. at ¶43 (“Exhibit 2036 is a July 2005 Research &
`
`Development Update that I wrote for the Board”); ¶45 (“Exhibit 2025 is a Clinical
`
`Technical Report, dated August 26, 2005”).
`
`The weight of the evidence provided by these four witnesses, and the
`
`additional corroborating documents they cite, amply establishes the authenticity of
`
`Exhibit 2024 and overcomes Petitioner’s attempts to exclude it. Petitioner’s
`
`arguments that the document “does not provide a reliable date,” or that it is “an
`
`incomplete draft,” or that it does not identify a sole author, are untenable in the
`
`face of this authenticating evidence.
`
`As shown on the face of the document, as well as by the testimony of
`
`Schmalz, Root, Sutton, and Peterson, Exhibit 2024 was created on or by August
`
`24, 2005. The text of the document and testimony of each of these witnesses is
`
`8
`
`
`
`supported by corroborating documents and circumstances. E.g., Ex-1926, ¶18; Ex-
`
`2039, ¶¶6-10 (Schmalz testifying that Exhibit 2024 was created after a working
`
`prototype, and before a regulatory document, Exhibit 2025, and a memo to her
`
`confirming the same, Exhibit 2040); Ex-2118, ¶¶54-57 (same); Ex-2119, ¶¶44-46
`
`(same).
`
`That Exhibit 2024 is an early version of a document, which by design was
`
`updated as part of the regulatory quality process, is of no consequence to its
`
`authenticity. Indeed, it was VSI’s express business practice to start with a draft of
`
`the document and develop and finalize the details of its content as the company
`
`moved toward regulatory approval and commercialization. Ex-1762, 120:19-
`
`121:1; 121:15-18; Ex-1766, 62:18-25.
`
`And contrary to Petitioner’s argument, Patent Owner is not required to
`
`advance testimony of the author of the document to authenticate it. Conoco Inc. v.
`
`Department of Energy, 99 F.3d 387, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Courts have made
`
`clear . . . that the ‘custodian or other qualified witness’ who must authenticate
`
`business records need not be the person who prepared or maintained the
`
`records . . . as long as the witness understands the system used to prepare the
`
`records.”); Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Veveo, Inc., IPR2019-00237, Paper
`
`59, at 72-75 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2020) (CTO of patent owner’s company at the time
`
`of contested email who he was neither the sender nor recipient of could
`
`9
`
`
`
`authenticate it as he had knowledge of the system used to prepare the documents
`
`and of “the team’s ongoing activities at the time”); Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v.
`
`F’Real Foods, LLC, IPR2016-01107, Paper 40, at 32-34 (PTAB Dec. 19, 2017)
`
`(witness was in management position and was involved in company’s business,
`
`R&D, and sales and could authenticate sales data from a particular time-frame).
`
`The authenticity of Exhibit 2024 is well-established by the evidence
`
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 901 and the caselaw applying it.
`
`III. Exhibit 2024 Is Admissible Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6)
`
`Petitioner only makes hints at objecting on the basis of hearsay (see MTE, at
`
`3, 5) but Exhibit 2024 has been shown to be a business record with a recognizable
`
`form satisfying all parts of Rule 803(6) as attested to by Peterson, Schmalz, Root,
`
`and Sutton. Fed. R. Evid. 803(6); Ex-1926, ¶18; Ex-2039, ¶¶6, 9-10; Ex-1762,
`
`116:18-118:8; Ex-2119, ¶44. Petitioner has not shown that the method or
`
`circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness and does not
`
`dispute the authenticity of any of the other exhibits so close in time which the
`
`witnesses also attest to as authentic. Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)(E); e.g., Ex-2025; Ex-
`
`2021; Ex-2017; Ex-1926, ¶¶14, 17, 18, and 19.
`
`IV. The Authority Relied on by Petitioner Is Unhelpful and Distinguishable
`
`Unlike the Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC decision cited by Petitioner
`
`(MTE, at 5), there is ample supporting testimony that Exhibit 2024 is what Patent
`
`10
`
`
`
`Owner claims it is. Compare supra Parts I-II with Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE,
`
`LLC, IPR2019-00929, Paper 53, at 99 (PTAB Sept. 21, 2020) (“In the absence of
`
`any supporting testimony, Patent Owner has not met its burden of showing that
`
`Exhibit 2114 is what Patent Owner claims it is.” (emphasis added)). The Ingenico
`
`petition involved an exhibit claimed to be a letter that was mailed to a recipient,
`
`but that bore no indicia that it was ever in fact mailed. Ingenico, IPR2019-00929,
`
`at 98-99. Additionally, there was no supporting testimony that the letter was
`
`mailed or that it was even a letter. Id. at 99. By stark contrast, Exhibit 2024 has
`
`been shown to be the first revision of the Product Requirements document for the
`
`GuideLiner RX, establishing that by at least August 24, 2005, the GuideLiner RX
`
`prototypes had been made, tested, and shown to work for their intended purposes,
`
`and that the product was advancing to the formal quality stage of the company’s
`
`product development and commercialization process. See supra Parts I & II.
`
`In the Linear case cited by Petitioner (MTE, at 5, 7, and 8), and relied on by
`
`the PTAB in Ingenico, the facts are very similar: exhibits claimed to be letters that
`
`were sent to customers bore no indicia of “having ever been mailed to a customer.”
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Micrel, Inc., 275 F.3d 1040, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The
`
`Court noted that the exhibits bore no company letterhead and no signature, and the
`
`fact that the letters were not “three-hole punched” like other documents kept in a
`
`“reading file” undermined testimony that the exhibits were mailed letters. Id. The
`
`11
`
`
`
`party proffering the evidence did not submit any testimony that the exhibits were
`
`ordinarily kept in the form they were introduced (not three-hold punched) or
`
`testimony about “the circumstances surrounding the Stenstrom letters.” Id. at
`
`1056. These letters at issue were found in the files of an independent sales
`
`representative and were purportedly authored by another independent sales
`
`representative, Stenstrom. Id. at 1054-55. But neither person had any recollection
`
`of mailing the letters, and there being no outward indicia of their being mailed, nor
`
`stored in their produced form, the court found they were not authenticated. Id.
`
`Here, again by stark contrast, multiple witnesses have testified about their first-
`
`hand knowledge of Exhibit 2024 and the circumstances surrounding its creation.
`
`See supra Parts I & II.
`
`Riverbed Tech. Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC involved an exhibit excluded
`
`where “Patent Owner ha[d] provided no evidence” that the paper was a true and
`
`correct copy, unaltered, or where the expert “found it.” IPR2016-00978, Paper 67,
`
`at 40 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2017). Additionally, Patent Owner did not offer any
`
`supplemental evidence to overcome Petitioner’s objection, and Patent Owner
`
`stated that the expert did not rely on the document. Id. at 41. Riverbed could not
`
`be more inapposite to the case at hand, and Exhibit 2024, in particular. See supra
`
`Parts I & II.
`
`12
`
`
`
`In Schroeder v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., an attorney’s testimony
`
`that “he ‘received’ [photos] from [the defendant grocery store]” was held
`
`insufficient to authenticate video surveillance footage and photos of an alleged slip
`
`and fall. 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17830, at *1, 5-6 (D. Nev. Feb. 11, 2014). Unlike
`
`the attorney in Schroeder, here, four separate witnesses have testified about their
`
`first-hand understanding and recollection of Exhibit 2024 and that testimony is
`
`further supplemented by corroborating documents. See supra Parts I & II.
`
`In Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc., the PTAB stated that when
`
`considering exhibits that were webpage printouts offered to “prove the website’s
`
`contents, the proponent of the evidence must authenticate the information from the
`
`website itself, not merely the printout.” IPR2014-00148, Paper 41, at 10 (PTAB
`
`April 23, 2015). The proponent of the screenshot exhibit “ha[d] not provided
`
`testimony of any witness with personal knowledge of the information on the
`
`website(s) or the associated printouts at issue.” Id. at 12. Nor had the proponent
`
`even “identified the website(s) from which [the exhibits] were downloaded.” Id.
`
`The facts in Standard Innovation could not be more different than the facts
`
`supporting Exhibit 2024 here. See supra Parts I & II.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections Should Also Be Overruled for Failure to Satisfy
`Rule 42.64(b)
`
`So weak is Petitioner’s motion to exclude that it even failed on the threshold
`
`requirement for particularity. Under Rule 42.64(b), Petitioner’s objections were
`
`13
`
`
`
`timely but deficient as they did not “identify the grounds for the objection with
`
`sufficient particularity to allow correction in the form of supplemental evidence.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1); Ex-1923 (Patent Owner responding to objections on the
`
`basis that they lacked particularity). Petitioner cannot now justly move to exclude
`
`Exhibit 2024 by claiming the supplemental evidence served by Patent Owner was
`
`not particular enough to meet its hidden objection to Exhibit 2024 under Rule 901
`
`or Rule 802, Petitioner’s now narrowed objection grounds. See MTE, at 1; Paper
`
`25, at 1 (section II. where “Exhibits 2002-2011, 2013-14, 2016-38, . . . :
`
`Documents/Evidence Submitted with Mr. Root Declaration” lists Rules 802 and
`
`901 among others).
`
`VI. Conclusion
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has put forward ample evidence that Exhibit 2024 is a true and
`
`correct copy of the August 24, 2005 Product Requirements document for the
`
`GuideLiner RX. Petitioner has not presented any affirmative case that casts doubt
`
`on the authenticity of Exhibit 2024, and a reasonable person could find that it is
`
`what it is claimed to be. The Federal Rules of Evidence, the caselaw, and the
`
`weight of the evidence surrounding Exhibit 2024 overwhelmingly support its
`
`authenticity and admissibility. Exhibit 2024 should not be excluded and
`
`Petitioner’s motion should be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Dated: March 1, 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
`
`15
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the agreement of the parties, the
`
`
`
`undersigned certifies that on March 1, 2021, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner’s Response to Petitioners’ Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`was served via electronic mail upon the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cyrus A. Morton (Reg. No. 44,954)
`Sharon Roberg-Perez (Reg. No. 69,600)
`Christopher A. Pinahs (Reg. No. 76,375)
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
`Minneapolis, MN 55401
`Phone: 349-8500
`Fax: 612-339-4181
`Email: Cmorton@robinskaplan.com
`Email: Sroberg-perez@robinskaplan.com
`Email: Cpinahs@robinskaplan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/J. Derek Vandenburgh/
`
`
`J. Derek Vandenburgh (Lead Counsel for Patent Owner)
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`