`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.À.R.L.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00136
`Patent RE 45,776
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00136
`Patent RE 45,776
`
`
`Medtronic had no obligation to address secondary considerations in its
`
`Petition. Instead, Teleflex, as the Patent Owner, has the burden of production on
`
`that issue. Teleflex’s positions on secondary considerations—which are not even
`
`supported by expert testimony—have not been fully developed, let alone
`
`adjudicated, in Court or the Patent Office. Nor has Teleflex identified any authority
`
`requiring a Petitioner to address secondary considerations absent those instances.
`
`Thus, secondary considerations should not be addressed until the trial phase.
`
`The Board has repeatedly rejected arguments that a petition must address
`
`secondary considerations, including in cases involving allegations far more
`
`developed than the miscellaneous assortment of evidence presented here. In
`
`Lowe’s Co. v. Nichia Corp., the Board granted institution and found that the
`
`Petitioner did not have to address evidence of secondary considerations even
`
`though the District Court’s findings of fact previously credited that evidence.
`
`IPR2017-02011, Paper 12 at *4-6, 55-58 (POPR), Paper 13 at *18 (PTAB Mar. 12,
`
`2018) (Institution Decision); see also Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. W.
`
`Geco LLC, IPR2014-01477, Paper 12 at *40-41 (POPR), Paper 18 at *32
`
`(PTAB Mar. 17, 2015) (Institution Decision). Similarly, in C & D Zodiac, Inc. v.
`
`b/e Aerospace, Inc., the Board concluded that a petition need not “introduce and
`
`address such secondary considerations evidence” that was “discovered during the
`
`co-pending litigation.” IPR2017-01275, Paper 12 at *15 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2017).
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00136
`Patent RE 45,776
`
`
`Indeed, the Board rejected the same arguments from Teleflex’s counsel in
`
`Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Polaris Industries Inc., IPR2017-00433, Paper 17 at *9-10
`
`(PTAB July 5, 2017). The Board explained that “Patent Owner does not identify,
`
`nor are we aware of any persuasive authority requiring Petitioner in this case to
`
`address secondary considerations, not previously presented to the Office, in the
`
`Petition.” Id. at *10. Instead, “the burden of production rests on Patent Owner with
`
`regard to secondary considerations.” Id. Thus, the Board found that “full
`
`consideration of evidence of secondary considerations of this nature is not
`
`necessary” before institution. Id. at *19.
`
`Teleflex’s arguments are no more compelling here. Again, Teleflex’s
`
`counsel identifies no authority for requiring a Petitioner, such as Medtronic, to
`
`address evidence of secondary considerations, absent a decision by the Patent
`
`Office, ITC, or District Court crediting that evidence. See, e.g., Stryker Corp. et al.
`
`v. KFx Med., LLC, IPR2019-00817, Paper 10 at *27-28 (PTAB Sept. 16, 2019)
`
`(“[S]econdary considerations evidence was developed fully during the Arthrex
`
`Litigation, and the Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict”); Robert Bosch Tool
`
`Corp. v. Sd3, No. IPR2016-01753, Paper, at *12 (PTAB Mar. 22, 2017) (“[A]fter
`
`development of the record at the ITC, including cross-examination, the
`
`Administrative Judge determined that the evidence of secondary considerations
`
`was ‘very strong’ in favor of Patent Owner.”); Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. United
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00136
`Patent RE 45,776
`
`States, IPR2019-01453, Paper 14 at *26-27 (PTAB Feb. 20, 2020) (“[W]ell-
`
`developed evidence of” secondary considerations “was key to the allowance of the
`
`claims”); Coal. for Affordable Drugs V LLC v. Hoffman-LaRoche Inc., IPR2015-
`
`01792, Paper 14 at 17-18 (PTAB Mar. 11, 2016) (pointing to “objective indicia of
`
`nonobviousness presented to the Office during the prosecution”). None of those
`
`circumstances are present here.
`
`The Patent Office never addressed secondary considerations during
`
`prosecution of this patent. See Exs. 1402-1403. Nor have secondary considerations
`
`even been raised by Teleflex in litigation against Medtronic, let alone fully
`
`developed or adjudicated. None of Teleflex’s identified exhibits even mention
`
`“secondary considerations.” Instead, an expert report from a different case discuses
`
`infringement (Ex. 2056); a declaration from Teleflex’s preliminary injunction
`
`briefing addresses purported irreparable harm (Ex. 2043); and an interrogatory
`
`response sets forth Teleflex’s alleged market share (Ex. 2059). Teleflex argues that
`
`Medtronic should have cobbled together disparate disclosures from these types of
`
`exhibits to make Teleflex’s argument for it. Requiring petitioners to engage in
`
`guessing games would waste the parties’ and the Board’s resources. Under these
`
`circumstances, Medtronic did not have to raise secondary considerations in its
`
`Petition. The Board should grant institution and reject Teleflex’s attempt to shift
`
`the initial burden on secondary considerations to Medtronic.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00136
`Patent RE 45,776
`
`
`Dated: April 24, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Cyrus A. Morton/
`Cyrus A. Morton
`Reg. No. 44,954
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`2800 LaSalle Plaza
`800 LaSalle Avenue
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00136
`Patent RE 45,776
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on April
`
`24, 2020, a copy of PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE was served in its entirety by electronic mail on
`
`Patent Owner’s counsel at the following addresses indicated in Patent Owner’s
`
`Mandatory Notices:
`
`J. Derek Vandenburgh, Reg. No. 32,179
`dvandenburgh@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Dennis C. Bremer, Reg. No. 40,528
`dbremer@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`
`
`Dated: April 24, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Cyrus A. Morton/
`Cyrus A. Morton
`Reg. No. 44,954
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`2800 LaSalle Plaza
`800 LaSalle Avenue
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`5
`
`