`
`
`
`
`
`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 No.: IPR2020-00136
`U.S. Patent No. RE 45,776
`______________________________
`
`Petitioners’ Motion for Good Cause Extension Pursuant
`to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c)
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00136
`Patent RE 45,776
`
`Medtronic submits this Motion for a Good Cause Extension Pursuant to 37
`
`§ C.F.R. § 42.100(c). Specifically, Medtronic requests that the Chief
`
`Administrative Judge (i) determine that good cause exists to extend the one-year
`
`period for issuing a Final Written Decision and (ii) authorize the Board to extend
`
`the date for the Oral Hearing by three months.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`The Scope of This IPR is Unprecedented.
`
`It is not hyperbole to say that these IPRs—in light of Teleflex’s POR
`
`submissions—have ballooned to such an extent that the current IPR schedule is
`
`unworkable. The typical IPR schedule for the parties and the Board did not
`
`contemplate this situation. A good-cause extension is warranted.
`
`In November 2019, Medtronic filed its IPR Petitions. Teleflex had almost a
`
`full year—its PORs were filed on October 1—until Due Date 2. In conjunction
`
`with that due date, Teleflex submitted its (i) PORs, including its alleged secondary
`
`indicia of nonobviousness, (ii) separate briefing attempting to antedate Medtronic’s
`
`prior art by establishing an earlier conception and reduction to practice date
`
`(“CRTP”), and (iii) eleven Motions to Amend.
`
`In support of its PORs, Teleflex submitted four expert declarations and four
`
`fact declarations. For CRTP, Teleflex submitted more than sixty-five documents
`
`and seven declarations (one expert and six fact declarations). In support of its
`
`Motions to Amend, Teleflex submitted up to eight amended claims and a separate
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00136
`Patent RE 45,776
`expert declaration in support of each proposed amendment. Finally, Teleflex
`
`submitted nine fact declarations attempting to authenticate its exhibits. In sum, in
`
`conjunction with Due Date 2, in addition to its briefing, Teleflex submitted up to
`
`215 exhibits, six expert declarations, and twenty fact declarations per IPR.
`
`Medtronic’s opposition to Teleflex’s CRTP brief and its opposition to the
`
`Motion to Amend are due on December 17 and its Reply to the Petition is due on
`
`December 21. Based on the current schedule, Medtronic has less than three
`
`months—despite Teleflex having had nearly a year to prepare its POR
`
`submissions—to analyze Teleflex’s arguments, complete its depositions, and
`
`prepare fulsome responses. In the “typical” IPR context, three months provides
`
`sufficient time, but this is not the typical—rather, this is the extraordinary—IPR.
`
`To prepare its Replies to the POR, Medtronic must review and analyze more
`
`than 16,000 documents submitted in the district court in order to respond to
`
`Teleflex’s CRTP arguments and alleged secondary indicia of non-obviousness.1
`
`And in conjunction with the Motions to Amend, Medtronic must not only analyze
`
`and apply the prior art to the proposed claim amendments, but also prepare Section
`
`101 and 112 defenses (that were not previously within the scope of these IPRs).
`
`
`1 Teleflex submitted four expert declarations and cites three fact declarants in
`
`support of its alleged secondary indicia of non-obviousness.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00136
`Patent RE 45,776
`Medtronic has less than three months to take numerous depositions, and
`
`develop declarations for numerous responsive witnesses, for both the current and
`
`proposed substitute claims. The parties will then have about two months, January
`
`and February, for numerous additional depositions, sur-replies, and the rest of the
`
`motion to amend process, which is likely to involve more declarations and
`
`depositions. And the Board will have to extend the hearing anyway if Patent
`
`Owner chooses—which Petitioner believes is necessary—to file Amended Motions
`
`to Amend. Accordingly, a good cause extension under § 42.100(c) is warranted.
`
`II. A Three-Month Extension Will Not Prejudice Teleflex.
`
`Teleflex’s prejudice arguments were already rejected by the district court,
`
`which found no irreparable harm absent an injunction and that Teleflex’s litigation
`
`strategy created a delay that subsumes Petitioner’s requested extension. In denying
`
`the Preliminary Injunction, the District Court explained that “Teleflex ha[d] failed
`
`to make a particularly compelling case that it [wa]s threatened with ‘substantial
`
`and immediate irreparable injury.’” Ex-1488, at 14. Thereafter, in granting
`
`Medtronic’s stay of the district court litigation, the court found that any alleged
`
`harm (if proven) could be compensated “by monetary damages.” Ex-1500, at 4; see
`
`also Ex-1501, at 4 (noting that the “harm Teleflex may suffer is likely to be of the
`
`reparable variety”). It is unlikely Teleflex will be able to demonstrate irrespirable
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00136
`Patent RE 45,776
`harm, and thus an injunction under eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S.
`
`388 (2006), is unlikely.
`
`Even if Teleflex were able to obtain a permanent injunction, a three-month
`
`extension in these IPRs will not delay that relief. These IPRs are more than nine
`
`months ahead of co-pending IPRs asserted against related patents, which Teleflex
`
`added to the district court litigation just this year (“New Patents”). Within less than
`
`six months of Teleflex adding the New Patents, Medtronic filed additional IPRs
`
`challenging those claims in July 2020. Assuming institution, a Final Written
`
`Decision in the later-filed IPRs of the New Patents will not issue until March 2022.
`
`Based on past practice, the district court is unlikely to lift the litigation stay until
`
`the later-filed IPRs conclude. Thus, any minimal extension of these IPRs will not
`
`delay the eventual district court trial date.
`
`Only once—to the best of counsels’ knowledge—has Judge Schiltz assessed
`
`a motion to lift a stay while post-grant proceedings were pending. In Horton, Inc.
`
`v. Kit Masters, Inc., Civ. No. 08-6291 (D. Minn., filed Dec. 8, 2008), after ex parte
`
`reexamination proceedings were initiated against two patents, Judge Schiltz stayed
`
`the litigation. Patent owner subsequently sought to lift the stay while certain of the
`
`reexamination proceedings were still pending. Id. Judge Schiltz denied the motion,
`
`explaining that “[i]t would be inefficient for the Court to lift the stay with respect
`
`to the ʼ415 patent until the pending [Patent Office] proceedings conclude[].” Ex-
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00136
`Patent RE 45,776
`1502 at 2. There is no reason to believe Judge Schiltz will deviate from this
`
`practice.
`
`To be clear, any delay in resuming the district court litigation will be the
`
`result, not of this Agency’s decision to grant a three-month extension, but because
`
`of Teleflex’s tactical decision to add the New Patents to the district court litigation
`
`more than seven months after it began. Indeed, when granting Medtronic’s Motion
`
`to Stay, the Court noted that it would “not hold the fact that petitions have not yet
`
`been filed with regard to the two newly added patents against Defendants as
`
`Plaintiffs made the tactical decision to add those patents only after Defendants
`
`filed the original 13 IPR petitions.” Ex-1500, at 3. Importantly, in assessing the
`
`potential harm (or lack thereof), the Court stated that “the potential for additional
`
`delay” as a result of Medtronic’s July IPR Petitions “is Plaintiffs’ own doing, as
`
`they chose to amend their complaint after the original IPR petitions had been
`
`filed.” Id. at 4. Teleflex will not be prejudiced by a three-month extension.
`
`III. Conclusion.
`
`Medtronic respectfully requests that the Commissioner determine that good
`
`cause exists to extend the one-year period for issuing a Final Written Decision.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00136
`Patent RE 45,776
`
`
`Dated: October 28, 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 Petitioner
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00136
`Patent RE 45,776
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on October
`
`28, 2020, a copy of PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR GOOD CAUSE
`
`EXTENSION 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
`
`Joseph W. Winkels
`jwinkels@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Peter M. Kohlhepp
`pkohlhepp@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`
`
`Dated: October 28, 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 Petitioner
`
`
`
`1
`
`