`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST
`FOR ORAL ARGUMENT PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a)
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a) and the Consolidated Scheduling Order
`
`(Paper 26) Patent Owner Teleflex requests an opportunity to present oral argument
`
`regarding the claims challenged in IPR2020-00126 (Patent 8,048,032 B2),
`
`IPR2020-00127 (Patent 8,048,032 B2), IPR2020-00128 (Patent RE45,380),
`
`IPR2020-00129 (Patent RE45,380), IPR2020-00130 (Patent RE45,380), IPR2020-
`
`00132 (Patent RE45,760), IPR2020-00134 (Patent RE45,760), IPR2020-00135
`
`(Patent RE45,776), IPR2020-00136 (Patent RE45,776), IPR2020-00137 (Patent
`
`RE47,379), and IPR2020-00138 (Patent RE47,379). The Board has set a hearing
`
`on this matter for March 8, 2021. (Paper 26, Due Date 8.) Patent Owner requests
`
`oral argument (without waiving consideration of any issue not listed below) to
`
`address the grounds on which these IPRs were instituted, including the specific
`
`invalidity grounds raised in the Petitions of the instituted trials, the parties’ dispute
`
`regarding conception and reduction to practice (“CRTP”) in IPR2020-00126, -
`
`00128, -00129, -00132, -00134, -00135, and -00137, and Patent Owner’s
`
`Contingent Motions to Amend, any motion to exclude filed in this proceeding, any
`
`additional issues identified in Petitioners’ request for oral argument, and any
`
`additional issues on which the Board seeks clarification.
`
`Patent Owner further requests the opportunity to present live testimony from
`
`inventor Howard Root on CRTP. The Consolidated Scheduling Order states that
`
`“the panel may consider whether live testimony is appropriate for the underlying
`
`1
`
`
`
`factual issues related to” that issue as it is presented in IPR2020-00126, -00128, -
`
`00129, -00132, -00134, -00135, and -00137. (Paper 26, 4.)
`
`The factors the Board considers in deciding whether to allow live testimony
`
`weigh in favor of allowing Mr. Root’s testimony in these proceedings. See K-40
`
`Elecs., LLC v. Escort, Inc., IPR2013-00203, Paper 34 (PTAB May 21, 2014)
`
`(precedential). Petitioner’s Itou-based CRTP challenge is central to the IPRs
`
`currently before the Board. A ruling in Patent Owner’s favor on CRTP would be
`
`completely dispositive of five IPRs (-00126, -00128, -00132, -00135, and -00137),
`
`and resolve several grounds of two additional IPRs (Grounds 7-9 of -00129 and
`
`Grounds 1-3 of -00134). Mr. Root is the founder and former CEO of Vascular
`
`Solutions, the original owner of the patents at issue, although he is not associated
`
`with the current Patent Owner. He is also a named inventor and principal fact
`
`witness. Id. at 3. Although Petitioner’s expert agrees that Patent Owner’s
`
`testimonial and documentary evidence is truthful, Petitioner has put Mr. Root’s
`
`credibility at issue by arguing that his testimony is not sufficiently corroborated
`
`and by contending that certain documentary evidence he relies on may actually
`
`relate to other products. Those arguments directly contradict Mr. Root’s
`
`testimony. See MPOWERD Inc. v. LuminAID Lab, LLC, IPR2018-01524, Paper
`
`40, 4 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2019). Moreover, if the Board were to reject Petitioner’s
`
`argument that Mr. Root’s declaration lacks sufficient corroboration, this case may
`
`2
`
`
`
`well turn on Mr. Root’s credibility. Id. Thus, Mr. Root’s testimony may be case
`
`dispositive.
`
`It is well settled that “[t]he fundamental requisite of due process of law is the
`
`opportunity to be heard.” Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914). “In
`
`almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due
`
`process requires an opportunity” for live testimony. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S.
`
`254, 269 (1970). Under the facts and circumstances presented in these IPRs,
`
`Patent Owner believes this an “appropriate situation[]” where live testimony is
`
`warranted. Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,762 & 48,768 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (November 2019), 32.
`
`Patent Owner has met and conferred with Petitioner about the parties’
`
`respective proposals for conduct of the proceedings. Agreement was not reached
`
`on the issue of live testimony or the amount of time for argument on CRTP or the
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 validity issues presented in these IPRs. The parties do agree
`
`on the appropriate time to allot to Patent Owner’s Contingent Motions to Amend.
`
`Patent Owner therefore asks the Board to enter the following:
`
`• CRTP: 30 minutes per side for examination of Mr. Root, plus 60 minutes
`
`oral argument per side;
`
`• 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 issues: 90 minutes oral argument per side; and
`
`3
`
`
`
`• Contingent Motions to Amend: 30 minutes oral argument per side (per
`
`parties’ agreement).
`
`Approximately ten people from Patent Owner’s side will attend the oral
`
`argument.
`
`Patent Owner requests technology to display demonstrative exhibits,
`
`including technology to allow the exhibits to be viewed by any Judge participating
`
`remotely. Patent Owner understands that the Consolidated Scheduling Order
`
`(Paper 26) set oral argument, if requested, to take place at the U.S. Patent &
`
`Trademark Office headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, but that in light of the
`
`ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the Board’s March 13, 2020 notice
`
`(https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-update-person-meetings), the
`
`oral argument will be conducted remotely by video or telephone. Patent Owner
`
`respectfully requests that oral argument be conducted by videoconference rather
`
`than teleconference, if possible.
`
`If this request for oral argument is granted, Patent Owner will direct its
`
`request for audio-visual technology to PTABHearings@uspto.gov.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Dated: January 28, 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
`
`5
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the agreement of the parties, the
`
`
`
`undersigned certifies that on January 28, 2021, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner’s Request for Oral Argument Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.70(a) 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)
`
`
`
`