`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01341
`Patent 8,142,413
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner hereby submits its notice
`
`of objections to certain evidence that Petitioner submitted in connection with
`
`IPR2020-01341.
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`1003
`
`1005
`
`Objections
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1005 to the extent Dr. Brecker has
`not disclosed materials considered other than those referenced in his
`declaration. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65(a) and (b).
`
`FRE 702, 703, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65:
`
`¶¶ 17-18, 21, 28, 31, 37, 48, 53-54, 93, 104-106, 109, 113-115, 118,
`120, 122, 127, 139-141, 144-147, 152, 160, 162, 170-171, 173, 174,
`179, 181, 185, 187, 191, 194, 196, 204, 207, 211, 214, 217, 222, 225-
`226, 228, 230-231, 233, 235-236, 240-241, 245, 247-249, 251, 256-
`259, 263-264, 266-268, 270-272, 275, 277, 279, 284, 288-291, 295-
`298, 304, 306, 310-311, 314, 319, 321-324, 327-330, 332-333, 335-
`336, 339-340, 344-354, 356-357 are not based on sufficient facts and
`data and do not reliably apply facts and data using scientific
`principles.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403:
`
`Sections IX.A, X, and XI are not relevant because the Itou reference
`is not prior art; to the extent Sections IX.A, X, and XI are relevant,
`their probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing unfair
`prejudice and confusing the issues.
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`¶¶ 37, 45, and 49 are not relevant; to the extent they are relevant, their
`probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing unfair
`prejudice and confusing the issues because they lack support for the
`contentions for which they are cited and improperly characterize the
`understanding of a POSITA.
`
`¶¶ 104-106 are not relevant; to the extent it is relevant, its probative
`value is outweighed by the danger of causing unfair prejudice and
`confusing the issues because it lacks support for the contentions for
`which it is cited and improperly characterizes the teachings of
`Kontos.
`
` 109 contains irrelevant statements; to the extent such statements are
`relevant, their probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing
`unfair prejudice and confusing the issues because they lack support
`for the contentions for which they are cited and improperly
`characterize the teachings of Ressemann.
`
`¶¶ 114-118 are not relevant; to the extent they are relevant, their
`probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing unfair
`prejudice and confusing the issues because they lack support for the
`contentions for which they are cited and improperly characterize the
`teachings of Kataishi.
`
` ¶
`
` ¶
`
` 119 is not relevant; to the extent it is relevant, its probative value is
`outweighed by the danger of causing unfair prejudice and confusing
`the issues because it lacks support for the contentions for which it is
`cited and improperly characterizes the teachings of Enger.
`
`¶¶ 37, 127, 141 contain irrelevant statements; to the extent they are
`relevant, their probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing
`unfair prejudice and confusing the issues because they lacks support
`for the contentions for which they are cited and improperly
`characterize the teachings of ’413 patent.
`
`
`FRE 702, 703, 704:
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`¶¶ 17-18, 21, 31, 139-141, 146, 245, 251, 266, 270, 319, 321, 327,
`332, 335, 340, 346 and Headings X, X.A, XI, XI.A, XI.B state
`improper legal conclusions.
`
`Patent Owner additionally objects to Exhibit 1005 under FRE 802
`(hearsay) to the extent that Patent Owner does not have the
`opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Brecker regarding his declaration.
`35 U.S.C. § 102: The exhibit is not prior art.
`
`FRE 403: To the extent this document may be relevant, its probative
`value is outweighed by the danger of causing unfair prejudice,
`confusing the issues, causing undue delay, wasting time, or
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore the
`document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`
`3
`
`1007
`
`1011
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1021
`
`
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1030
`
`FRE 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a printed
`publication.
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay
`FRE 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a printed
`publication.
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay
`FRE 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a printed
`publication.
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`
`4
`
`
`
`1031
`
`1034
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`
`5
`
`
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1042 to the extent Dr. Hillstead has
`not disclosed materials considered other than those referenced in his
`declaration. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65(a) and (b).
`
`FRE 702, 703, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65:
`
`¶¶ 12, 19, 25, 27-29, 31-32, 39-42, 45-46, 50-54, 56-60, 63-67, 69-73
`are not based on sufficient facts and data and do not reliably apply
`facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403:
`
`Exhibit 1042 is not relevant because the Itou reference is not prior art;
`to the extent Exhibit 1042 is relevant, its probative value is
`outweighed by the danger of causing unfair prejudice and confusing
`the issues.
`
`FRE 702, 703, 704:
`
`¶¶ 19, 29 state improper legal conclusions.
`
`FRE 602:
`
` ¶
`
` 18 is not based on personal knowledge.
`
`
`Patent Owner additionally objects to Exhibit 1042 under FRE 802
`(hearsay) to the extent that Patent Owner does not have the
`opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Hillstead regarding his declaration.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`
`6
`
`1039
`
`1042
`
`1048
`
`
`
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`
`FRE 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a printed
`publication.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`
`FRE 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a printed
`publication.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`
`7
`
`1049
`
`1052
`
`1056
`
`
`
`1057
`
`1058
`
`1059
`
`1066
`
`1067
`
`1068
`
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`
`8
`
`
`
`1069
`
`1074
`
`1079
`
`1080
`
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102: The exhibit is not prior art.
`
`FRE 802: This document is hearsay.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`
`9
`
`
`
`1081
`
`1083
`
`1084
`
`1088-
`1095
`
`1096
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 106, 1002: This document is incomplete. This document has
`been modified.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: In view of the Board’s Institution Decision, this
`document is irrelevant and inadmissible under Rule 402. To the
`extent it may be relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing
`undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`evidence, and therefore it is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`
`FRE 106: This document is incomplete.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: In view of the Board’s Institution Decision, these
`references are irrelevant and inadmissible under Rule 402. To the
`extent they are relevant, their probative value is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing
`undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`evidence, and therefore they are inadmissible under Rule 403.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403. The
`
`10
`
`
`
`1097
`
`1114-
`1116
`
`1117
`
`exhibit is not cited in the Petition or either expert declaration (Exs.
`1005, 1042).
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: In view of the Board’s Institution Decision, these
`references are irrelevant and inadmissible under Rule 402. To the
`extent they are relevant, their probative value is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing
`undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`evidence, and therefore they are inadmissible under Rule 403.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This exhibit is not relevant. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by the danger
`of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
`and therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`
`
`Dated: February 23, 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
`
`11
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the agreement of the parties, the
`
`
`
`undersigned certifies that on February 23, 2021, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner’s Objections to 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)
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`