`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFLEX LIFE SCIENCES LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01341
`Patent 8,142,413
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S
`OPENING BRIEF ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER’S BRIGHT LINE RULE FOR FINALITY IS
`WRONG .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`PETITIONER’S BRIGHT LINE RULE FOR IDENTITY HAS
`BEEN SQUARELY REJECTED BY THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ................ 3
`
`III. SEVERAL ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL AND COULD BE
`RESOLVED VIA COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL ............................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`Conception and Reduction to Practice .................................................. 3
`
`B. Anticipation and Obviousness Grounds ................................................ 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 1293 (2015) ............................................................................................ 5
`
`Mobile Tech, Inc. v. Invue Security Prods. Inc.,
`IPR2018-00481, Paper 29 (PTAB July 16, 2019) .................................................. 3
`
`Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.,
`884 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................................. 3
`
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC,
`735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .............................................................................. 3
`
`Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc.,
`170 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .............................................................................. 2
`
`Trustid, Inc. v. Next Caller Inc.,
`2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134010 .............................................................................. 2
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 318 .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petitioner portrays the application of collateral estoppel as a series of bright
`
`line rules that come out in its favor. This is incorrect. Whether the prior, related
`
`IPRs are sufficiently final so as to trigger collateral estoppel is not nearly so clear.
`
`Petitioner’s citations to an unrelated statute and non-binding district court decision
`
`(which itself admits of ambiguity), do not support Petitioner’s bright line.
`
`Some issues are the same and could be decided on the basis of collateral
`
`estoppel. For example, on conception and reduction to practice, Petitioner does not
`
`challenge conception, and does not argue that the issue of constructive reduction to
`
`practice is any different than in the prior IPRs.
`
`Nonetheless, because of ambiguity in the law Patent Owner requests that the
`
`Board not rely solely on collateral estoppel and, as other Board panels have done,
`
`also address the arguments on the merits and/or substantively adopt its prior
`
`findings where appropriate. And whether or not collateral estoppel applies, the
`
`Board may and should view the prior Final Written Decisions as highly relevant,
`
`persuasive authority.
`
`I.
`
`PETITIONER’S BRIGHT LINE RULE FOR FINALITY IS
`WRONG
`
`Petitioner argues that because it appealed the prior IPRs, they are not final
`
`and cannot be the basis for collateral estoppel. Pet. Br., 2-4. This bright line rule
`
`is wrong. Such a rule would mean a party could always prevent the application of
`
`collateral estoppel simply by appealing a related decision. That runs counter to
`
`1
`
`
`
`general principles and purposes of collateral estoppel. E.g., Pharmacia & Upjohn
`
`Co. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 170 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“The law is well
`
`settled that the pendency of an appeal has no effect on the finality or binding effect
`
`of a trial court's holding.”).
`
`Petitioner cites 35 U.S.C. § 318 for the proposition that IPRs are not final
`
`until the time for appeals has expired or any appeals have terminated. Pet. Br., 3.
`
`But the language Petitioner cites simply explains when the Director should issue a
`
`certificate cancelling or confirming claims. 35 U.S.C. § 318(b). Clearly a
`
`certificate does not issue from an IPR until appeals have been exhausted, but the
`
`statute says nothing about the finality of fully litigated and decided issues for the
`
`purpose of collateral estoppel.
`
`Petitioner also cites the non-binding Trustid case from the District of
`
`Delaware, for an apparent bright line rule that “the Board’s final written decisions
`
`‘do[] not have preclusive effect until that decision is either affirmed or the parties
`
`waive their appeal rights.” Pet. Br., 3 (quoting 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134010, at
`
`*8-9 (D. Del. July 6, 2021)). But Petitioner did not provide the whole quotation—
`
`the District of Delaware acknowledged ambiguity when it found Federal Circuit
`
`case law only “suggests” such a rule. 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134010, at *8-9.
`
`Beyond the one (inapplicable) statute and one (misquoted and non-binding)
`
`district court case, Petitioner only provides a list of “see” cites. Pet. Br. 3-4.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Clearly, no such bright line rule exists. Rather, as Patent Owner explained, while
`
`there is some ambiguity the weight of authority suggests the Final Written
`
`Decisions in the prior IPRs can trigger collateral estoppel. PO Br., 1-5. Indeed,
`
`the Board itself has stated that “[t]he fact that an appeal is pending does not
`
`prevent the application of collateral estoppel.” Mobile Tech, Inc. v. Invue Security
`
`Prods. Inc., IPR2018-00481, Paper 29 at 33 (PTAB July 16, 2019) (but reaching
`
`the merits out of an “abundance of caution”).
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER’S BRIGHT LINE RULE FOR IDENTITY HAS BEEN
`SQUARELY REJECTED BY THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`Petitioner proposes another (incorrect) bright line rule that prior decisions on
`
`different patents or claims cannot trigger collateral estoppel. Pet. Br., 4. But this
`
`has been squarely rejected by the Federal Circuit. Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Steuben
`
`Foods, Inc., 884 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “Our precedent makes clear
`
`that collateral estoppel is not limited ‘to patent claims that are identical. Rather, it
`
`is the identity of the issues that were litigated that determines whether collateral
`
`estoppel should apply.’” Id. (quoting Ohio Willow Wood Co., 735 F.3d at 1342)
`
`(emphasis in original).
`
`III. SEVERAL ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL AND COULD BE RESOLVED
`VIA COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
`
`A. Conception and Reduction to Practice
`
`Petitioner does not challenge conception in the present IPRs, and in its
`
`3
`
`
`
`estoppel brief, does not argue that constructive reduction to practice presents any
`
`new issues. Pet. Br., 5-7. These issues are thus clearly ripe for collateral estoppel.
`
`Regarding actual reduction to practice, Petitioner argues that it requires
`
`“limitation-by-limitation performance of the claimed method.” Id., 6. Patent
`
`Owner submitted limitation-by-limitation analysis specifically for the patents
`
`challenged in the current IPRs. E.g., IPR2020-01341, Paper 67 at 12-13; Ex-2118,
`
`App’x A-B. But Petitioner submitted a declaration from its expert that
`
`incorporated a limitation-by-limitation rebuttal of the prior, related patents. E.g.,
`
`IPR2020-01341, Paper 51 (citing Ex-1755, which resubmits claim-by-claim
`
`rebuttals for the prior, related patents). Either Petitioner thought this limitation-by-
`
`limitation analysis of the prior, related patents was sufficient (in which case
`
`Petitioner’s present estoppel argument is contradictory), or Patent Owner’s
`
`evidence on the current patents stands unrebutted and the Board should reach that
`
`decision on the merits.
`
`Regarding in vivo testing, as explained in Patent Owner’s brief, the issues on
`
`reduction to practice are nearly identical to those litigated and adjudicated in the
`
`prior IPRs, with the possible exception being whether actual reduction to practice
`
`of the method claims requires that the testing have been done in vivo, rather than in
`
`a heart model. PO Br., 7-8. On this particular issue, the Board at a minimum
`
`should view its prior Final Written Decisions as highly relevant, persuasive
`
`4
`
`
`
`authority and find in Patent Owner’s favor.
`
`Finally, Petitioner argues that the Board’s prior decisions “provide no basis”
`
`for determining whether the rapid exchange GuideLiner prototypes were tested to
`
`meet their intended purpose of provided increased backup support. Pet. Br., 6-7.
`
`Petitioner is wrong. While the particular patents and claims are different in the
`
`present IPRs, the issue of testing for increased backup support is materially
`
`identical to the prior IPRs, in which the Board already found the prototypes were
`
`tested and understood to work for their intended purpose of providing increased
`
`backup support. E.g., IPR2020-00126, Paper 129 at 52-62.
`
`B. Anticipation and Obviousness Grounds
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute that there are some new issues in the present
`
`IPRs that should be analyzed on the merits.
`
`However, on the issue of whether Petitioner should be permitted tore-argue
`
`issues that the Board found unpersuasive in the prior IPRs (see Pet. Br., 8), this is
`
`exactly the kind of second chance litigation that collateral estoppel is meant to
`
`prevent. E.g., B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1293, 1303
`
`(2015)) (“a losing litigant deserves no rematch after a defeat fairly suffered”). The
`
`Board should not indulge this second chance litigation tactic, and should adopt its
`
`prior decisions where appropriate, and at a minimum view its prior decisions as
`
`highly relevant, persuasive authority.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 17, 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
`
`6
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the agreement of the parties, the
`
`undersigned certifies that on November 17, 2021, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner’s Consolidated Response to Petitioner’s Opening Brief on
`
`Collateral Estoppel 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)
`
`7
`
`