`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2020-01342
`U.S. Patent No. 8,142,413
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ........................................................................................ 2
`
`III. THE BOARD SHOULD DECLINE TO INSTITUTE REVIEW ............. 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Petition Should Be Denied Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................. 5
`
`The Petition Should Be Denied Because Inter Partes Review Is
`Unconstitutional .................................................................................... 8
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) .................................................... 5
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
` 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................. 8
`Centrip. Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,
`2:18-cv-94, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231215 (E.D. Va. Sep. 15, 2019) ..................... 7
`Cequent Performance Prods. v. Hopkins Mfg. Corp,
`13-cv-15293, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153654 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2015) ............. 7
`Horton, Inc. v. Kit Masters, Inc.,
`08-cv-6291, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134369 (D. Minn. Dec. 20, 2010) ................... 8
`Lucia v. SEC,
`138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018) ............................................................................................... 8
`United States v. Booker,
`543 U.S. 220 (2005) ................................................................................................... 9
`Other Authorities
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`iii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`2001 Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Document Requests,
`Vascular Sols. LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., 19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL (D. Minn.
`Aug. 15, 2019)
`2002 Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction
`(Redacted), Vascular Sols. LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., 19-cv-01760-PJS-
`TNL, Dkt. 104 (D. Minn., Nov. 15, 2019)
`2003 Email dated January 24, 2020, from Derek Vandenburgh to Kurt
`Niederluecke
`2004 Email dated July 3, 2019, from Derek Vandenburgh to Paik Saber and
`Matthew Anderson
`2005 Email dated July 16, 2019, from Lora Friedemann to Joe Winkels and
`Kurt Niederluecke
`2006 Declaration of Alexander Rinn, Vascular Sols. LLC v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL, Dkt. 93 (D. Minn., Oct. 16, 2019)
`
`iv
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`U.S. Patent No. 8,142,413 (“the ’413 patent”) is one of a family of patents
`
`covering an industry-changing medical device called GuideLiner. It is also one of
`
`seven patents at issue in a pending lawsuit for infringement filed by Patent Owner
`
`against Petitioner. In November of 2019, Petitioner filed thirteen IPR petitions
`
`against five of the other patents involved in that lawsuit. Eleven of those IPR
`
`petitions were granted,1 and the lawsuit was subsequently stayed based on
`
`Petitioner’s representation to the district court that those petitions were statutorily
`
`required to be completed by no later than June of 2021.
`
`The ’413 patent that is the subject of the present Petition is directed to a
`
`different invention than the patents at issue in the eleven currently pending IPRs.
`
`The claims of the ’413 patent are directed to methods of using a guide extension
`
`catheter to provide increased backup support during delivery of interventional
`
`cardiology devices, while the patents at issue in the pending IPRs contain only
`
`apparatus and system claims directed to the guide extension catheter itself. As a
`
`result, the present Petition presents different patentability issues than those
`
`involved in the currently-pending IPRs. Indeed, the ’413 patent was specifically
`
`
`1 The pending IPRs are IPR2020-00126, - 0127, -0128, -0129, -0130, -0132,
`
`-0134, -0135, -0136, -0137 and -0138.
`
`1
`
`
`
`added to the district court litigation because the method of use limitations further
`
`distinguish over the prior art identified by Petitioner in the district court.
`
`Instituting the current Petition is an inefficient use of the Board’s resources
`
`that will unfairly prejudice Patent Owner. Petitioner inexplicably waited almost
`
`nine months after the filing of the other thirteen IPR petitions to file the instant
`
`Petition challenging the ’413 patent. Petitioner has elsewhere sought to justify this
`
`delay based on the fact that the ’413 patent was not asserted in the litigation at the
`
`time it filed the other thirteen IPR petitions. But Petitioner has only itself to blame
`
`for that, since it refused to timely identify the prior art it was relying on in the
`
`district court litigation. Moreover, even measured from the time the ’413 patent
`
`was added to the district court litigation, Petitioner still waited six months to file
`
`this IPR petition. This is unreasonable, particularly given the fact that the present
`
`Petition relies on the same art and, largely, the same arguments asserted in its
`
`earlier-filed IPRs.
`
`Under these unique circumstances, the Board should not devote its limited
`
`resources to adjudicating this Petition.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`On July 2, 2019, Patent Owner filed suit against Petitioner for infringement
`
`of five patents protecting Patent Owner’s industry-changing GuideLiner guide
`
`extension catheter. Vascular Sols. LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., 19-cv-1760, Dkt. 1
`
`2
`
`
`
`(Compl.) (D. Minn. July 2, 2019). Concurrent with filing of the Complaint, Patent
`
`Owner sought to file a motion for preliminary injunction to immediately stop sales
`
`of Petitioner’s infringing product, called Telescope. Ex-2004, Ex-2005.
`
`At Petitioner’s request, the district court permitted expedited discovery to be
`
`taken before entertaining the preliminary injunction motion. Patent Owner limited
`
`its expedited discovery request to a single targeted document request to produce
`
`the prior art Petitioner intended to rely on in response to the preliminary injunction
`
`motion. Ex-2001 at 3. Rather than comply with the request, Petitioner produced
`
`eighty-nine pieces of prior art, without identifying which ones it intended to rely
`
`on. Id. at 3-4; Ex-2006.
`
`On October 11, 2019, Patent Owner filed its motion for preliminary
`
`injunction and supporting papers. E.g., Vascular Sols. LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., 19-
`
`cv-1760, Dkt. 73 (D. Minn. Oct. 11, 2019). At Petitioner’s request, its due date for
`
`responding to the preliminary injunction motion was extended to November 15,
`
`2019. Petitioner used that extra time to file thirteen IPR petitions challenging the
`
`five patents in suit. See IPR2020-00126 (filed Nov. 12, 2019), -00127 (filed Nov.
`
`12, 2019), -00128 (filed Nov. 12, 2019), -00129 (filed Nov. 14, 2019), -00130
`
`(filed Nov. 12, 2019), -00131 (filed Nov. 14, 2019), -00132 (filed Nov. 13, 2019),
`
`-00133 (filed Nov. 13, 2019), -00134 (filed Nov. 14, 2019), -00135 (filed Nov. 14,
`
`2019), -00136 (filed Nov. 14, 2019), -00137 (filed Nov. 12, 2019), -00138 (filed
`
`3
`
`
`
`Nov. 12, 2019). Petitioner then relied on those IPRs to argue that it had raised a
`
`“substantial question” as to the invalidity of the patents in suit, thereby rendering
`
`preliminary injunctive relief inappropriate. Ex-2002 at 38-39. The district court
`
`ultimately denied Patent Owner’s preliminary injunction motion.
`
`One of the references identified for the first time in the IPR filings was U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,736,355 to Itou (Ex-1407). In its reply brief for preliminary
`
`injunction, Patent Owner argued that Itou was not prior art to the patents in suit
`
`because the claimed subject matter was invented before the filing date of Itou.
`
`Vascular Sols. LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., 19-cv-1760, Dkt. 184 (D. Minn. Dec. 6,
`
`2019). Additionally, Itou is directed to a device used for a totally different purpose
`
`(suctioning of thrombi) than the guide extension catheter disclosed in the patents in
`
`suit. Therefore, shortly after the preliminary injunction hearing, Patent Owner
`
`wrote to Petitioner stating that it planned to add two additional patents (including
`
`the ’413 patent) containing claims directed to methods of use. Ex-2003. The
`
`motion to amend the complaint was filed on January 31, 2020 and was
`
`subsequently granted. Vascular Sols. LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., 19-cv-1760, Dkt.
`
`225 (Mot. to Amend Compl.) (D. Minn. Jan. 31, 2020), Dkt. 229 (Order Granting
`
`Mot. to Amend Compl.) (Feb. 7, 2020).
`
`4
`
`
`
`Six months later, on July 30-31, 2020, Petitioner filed four IPR petitions
`
`against two method patents, including the present Petition. See IPR2020-1341,
`
`-1342, -1343, -1344.
`
`III. THE BOARD SHOULD DECLINE TO INSTITUTE REVIEW
`A. The Petition Should Be Denied Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`Under Section 314(a), the Board may decline to institute an inter partes
`
`review when doing so would be an inefficient use of resources. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a); see also 35 U.S.C. § 316(b). As the Board explained in the precedential
`
`Apple v. Fintiv decision, the factors considered for institution under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a) should be considered as part of a “balanced assessment of all relevant
`
`circumstances of the case.” Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at
`
`5 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (quoting Consolidated Trial Practice Guide
`
`November 2019 at 58). The Board also explained that its § 314(a) cases “have
`
`sought to balance considerations such as system efficiency, fairness, and patent
`
`quality.” Id. The Board further emphasized that, in evaluating the Apple factors, it
`
`“takes a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best
`
`served by denying or instituting review.” Id. at 6. The unique circumstances of
`
`this case counsel in favor of denial.
`
`Here, Petitioner waited almost nine months after filing thirteen IPR petitions
`
`against five other patents in suit to file its Petition. This unjustified delay counsels
`
`5
`
`
`
`in favor of denial. Id. at 11-12 (“If . . . the evidence shows that the petitioner did
`
`not file the petition expeditiously, . . . or even if the petitioner cannot explain the
`
`delay in filing its petition, these facts have favored denial.”). This delay is
`
`particularly unjustified where the Petition relies on the same art (Kontos, Adams,
`
`and Takahashi), and largely relies on the same arguments, as the first tranche of
`
`Petitions. See IPR2020-00127 (Kontos, Adams, and Takahashi), -00130 (Kontos,
`
`Adams, and Takahashi), -00131 (Kontos, Adams, and Takahashi), -00136 (Kontos
`
`and Takahashi).
`
`The fact that the ’413 patent was not added to the district court litigation
`
`until after the first tranche of petitions were filed does not alter the analysis for at
`
`least two reasons. One, the only reason that the ’413 patent was not added to the
`
`case until January of 2020 is because Petitioner buried Itou and the other prior art it
`
`intended to rely on in its August 2019 discovery response. Had Petitioner
`
`complied with its discovery obligation, Patent Owner would have added the
`
`method patents far sooner than it did. Second, Patent Owner informed Petitioner
`
`of its plan to assert the ’413 patent on January 24, 2020. Ex-2003. Thus, even
`
`measuring just from that date, Petitioner inexplicably waited over six months to
`
`file the current Petition.
`
`Additionally, this Petition is merely a “backup” Petition, in the event Itou is
`
`found not to be prior art. The inefficiency and unfairness that will result if any of
`
`6
`
`
`
`the petitions are instituted are even more pronounced in the context of this
`
`additional petition that was filed to give Petitioner an additional bite at the apple.
`
`Indeed, Petitioner made a deliberate choice in its primary petition to rely on a
`
`§ 102(e) reference that Petitioner knew was not prior art. See, e.g., IPR2020-
`
`00126, Paper 14 (detailing Petitioner’s pre-filing knowledge of Patent Owner’s
`
`invention date).
`
`Petitioner’s unjustified delay in filing these petitions prejudices Patent
`
`Owner. Petitioner has already relied on the present IPR petitions as a basis to seek
`
`an unprecedented extension of the one year statutory deadline in the eleven
`
`pending IPRs, even though it expressly and repeatedly relied on that one year
`
`deadline to convince the district court to stay the litigation. See, e.g., IPR2020-
`
`00126, Papers 56 and 61. If the present IPR petitions are granted, Petitioner will
`
`undoubtedly continue such delay tactics, such as by asking the district court to
`
`maintain the stay as to all patents in view of the present Petition.2 Such a result
`
`2 Such a request should fail, as numerous courts (including the district court
`
`handling the pending litigation here) have recognized that lifting of a stay as to one
`
`patent should not be delayed by ongoing IPR or reexaminations involving other
`
`patents in suit. E.g., Centrip. Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., 2:18cv94, 2019 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 231215, at *9-11 (E.D. Va. Sep. 15, 2019); Cequent Performance
`
`Prods. v. Hopkins Mfg. Corp, 13-cv-15293, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153654, at *2-
`
`7
`
`
`
`will not serve the efficiency, integrity, and fairness of the system. The Petition,
`
`thus, should be denied.
`
`B.
`
`The Petition Should Be Denied Because Inter Partes Review Is
`Unconstitutional
`The Petition should be denied because the manner in which administrative
`
`law judges are appointed is unconstitutional. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew,
`
`Inc., 941 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2019), cert. granted, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 4928,
`
`4969, 5050 (Oct. 13, 2020) (Nos. 19-1434, 19-1452, 19-1458). The purported
`
`remedy imposed by the Arthrex decision—severing and invalidating the AIA
`
`provisions limiting the USPTO Director’s discretion to remove administrative law
`
`judges—is insufficient to remedy the constitutional defect. See id. at 1338–39.
`
`Any administrative law judges appointed prior to the law change on October 31,
`
`2019, remains unconstitutionally appointed. See Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044,
`
`2055 (2018) (requiring “a new ‘hearing before a properly appointed’ official”). In
`
`addition, merely giving the director power to terminate an administrative law judge
`
`would not alter any defective final written decision; the Director still lacks the
`
`power to unilaterally nullify or reverse a final written decision. See Arthrex, 941
`
`F.3d at 1328-32. This is also not a situation where severance is available.
`
`4 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2015); Horton, Inc. v. Kit Masters, Inc., 08-cv-6291, 2010
`
`
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134369, at *3 (D. Minn. Dec. 20, 2010).
`
`8
`
`
`
`Severing a statute is appropriate only if the remainder of the statute is “(1)
`
`constitutionally valid, (2) capable of functioning independently, and (3) consistent
`
`with Congress’ basic objectives in enacting the statute.” Id. at 1335 (citing United
`
`States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 258–59 (2005)). Here, severing the removal
`
`protections for APJs provided by the statute would be inconsistent with Congress’s
`
`goal of providing IPRs as an adjudicatory-type proceeding presided over by
`
`unbiased administrative judges.
`
`Since the Board instituted the eleven currently-pending IPRs, the Supreme
`
`Court has granted certiorari to decide whether administrative patent judges are
`
`principal officers or inferior officers, and, if administrative patent judges are
`
`principal officers, whether the Federal Circuit’s proposed “remedy” properly cured
`
`any Appointments Clause defect. Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc., No. 19-
`
`1452, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 4928 (Oct. 13, 2020) (granting certiorari in Nos. 19-1434,
`
`19-1452, 19-1458 as to “Questions 1 and 2 as set forth in the July 22, 2020
`
`Memorandum for the United States”). For at least the reasons set forth above, the
`
`Petition should be denied.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the above reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`deny Medtronic’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of the challenged claims of the
`
`’413 patent.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Dated: November 10, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.24(d), the undersigned certifies that this Patent
`
`Owner Response complies with the type-volume limitation of 37 C.F.R. §42.24(b).
`
`The word count application of the word processing program used to prepare this
`
`Preliminary Response indicates that it contains 2,060 words, excluding the parts
`
`exempted by 37 C.F.R. §42.24.
`
`
`
`Dated: November 10, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/J. Derek Vandenburgh/
`J. Derek Vandenburgh (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 November 10, 2020, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner Preliminary Response 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
`
`