`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01342
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2020-01342.
`
`Patent Owner notes that certain exhibits were cited in one or more of the
`
`above-referenced IPR proceedings but do not appear to have been filed (either at
`
`all or only in some of the IPRs); Patent Owner reserves the right to file
`
`supplemental and/or additional objections and/or move to strike those exhibits.1
`
`
`
`Exhibit Number
`1123
`
`1127
`
`Objections
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This document 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 document 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 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a
`printed publication.
`
`
`1 By way of example, it appears that Petitioner cited but did not file Ex-1755.
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1762
`
`1797
`
`1800
`
`1801
`
`
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Portions of this document are not
`relevant. To the extent this document is relevant, the
`probative value of certain portions is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`causing undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore those
`portions are inadmissible under Rule 403. Patent Owner
`reasserts and reserves all of its objections under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.64(a) made during the November 13, 2020 deposition
`of Howard Root.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Portions of this document are not
`relevant. To the extent this document is relevant, the
`probative value of certain portions is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`causing undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore those
`portions are inadmissible under Rule 403. Patent Owner
`reasserts and reserves all of its objections under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.64(a) made during the July 8, 2021 deposition of
`Peter Keith.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Portions of this document are not
`relevant. To the extent this document is relevant, the
`probative value of certain portions is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`causing undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore those
`portions are inadmissible under Rule 403. Patent Owner
`reasserts and reserves all of its objections under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.64(a) made during the November 24, 2020 deposition
`of Peter Keith.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Portions of this document are not
`relevant. To the extent this document is relevant, the
`probative value of certain portions is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`causing undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore those
`portions are inadmissible under Rule 403. Patent Owner
`reasserts and reserves all of its objections under 37 C.F.R.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1802
`
`1804
`
`1805
`
`
`
`§ 42.64(a) made during the November 19, 2020 deposition
`of John J. Graham.
`FRE 106: Patent Owner reserves the right to introduce all
`or any portion of the cited reference that in fairness ought
`to be considered at the same time.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This document 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 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 document 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 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: Portions of this document are not
`relevant. To the extent this document is relevant, the
`probative value of certain portions is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`causing undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore those
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`portions are inadmissible under Rule 403. Patent Owner
`reasserts and reserves all of its objections under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.64(a) made during the November 23, 2020 deposition
`of Peter Keith.
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1806 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). Patent Owner additionally objects to
`Exhibit 1806 to the extent it improperly raises new
`arguments in support of Petitioner’s Reply. 37 C.F.R. §
`42.23(b).
`
`FRE 702, 703, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65:
`
`¶¶ 8-16, 19, 22-30, 34, 36-38, 40-42, 43-44, 47-51, 53, 57,
`59-60, 62-63, 66-71, 73-75, 77-81, 83-93, 97-98, 100-106,
`107-120, 122-125, 127-141, 143, and 147-158 are not
`based on sufficient facts and data and do not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403:
`
` §
`
` III 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.
`
`FRE 702, 703, 704:
`
`¶¶ 42, 61, 81, 114, 132, 133, 139, 143-145 and headings
`IV.C, IV.E, and V state improper legal conclusions.
`
`FRE 602:
`
`¶¶ 10-11, 42-43, 58, 66, 89, 92, 101, 108-110, 113, 115-
`116, 118, 120, 128-130, 134, 144-147, 154 are not based
`on personal knowledge.
`
`Patent Owner additionally objects to Exhibit 1806 under
`FRE 802 (hearsay) to the extent that Patent Owner does
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`1806
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1807
`
`
`
`
`not have the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Brecker
`regarding his declaration.
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1807 to the extent
`Michael Jones has not disclosed materials considered
`other than those referenced in his declaration. See 37
`C.F.R. §§ 42.65(a) and (b). Patent Owner additionally
`objects to Exhibit 1807 to the extent it improperly raises
`new arguments in support of Petitioner’s Reply. 37
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b).
`
`FRE 702, 703, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65:
`
`¶¶ 21, 34-46, 52-72, 74, 87, 88-100, 106-112, 114-117,
`120-135, and 137-160 are not based on sufficient facts and
`data and do not reliably apply facts and data using
`scientific principles.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403:
`
`§§ V-VIII 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.
`
`FRE 702, 703, 704:
`
`§§ X and XI and ¶¶ 158 and 160 state improper legal
`conclusions.
`
`FRE 602:
`
`¶¶ 12, 33, 72, 109, 114, and 142 are not based on personal
`knowledge.
`
`Patent Owner additionally objects to Exhibit 1807 under
`FRE 802 (hearsay) to the extent that Patent Owner does
`not have the opportunity to cross-examine Michael Jones
`regarding his declaration.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1813
`
`1814
`
`1817
`
`1819
`
`1821
`
`
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Portions of this document are not
`relevant. To the extent this document is relevant, the
`probative value of certain portions is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`causing undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore those
`portions are inadmissible under Rule 403. Patent Owner
`reasserts and reserves all of its objections under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.64(a) made during the November 18, 2020 deposition
`of John J. Graham.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This document 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 document 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: Portions of this document are not
`relevant. To the extent this document is relevant, the
`probative value of certain portions is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`causing undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore those
`portions are inadmissible under Rule 403.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Portions of this document are not
`relevant. To the extent this document is relevant, the
`probative value of certain portions is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`causing undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore those
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1822
`
`1824
`
`1825
`
`1830
`
`
`
`
`portions are inadmissible under Rule 403. Patent Owner
`reasserts and reserves all of its objections made during the
`October 30, 2019 deposition of Amy L. Welch.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This document 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 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 document 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 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: Portions of this document are not
`relevant. To the extent this document is relevant, the
`probative value of certain portions is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`causing undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore those
`portions are inadmissible under Rule 403.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1830 to the extent Dr.
`Zalesky has not disclosed materials considered other than
`those referenced in his declaration. See 37 C.F.R. §§
`42.65(a) and (b).
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FRE 702, 703, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65:
`
`¶¶ 17, 25 and introductory paragraphs 8-9 are not based
`on sufficient facts and data and do not reliably apply facts
`and data using scientific principles.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403:
`
` V 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.
`
`Patent Owner additionally objects to Exhibit 1830 under
`FRE 802 (hearsay) to the extent that Patent Owner does
`not have the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Zalesky
`regarding his declaration.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Portions of this document are 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: Portions of this document are not
`relevant. To the extent this document is relevant, the
`probative value of certain portions is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`causing undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore those
`portions are inadmissible under Rule 403. Patent Owner
`reasserts and reserves all of its objections made during the
`June 30, 2021 deposition of Dr. John Graham.
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1847 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). Patent Owner additionally objects to
`Exhibit 1847 to the extent it improperly raises new
`
` §
`
`8
`
`
`1844
`
`1846
`
`1847
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`arguments in support of Petitioner’s Reply. 37 C.F.R. §
`42.23(b).
`
`FRE 702, 703, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65:
`
`¶¶ 17-18, 23-24, 30, 39, 49-56, 60-63, 65-67, 69-73, 81-
`91, 95-106, 107, 114-119, 121-123, 125-133, 136-143,
`145-160, 162-181, 182-189, 191-195, 201-204, 206-220,
`222-226, 230-242 are not based on sufficient facts and
`data and do not reliably apply facts and data using
`scientific principles.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403:
`
` §
`
` I.V and 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.
`
`FRE 702, 703, 704:
`
`¶¶ 4, 13, 27, 56, 59, 62, 65, 74, 81, 82, 85-86, 90-92, 118,
`133, 136, 142-143, 149, 157, 160, 176, 179, 186, 190,
`204, 220, and 222 and headings IV, IV.A, IV.B, V, V.A,
`V.B, and VI state improper legal conclusions.
`
`FRE 602:
`
`¶¶ 98, 104, 125, 140, 152-155, 185, 193-194, 221, 231,
`and 238 are not based on personal knowledge.
`
`Patent Owner additionally objects to Exhibit 1847 under
`FRE 802 (hearsay) to the extent that Patent Owner does
`not have the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Brecker
`regarding his declaration.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This document 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,
`
`9
`
`
`1848
`
`
`
`1849
`
`1851
`
`1930
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence, and
`therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This document 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 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: Portions of this document are not
`relevant. To the extent this document is relevant, the
`probative value of certain portions is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`causing undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore those
`portions are inadmissible under Rule 403. Patent Owner
`reasserts and reserves all of its objections under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.64(a) made during the June 15, 2018 deposition of
`Howard Root.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This document 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.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 13, 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 August 13, 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)
`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)
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
