`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFLEX LIFE SCIENCES LIMITED,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPENING BRIEF ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01341
`U.S. Patent No. 8,142,413
`
`Case IPR2020-01342
`U.S. Patent No. 8,142,413
`
`Case IPR2020-01343
`U.S. Patent No. RE 46,116
`
`Case IPR2020-01344
`U.S. Patent No. RE 46,116
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOES NOT APPLY. ....................................... 2
`A. None of the issues that Medtronic appealed in the first set of
`IPRs are final for purposes of collateral estoppel. ................................ 3
`These proceedings address new, different issues that the Board
`has not yet considered. .......................................................................... 4
`1.
`The Board has not considered whether Patent Owner can
`show that VSI performed the methods as claimed or
`tested their intended purpose. ..................................................... 5
`The Board’s prior decisions did not answer
`unpatentability questions that are unique to these IPRs. ............ 7
`III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 8
`
`
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc.,
`661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 3
`Canfield Sci., Inc. v. Drugge,
`No. 16-cv-04636, 2020 WL 6375654 (D.N.J. Oct. 30, 2020) .............................. 3
`Comair Rotron, Inc. v. Nippon Densan Corp.,
`49 F.3d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .............................................................................. 4
`Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc.,
`325 F. Supp. 3d 507, 519 (D. Del. 2018), vacated on other grounds
`sub nom. Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 2298
`(2021) .................................................................................................................... 3
`Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,
`437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 5
`SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp.,
`988 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................ 2
`Trustid, Inc. v. Next Caller Inc.,
`C.A. No. 18-172 (MN), 2021 WL 3015280 (D. Del. July 6, 2021) ..................... 3
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 318 .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In June 2021, the Board issued eleven final written decisions examining five
`
`challenged patents directed to guide extension catheters and methods for
`
`manufacturing the same. IPR2020-00126 to -00130, IPR2020-00132, IPR2020-
`
`00134 to -00138 (the “previously decided IPRs” or “first set of IPRs”). In
`
`September 2021, Medtronic appealed those decisions. Because collateral estoppel
`
`does not apply to non-final decisions, there is no collateral estoppel.
`
`Even if the decisions were final, collateral estoppel would not apply. The
`
`issues in the present IPRs are not identical and were not actually litigated in the
`
`earlier IPRs. The present claims are method-of-use claims with different claim
`
`elements. The ’413 patent also presents a new claim construction dispute regarding
`
`the order of steps and the meaning of “alongside.” The Board also based its
`
`decision, in part, on the notion that certain reply arguments were not included in
`
`the earlier petitions. That is not the case in the present petitions.
`
`Focusing specifically on the Board’s question regarding conception and
`
`reduction practice and whether Itou is prior art, collateral estoppel does not apply.
`
`Obviously Patent Owner has the burden of showing reduction to practice of all of
`
`the elements of the method claims at issue. This includes a different legal test,
`
`namely, whether the inventors actually performed the methods as claimed. Under
`
`this test, Patent Owner cannot demonstrate all of the claim elements, which require
`
`1
`
`
`
`in vivo testing. Separately, Patent Owner cannot show that the method worked for
`
`its intended purpose of providing increased back up support because there is no
`
`comparative testing. These are new issues that the Board did not address last time.
`
`The Board cannot—and should not—apply collateral estoppel.
`
`II. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOES NOT APPLY.
`For two independent reasons, collateral estoppel does not apply. In
`
`particular, collateral estoppel is inapplicable because (i) the first set of IPRs are not
`
`final, and (ii) the issues to be decided in these IPRs are different than the issues
`
`previously addressed in the first set of IPRs.
`
`IPR decisions can, when final, give rise to collateral estoppel (i.e., issue
`
`preclusion). IPR determinations have a preclusive effect when “(1) the issue is
`
`identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the
`
`first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first
`
`action; and (4) [the party] had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the
`
`first action.” SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp., 988 F.3d 1341, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`
`Here, collateral estoppel does not apply because Medtronic appealed the
`
`final written decisions, including the Board’s determinations regarding conception
`
`and reduction to practice and whether another prior art reference, Kontos, rendered
`
`certain claims invalid as obvious. In other words, the previous IPRs are not final
`
`decisions for purposes of collateral estoppel. Separately, the issues here, including
`
`2
`
`
`
`conception and reduction to practice of the challenged method-of-use claims and
`
`whether those claims are unpatentable under Itou and Kontos, are not identical to
`
`the issues decided in the first set of IPRs. Thus, collateral estoppel does not attach.
`
`A. None of the issues that Medtronic appealed in the first set of IPRs
`are final for purposes of collateral estoppel.
`The Board’s final written decisions in the first set of IPRs are not final, and
`
`therefore collateral estoppel does not apply or preclude the Board’s consideration
`
`of any issues in these proceedings. An IPR determination is not final until “the
`
`time for appeal has expired or any appeal has terminated.” 35 U.S.C. § 318. Thus,
`
`the Board’s final written decisions “do[] not have preclusive effect until that
`
`decision is either affirmed or the parties waive their appeal rights.” Trustid, Inc. v.
`
`Next Caller Inc., C.A. No. 18-172 (MN), 2021 WL 3015280, at *3 (D. Del. July 6,
`
`2021) (collecting cases); see Canfield Sci., Inc. v. Drugge, No. 16-cv-04636, 2020
`
`WL 6375654, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 30, 2020) (citing XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics,
`
`890 F.3d 1282, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[A]ffirmance of an invalidity finding . . .
`
`has a collateral estoppel effect . . . .”)); Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., 325
`
`F. Supp. 3d 507, 519 (D. Del. 2018), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Minerva
`
`Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 2298 (2021) (“The PTAB finding is on
`
`appeal and does not have preclusive effect as to this action unless and until the
`
`appeal is resolved.”); cf. Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629,
`
`644 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (in analogous IPR estoppel context, “estoppel requires
`
`3
`
`
`
`exhaustion of all appeal rights”).
`
`
`
`Medtronic appealed each of the previously decided IPRs. Unless and until
`
`the Federal Circuit affirms those appeals, the Board’s final written decisions are
`
`not operative, final judgments for purposes of collateral estoppel. For this reason,
`
`no preclusive effect attaches—the resolution of the present IPR proceedings is not
`
`bound by the former.
`
`B.
`
`These proceedings address new, different issues that the Board
`has not yet considered.
`For a separate and independent reason, the Board’s final written decisions in
`
`the first set of IPRs do not have preclusive effect. In particular, collateral estoppel
`
`does not attach because these proceedings challenge new patents reciting unique
`
`claims. It is axiomatic that “separate patents describe ‘separate and distinct
`
`inventions,’ and it can not be presumed that related patents rise and fall together.”
`
`Comair Rotron, Inc. v. Nippon Densan Corp., 49 F.3d 1535, 1539 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`
`(quoting 35 U.S.C. § 121). For that reason alone, the issues are not identical.
`
`Collateral estoppel does not attach.
`
`More to the point, at issue for the first time are method-of-use claims (e.g.,
`
`methods of using the claimed guide extension catheter). Patent Owner claims
`
`performance of particular steps in the anatomy, rather than only a guide extension
`
`catheter (or methods of making the same). The challenged method-of-use claims
`
`create unique issues for the Board’s resolution: (i) the reduction to practice inquiry
`
`4
`
`
`
`and required showing is different for the challenged method-of-use claims, and (ii)
`
`whether the prior art, including Itou and/or Kontos, teaches claim limitations—
`
`including “alongside,” “coaxial,” and “stent”—that were not addressed in the prior
`
`final written decisions.
`
`1.
`
`The Board has not considered whether Patent Owner can
`show that VSI performed the methods as claimed or tested
`their intended purpose.
`
`The Board’s resolution of conception and reduction to practice issues in the
`
`first set of IPRs does not resolve those issues here, when unique method-of-use
`
`claims require more from Patent Owner, legally and factually. In the first set of
`
`IPRs, the Board considered whether Patent Owner adduced evidence sufficient to
`
`show that VSI assembled prototypes embodying the challenged apparatus claims
`
`and tested those devices to confirm that they would work. But here, though Patent
`
`Owner created essentially the same factual record, reduction to practice requires
`
`more this time. To reduce the challenged method-of-use claims to practice, Patent
`
`Owner must prove that VSI performed the methods as claimed and, separately,
`
`determined that the methods would work for their intended purpose.
`
`First, new this time, reduction to practice requires “performance of a process
`
`that met all the limitations of the [claimed method].” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo,
`
`S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Unlike last time, the first prong of the
`
`reduction-to-practice test requires more than prototype assembly—it requires
`
`5
`
`
`
`prototype assembly and the limitation-by-limitation performance of the claimed
`
`method of using that prototype.
`
`Second, also new this time, the claims require using the claimed guide
`
`extension catheter in vivo. The ’413 patent requires insertion into a “first artery,”
`
`positioning “in a branch artery,” advancement “into the second artery,” and further
`
`insertion “into contact with or past a lesion in the second artery.” ’413 patent claim
`
`1. The ’116 patent requires advancing a guide catheter “through a main blood
`
`vessel to an ostium of a coronary artery” and advancing a balloon catheter or stent
`
`“into the coronary artery.” ’116 patent claims 25, 52. Because the Board’s prior
`
`decisions do not address actual, in vivo testing, they do not address the same issue
`
`as these proceedings.
`
`Third, the challenged methods-of-use claims are intended to provide
`
`increased backup support (a familiar concept), but that intended purpose required
`
`using the claimed guide extension catheter and confirming increased backup
`
`support using comparative testing with a standard guide catheter. The inventions
`
`are methods of using a guide extension catheter that increases backup support, thus
`
`there must be a comparison supporting such an increase. The Board’s prior
`
`decisions provide no basis for such a comparison. Further, Patent Owner provides
`
`no evidence of any testing or use of the rapid exchange catheter prototypes,
`
`according to the claims of the ’413 and ’116 patents, in support of that intended
`
`6
`
`
`
`purpose. Because the Board did not decide, and the Patent Owner did not provide
`
`evidence of, testing and use of rapid exchange prototypes to demonstrate increased
`
`backup support, collateral estoppel does not preclude the Board’s consideration of
`
`those issues here.
`
`The issue is whether Patent Owner provided sufficient evidence of reduction
`
`to practice of each claimed method-of-use. They did not, and the Board’s previous
`
`decisions cannot provide an estoppel basis to provide otherwise.
`
`2.
`
`The Board’s prior decisions did not answer unpatentability
`questions that are unique to these IPRs.
`
`Because the method claims of the ’413 and ʼ116 patents present different
`
`questions of patentability than those decided in the previous IPRs, the Board’s
`
`prior decisions are not issue preclusive. Obviously the Board did not reach the
`
`merits of the application of Itou as prior art, and Medtronic seeks that application
`
`here. For Kontos grounds, these IPRs present unique issues substantively and
`
`procedurally which preclude collateral estoppel.
`
`For example, according to Patent Owner, the IPRs challenging the ʼ413
`
`patent present a new question of claim construction concerning the claim limitation
`
`“alongside.” Additionally, in the IPRs challenging the ʼ116 patent, the Board must
`
`address the claim construction of “coaxial” and whether Itou/Kontos alone (or in
`
`combination with other prior art) are sized to receive a stent.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`The Kontos grounds at issue here were also not fully and fairly litigated in
`
`the prior IPRs. The Board based its decisions, in part, on Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments that Medtronic raised new arguments on reply. See, e.g. IPR2020-
`
`00127, Final Written Decision (Paper 105) at 46 (noting that the Petitions did not
`
`discuss recessing marker bands). This issue, and the others raised again by Patent
`
`Owner, were explicitly in the present Petitions. Thus, again, collateral estoppel
`
`does not apply. The Board should reweigh the evidence on the full record present
`
`in these IPRs.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Collateral estoppel only attaches to previously rendered, final judgments that
`
`determined issues identical to those raised in ongoing proceedings. The Board’s
`
`prior written decisions in IPR2020-00126 to -00130, IPR2020-00132, and
`
`IPR2020-00134 to -00138 are not final because Medtronic appealed them. And
`
`they are not preclusive because they do not address issues of method patent claim
`
`invention dates, applicable prior art, and validity. Collateral estoppel simply does
`
`not apply.
`
`
`
`Dated: November 12, 2021
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Cyrus A. Morton/
`Cyrus A. Morton
`Reg. No. 44,954
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`2800 LaSalle Plaza
`800 LaSalle Avenue
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on November
`
`12, 2021, a copy of PETITIONER’S OPENING BRIEF ON COLLATERAL
`
`ESTOPPEL was served by electronic mail on Patent Owner’s counsel at the
`
`following addresses indicated in Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices:
`
`J. Derek Vandenburgh, Reg. No. 32,179
`dvandenburgh@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Dennis C. Bremer, Reg. No. 40,528
`dbremer@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Joseph W. Winkels
`jwinkels@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Peter M. Kohlhepp
`pkohlhepp@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Alexander S. Rinn
`arinn@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Megan E. Christner, Reg. No. 78,979
`mchristner@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Shelleaha L. Jonas
`sjonas@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Tara C. Norgard
`tnorgard@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`
`
`
`/Cyrus A. Morton/
`Cyrus A. Morton
`Registration No. 44,954
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`10
`
`Dated: November 12, 2021
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`