throbber
CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 125-22 Filed 04/10/19 Page 1 of 805
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 23 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2056
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 125-22 Filed 04/10/19 Page 2 of 805
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`Case No. 0:17-cv-01969 (PJS/TNL)
`
`
`
`
`
`QXMédical, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff and Counterclaim
`Defendant,
`
`
`v.
`
`Vascular Solutions LLC, Teleflex
`Innovations S.à.r.l., and Arrow
`International, Inc.,
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim
`Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF PETER T. KEITH ON INFRINGEMENT, CLAIM
`COVERAGE, AND LACK OF ACCEPTABLE NONINFRINGING ALTERNATIVES
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2056
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 125-22 Filed 04/10/19 Page 3 of 805
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`IV. 
`
`Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 
`A. 
`Assignment ..............................................................................................................1 
`B. 
`Summary of Opinions ..............................................................................................2 
`1. 
`Infringement .................................................................................................2 
`2. 
`GuideLiner, TrapLiner, and Guidezilla .......................................................6 
`3. 
`Acceptable noninfringing alternatives .........................................................8 
`Qualifications ...........................................................................................................8 
`C. 
`Compensation ..........................................................................................................9 
`D. 
`Materials Considered ...............................................................................................9 
`E. 
`Background on the Technology of This Case ....................................................................10 
`A. 
`Coronary Catheters and Heart Disease ..................................................................10 
`B. 
`VSI’s GuideLiner Devices .....................................................................................27 
`C. 
`QXMédical’s Boosting Catheter ............................................................................33 
`D. 
`Other Catheters—Guidezilla and TrapLiner ..........................................................36 
`E. 
`Overview of VSI’s Patents .....................................................................................39 
`Legal Standards and Claim Construction ..........................................................................42 
`Opinions on Infringement ..................................................................................................45 
`A. 
`Overview ................................................................................................................45 
`B. 
`The ’032 Patent ......................................................................................................47 
`C. 
`The ’413 Patent ......................................................................................................48 
`D. 
`The ’380 Patent ......................................................................................................53 
`E. 
`The ’760 Patent ......................................................................................................59 
`F. 
`The ’776 Patent ......................................................................................................64 
`G. 
`The ’116 Patent ......................................................................................................66 
`Opinions on GuideLiner, TrapLiner, and Guidezilla .........................................................74 
`V. 
`Lack of Acceptable Noninfringing Alternatives ................................................................76 
`VI. 
`VII.  Conclusion .........................................................................................................................80 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`Page 3
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2056
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 125-22 Filed 04/10/19 Page 4 of 805
`
`TABLE OF APPENDICES
`
`Curriculum Vitae ............................................................................................................................ A
`Materials Considered ...................................................................................................................... B
`Description of Laboratory Testing .................................................................................................. C
`Summary of Testing Results ........................................................................................................... D
`Two Point Bend Test – Data Summary and Notes ......................................................................... E
`Two Point Bend Test – Raw Data ................................................................................................... F
`Crush Test – Data Summary and Notes .......................................................................................... G
`Crush Test – Raw Data ................................................................................................................... H
`Claim Charts – Boosting Catheter ................................................................................................... I
`Claim Charts – GuideLiner v1 ......................................................................................................... J
`Claim Charts – GuideLiner v2 ........................................................................................................ K
`Claim Charts – GuideLiner v3 ........................................................................................................ L
`Claim Charts – GuideLiner XL ...................................................................................................... M
`Claim Charts – TrapLiner ............................................................................................................... N
`Claim Charts – Guidezilla I ............................................................................................................ O
`Claim Charts – Guidezilla II ........................................................................................................... P
`Material Property Data – PTFE ...................................................................................................... Q
`Material Property Data – Pebax 6333 ............................................................................................. R
`Summary of Market Data ................................................................................................................ S
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`Page 4
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2056
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 125-22 Filed 04/10/19 Page 5 of 805
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A.
`
`Assignment
`
`
`
`My name is Peter T. Keith. I am an engineer, inventor, and independent
`
`consultant in the medical device industry. I have over 30 years of experience in research and
`
`development of medical devices, and in particular catheters for cardiovascular procedures.
`
`
`
`I have been retained as an independent expert on behalf of Vascular Solutions
`
`LLC, Teleflex Innovations S.à.r.l., and Arrow International, Inc., whom I will refer to
`
`collectively in this report as Vascular Solutions or VSI.
`
`
`
`I have been asked to provide my expert opinions and testimony in the patent
`
`dispute between Vascular Solutions and QXMédical, LLC. In particular, I have been asked to
`
`analyze whether QXMédical’s Boosting Catheter infringes the following claims of Vascular
`
`Solutions’ patents:
`
` Claims 3 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,048,032 (the ’032 Patent)
`
` Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 8,142,413 (the ’413 Patent)
`
` Claims 1, 3, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. RE45,380 (the ’380 Patent)
`
` Claims 25, 30, 31, 32, and 48 of U.S. Patent No. RE45,760 (the ’760 Patent)
`
` Claims 25, 32, 36, 52, and 53 of U.S. Patent No. RE45,776 (the ’776 Patent), and
`
` Claims 25, 34, and 53 of U.S. Patent No. RE46,116 (the ’116 Patent).
`
`I will refer to these claims throughout this report as the asserted claims.
`
`
`
`In addition to analyzing whether QXMédical’s Boosting Catheter infringes the
`
`asserted claims, I was asked to analyze whether the asserted claims cover Vascular Solutions’
`
`GuideLiner and TrapLiner devices and Boston Scientific Corporation’s Guidezilla devices.
`
`
`
`Finally, I was asked to analyze whether Terumo’s Heartrail 5-in-6 device or the
`
`catheters described in U.S. Patent No. 5,527,292 to Adams et al. (“Adams”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`Page 5
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2056
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 125-22 Filed 04/10/19 Page 6 of 805
`
`5,290,247 to Crittenden (“Crittenden”), and U.S. Patent No. 5,439,445 to Kontos (“Kontos”)
`
`would be acceptable noninfringing alternatives to the Boosting Catheter if made commercially
`
`available.
`
`
`
`This report summarizes the opinion testimony I expect to offer if called to testify
`
`at trial. This report is based on the information currently available to me. If additional
`
`information becomes available, I reserve the right to supplement and/or amend my analysis and
`
`my opinions. In particular, I understand that QXMédical or one of its experts may offer opinions
`
`regarding the questions I have analyzed in this report and I reserve the right to review and
`
`respond to that testimony.
`
`
`
`If I am called to testify at trial, at a deposition, or at another hearing or proceeding
`
`about this report, I may cite other documents or information similar to what I have specifically
`
`identified in this report. I may also use graphics, animations, pictures, demonstrations, and/or
`
`other audio/visual aids to explain my analysis and opinions. In particular, I may use product
`
`samples of the Boosting Catheter, GuideLiner, Guidezilla, and other related products discussed
`
`in this report.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of Opinions
`1.
`
`Infringement
`
`
`
`In order to form my opinions on infringement, I reviewed the Vascular Solutions
`
`patents, the asserted claims, and various information produced during discovery in this case,
`
`including technical documents and deposition testimony. I personally attended the depositions
`
`of QXMédical’s chief technical officer, Fernando Di Caprio. In addition, I manually inspected
`
`and performed various laboratory tests on samples of the Boosting Catheter device.
`
`
`
`Based on my review of these materials relating to the Boosting Catheter, I have
`
`formed opinions about whether the Boosting Catheter meets the limitations of each of the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`Page 6
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2056
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 125-22 Filed 04/10/19 Page 7 of 805
`
`asserted claims. For claims to the device itself, I have also reached a conclusion about whether
`
`QXMédical infringes the claims by making, using, selling, or offering for sale the Boosting
`
`Catheter. For asserted claims covering methods of using the device or systems including the
`
`device and a guide catheter, I have not reached an ultimate conclusion about whether QXMédical
`
`infringes the claims. Instead, I have reached a conclusion about whether physicians (generally
`
`cardiologists) using the Boosting Catheter or combining it with a guide catheter infringe the
`
`method and system claims. I have also formed opinions about whether the Boosting Catheter
`
`constitutes a material part of the invention of the asserted claims, whether the Boosting Catheter
`
`is especially made or adapted for use in the method or system of the asserted claims, and whether
`
`the Boosting Catheter is a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial
`
`noninfringing use. I have not formed opinions regarding QXMédical’s knowledge or intent, nor
`
`whether QXMédical has induced or contributed to physicians’ infringement. Those questions
`
`are beyond the scope of my analysis.
`
`
`
`The ’032 Patent: It is my opinion that each model of the Boosting Catheter
`
`meets the limitations of claim 3 of the ’032 Patent and that the six French Boosting Catheter,
`
`Model No. BC57-150, meets the limitations of claim 8 of the ’032 Patent. It is my opinion that
`
`QXMédical infringes these claims when it makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, or imports one of
`
`these devices in or into the United States.
`
`
`
`The ’413 Patent: It is my opinion that each model of the Boosting Catheter
`
`meets the limitations of claim 9 of the ’413 Patent when used for a coronary vascular procedure
`
`with a guidewire, standard guide catheter, and an interventional cardiology device (balloon
`
`catheter or stent), and that physicians infringe claim 9 of the ’413 Patent when using the
`
`Boosting Catheter when performing such procedures. It is my opinion that the Boosting Catheter
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`Page 7
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2056
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 125-22 Filed 04/10/19 Page 8 of 805
`
`constitutes a material part of the method of claim 9 of the ’413 Patent, that the Boosting Catheter
`
`is especially made or adapted for use in the method of claim 9 of the ’413 Patent, and that the
`
`Boosting Catheter is not a staple article or commodity suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
`
`
`
`The ’380 Patent: It is my opinion that each model of the Boosting Catheter
`
`meets the limitations of claims 1 and 3 of the ’380 Patent when combined with a guide catheter
`
`and that the six French Boosting Catheter, Model No. BC57-150, meets the limitations of claim 8
`
`of the ’380 Patent when combined with a guide catheter. It is my opinion that physicians
`
`infringe claims 1, 3, and 8 of the ’380 Patent when they assemble and use the combinations just
`
`described to perform vascular procedures. It is my opinion that each model of the Boosting
`
`Catheter constitutes a material part of the systems of claims 1 and 3 of the ’380 Patent, that each
`
`model of the Boosting Catheter is especially made or adapted for the systems of claims 1 and 3
`
`of the ’380 Patent, and that no model of the Boosting Catheter is a staple article or commodity
`
`suitable for substantial noninfringing use. Further, it is my opinion that the six French Boosting
`
`Catheter constitutes a material part of the system of claim 8 of the ’380 Patent, that the six
`
`French Boosting Catheter is especially made or adapted for use in the system of claim 8 of the
`
`’380 Patent, and that the six French Boosting Catheter is not a staple article or commodity
`
`suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
`
`
`
`The ’760 Patent: It is my opinion that the six French model of the Boosting
`
`Catheter, Model No. BC57-150, meets the limitations of claims 25, 30, 31, 32, and 48 of the ’760
`
`Patent when combined with a guide catheter, and that physicians infringe claims 25, 30, 31, 32,
`
`and 48 of the ’760 Patent when they assemble and use the combinations just described to
`
`perform vascular procedures. It is my opinion that the six French Boosting Catheter constitutes a
`
`material part of the systems of claims 25, 30, 31, 32, and 48 of the ’760 Patent, that the six
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`Page 8
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2056
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 125-22 Filed 04/10/19 Page 9 of 805
`
`French Boosting Catheter is especially made or adapted for use in the systems of claims 25, 30,
`
`31, 32, and 48 of the ’760 Patent, and that the six French Boosting Catheter is not a staple article
`
`or commodity suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
`
`
`
`The ’776 Patent: It is my opinion that each model of the Boosting Catheter meets
`
`the limitations of claims 25, 36, and 52 of the ’776 Patent and that the six French Boosting
`
`Catheter, Model No. BC57-150, meets the limitations of claims 32 and 53 of the ’776 Patent. It
`
`is my opinion that QXMédical infringes these claims when it makes, uses, sells, offers for sale,
`
`or imports one of these devices in or into the United States.
`
`
`
`The ’116 Patent: It is my opinion that the six French Boosting Catheter, Model
`
`No. BC57-150, meets the limitations of claims 25 and 34 of the ’116 Patent when used for a
`
`coronary vascular procedure with a guide catheter and a balloon catheter or stent and that each
`
`model of the Boosting Catheter meets the limitations of claim 53 of the ’116 Patent in those
`
`circumstances. It is my opinion that physicians infringe claims 25, 34, and 53 of the ’116 Patent
`
`when performing a procedure as just described. It is my opinion that the six French Boosting
`
`Catheter constitutes a material part of the methods of claims 25 and 34 of the ’116 Patent, that
`
`the six French Boosting Catheter is especially made or adapted for the methods of claims 25 and
`
`34 of the ’116 Patent, and that the six French Boosting Catheter is not a staple article or
`
`commodity suitable for substantial noninfringing use. It is my opinion that each model of the
`
`Boosting Catheter constitutes a material part of the method of claim 53 of the ’116 Patent, that
`
`each model of the Boosting Catheter is especially made or adapted for use in the method of claim
`
`53 of the ’116 Patent, and that no model of the Boosting Catheter is a staple article or commodity
`
`suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`Page 9
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2056
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 125-22 Filed 04/10/19 Page 10 of 805
`
`2.
`
`GuideLiner, TrapLiner, and Guidezilla
`
`
`
`Similar to my opinions on infringement, I have formed opinions regarding which
`
`of the asserted claims cover VSI’s GuideLiner and TrapLiner catheters and Boston Scientific’s
`
`Guidezilla catheters based on my review of the asserted patents and claims, information
`
`produced in discovery, and my manual inspection and testing of the products.
`
`
`
`There are four models of the GuideLiner catheter: the first generation of the
`
`device, which I will call Version 1 or V1, the second generation of the device, Version 2 or V2,
`
`the third generation of the device, Version 3 or V3, and an extra-long version of the device, XL.
`
`Models V1, V2, and V3 come in different sizes, for example five French and six French. Model
`
`XL comes in six French size only. In summarizing and explaining my opinions in this report and
`
`the attached claim charts, I will use the phrase “all versions” to refer to all four versions of the
`
`GuideLiner and the phrase “all sizes” to refer to all sizes of those models. Where appropriate, I
`
`will specify which models and sizes I am indicating.
`
`
`
`Similarly, there are two versions of the Guidezilla catheter: a first generation that
`
`I will call Version 1 or V1 and a second generation that I will call Version 2 or V2. Version 1
`
`was available in a six French size only; Version 2 is available in several sizes. I will use the
`
`same conventions just described to refer to the various versions and sizes of the Guidezilla
`
`catheter.
`
`
`
`The ’032 Patent: It is my opinion that all versions and sizes of the GuideLiner
`
`and Guidezilla meet the limitations of claim 3 of the ’032 Patent. It is my opinion that the six
`
`French size of each version of the GuideLiner and Guidezilla meets the limitations of claim 8 of
`
`the ’032 Patent.
`
`
`
`The ’413 Patent: It is my opinion that all versions and sizes of the GuideLiner
`
`and Guidezilla meet the limitations of claim 9 of the ’413 Patent when used for a coronary
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`Page 10
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2056
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 125-22 Filed 04/10/19 Page 11 of 805
`
`vascular procedure with a guidewire, guide catheter, and interventional cardiology device
`
`(balloon catheter or stent).
`
`
`
`The ’380 Patent: It is my opinion that all versions and sizes of the GuideLiner
`
`and Guidezilla meet the limitations of claims 1 and 3 of the ’380 Patent when combined with a
`
`guide catheter. It is my opinion that the six French size of each version of the GuideLiner and
`
`Guidezilla meets the limitations of claim 8 of the ’380 Patent when combined with a guide
`
`catheter.
`
`
`
`The ’760 Patent: It is my opinion that the six French size of each version of the
`
`GuideLiner, Guidezilla, and TrapLiner meets the limitations of claims 25, 30, 31, 32, and 48 of
`
`the ’760 Patent when combined with a guide catheter, except that the GuideLiner V2 does not
`
`meet the limitations of claim 32 of the ’760 Patent.
`
`
`
`The ’776 Patent: It is my opinion that all versions and sizes of the GuideLiner,
`
`Guidezilla, and TrapLiner catheters meet the limitations of claim 25 of the ’776 Patent and that
`
`the six French sizes of those catheters meet the limitations of claim 32 of the ’776 Patent. It is
`
`my opinion that all sizes of the GuideLiner V3 and the TrapLiner meet the limitations of claim
`
`36 of the ’776 Patent. It is my opinion that all versions and sizes of the GuideLiner, Guidezilla,
`
`and TrapLiner except GuideLiner V2 meet the limitations of claim 52 of the ’776 Patent and that
`
`the six French sizes of those catheters meet the limitations of claim 53 of the ’776 Patent.
`
`
`
`The ’116 Patent: It is my opinion that the six French size of each version of the
`
`GuideLiner, Guidezilla, and TrapLiner meets the limitations of claims 25 and 34 of the ’116
`
`Patent when used for a coronary vascular procedure with a guide catheter and that all versions
`
`and sizes of the GuideLiner, GuideZilla, and TrapLiner meet the limitations of claim 52 of the
`
`’116 Patent in those circumstances.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`Page 11
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2056
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 125-22 Filed 04/10/19 Page 12 of 805
`
`3.
`
`Acceptable noninfringing alternatives
`
`
`
`It is my opinion that neither the Heartrail 5-in-6 catheter, Adams, Crittenden, nor
`
`Kontos embodies or describes a device that would be an acceptable noninfringing alternative to
`
`the Boosting Catheter if made commercially available in the United States. Although those
`
`devices would not infringe the asserted claims, they each suffer from a number of practical
`
`drawbacks that would make them unacceptable alternatives. I describe these drawbacks in
`
`greater detail in Part VI below.
`
`C.
`
`Qualifications
`
`
`
`I summarize my educational background and career history in the following
`
`paragraphs. My curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A to this report.
`
`
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree with High Distinction from the University
`
`of Minnesota in 1987.
`
`
`
`During my undergraduate training, I began working as an engineering intern in
`
`the research and development (R&D) department at SCIMED, which was later acquired by
`
`Boston Scientific Corporation. I joined SCIMED full-time after graduation, and I remained with
`
`the company until 1996. During this time I rose from engineering intern to full-time R&D
`
`engineer to Director of R&D. Throughout my various roles at SCIMED, the focus of my work
`
`was on medical devices in the field of interventional cardiology, and particularly catheter design.
`
`
`
`From 1997 through today, I have served as an independent consultant for early
`
`stage medical device companies in the areas of product design and intellectual property
`
`development. Several of my consulting clients have developed successful products that are on
`
`the market and in hospitals today. A number of the products have been in the field of
`
`interventional cardiology, and particularly catheters.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`Page 12
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2056
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 125-22 Filed 04/10/19 Page 13 of 805
`
`
`
`In addition to my work as an independent consultant, I have engaged in a number
`
`of entrepreneurial ventures in the field of medical devices since the year 2000. In many of these
`
`ventures, I held chief responsibility for product design and development. Several of these
`
`products have been in the area of interventional cardiology. I have also done considerable work
`
`outside the area of interventional cardiology, including in treatments for chronic sinusitis,
`
`orthopedics for extremities such as feet and ankles, and treatment of spinal disorders.
`
`
`
`Between my work at SCIMED, my independent consulting, and my
`
`entrepreneurial ventures, I have been named as an inventor on over 100 issued U.S. patents, as
`
`well as many corresponding patents in foreign countries. Numerous patent applications on
`
`which I am a named inventor are still pending.
`
`
`
`I have served as an expert witness in three prior patent litigations on behalf of
`
`Boston Scientific Corporation, my former employer. These litigations are described briefly in
`
`my curriculum vitae, Appendix A. I have not testified as an expert witness by deposition or at
`
`trial in the last four years.
`
`D.
`
`Compensation
`
`
`
`I am being compensated at my normal rate of $475 per hour for my time spent
`
`preparing this report. I am also being reimbursed for my reasonable expenses associated with
`
`my work on this case. My compensation in no way depends on my conclusions or the outcome
`
`of this case.
`
`E. Materials Considered
`
`
`
`In preparing this report, I have relied on my years of experience and expertise in
`
`the relevant technology. I have also reviewed and relied upon the materials listed in Appendix
`
`B, as well as all other documents cited in this report and its attachments.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`Page 13
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2056
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 125-22 Filed 04/10/19 Page 14 of 805
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND ON THE TECHNOLOGY OF THIS CASE
`A.
`
`Coronary Catheters and Heart Disease
`
`
`
`The technology involved in this case pertains to coronary catheter procedures.
`
`These are procedures for treating conditions in the blood vessels of the heart itself (coronary
`
`arteries). More specifically, this case pertains to a specialized catheter device used in some of the
`
`more challenging procedures, called a “guide extension catheter”.
`
`
`
`As the heart is essentially a large muscular pumping organ, it requires a lot of
`
`oxygenated blood to sustain itself. This blood circulates within the heart muscle via the coronary
`
`arteries (see diagram below). Over time, these blood vessels may become diseased (coronary
`
`artery disease, “CAD”) resulting in regions of narrowing or clogging. Starting in the 1970s,
`
`advances were made in treating this disease with catheter devices advanced into the coronary
`
`arteries from relatively accessible arteries in the leg or arm, e.g., the femoral artery in the leg or
`
`the radial artery in the arm.
`
`
`
`CAD (also called atherosclerosis or plaque buildup) results in narrowed regions
`
`(lesions or stenoses) that can restrict the flow of blood to regions of the heart muscle (see
`
`below—A). Severe lesions can dramatically restrict the blood flow, starving the muscle of
`
`oxygen (ischemia), which can create severe chest pain, and significantly limit a patient’s activity
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`Page 14
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2056
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 125-22 Filed 04/10/19 Page 15 of 805
`
`and quality of life. If the restriction completely blocks the flow of blood (typically from a
`
`subsequent blood clot within the lesion), this can lead to a heart attack (myocardial infarction).
`
`(See below—B). Severe lesions and complete blockages necessitate some sort of treatment to re-
`
`open the blocked region and re-establish normal blood flow. In the case of a complete blockage
`
`(myocardial infarction), the patient may die if the blocked vessel is not re-opened quickly, i.e.,
`
`within hours of the blockage.
`
`
`
`The most common treatment for CAD is with catheter devices that dilate the
`
`blockage from inside and place a support scaffold (stent) therein. The stent is inserted across the
`
`lesion in a collapsed state and then dilated with a balloon-tipped catheter called an angioplasty
`
`catheter (see below). It is therefore critical that these catheter devices are able to be positioned
`
`within the blockage, and positioned quickly, in order to successfully treat the patient.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`Page 15
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2056
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 125-22 Filed 04/10/19 Page 16 of 805
`
`
`
`
`
`One of the main pumping chambers of the heart is the left ventricle “LV”. The LV
`
`receives the oxygenated blood from the lungs, and pumps it to the body via the aorta. The rest of
`
`the blood vessels that oxygenate the body are all branches and sub-branches off of the aorta. The
`
`very first branches, near the very beginning of the aorta, are the coronary arteries, the left main
`
`coronary artery “LM”, and the right coronary artery “RCA”. The openings of these arteries from
`
`the aorta are called ostia (singular: ostium). The LM runs for a short length before it branches
`
`into two longer arteries that run the rest of the way down the left and posterior sides of the heart:
`
`the left anterior descending “LAD” and left circumflex “LCX”. The RCA extends down the right
`
`side of the heart. The RCA, LAD, and LCX are considered the three primary coronary arteries.
`
`Each of these arteries, in turn, has numerous side branches, which then further branch ultimately
`
`into the capillary beds where the actual transfer of oxygen to heart muscle tissue takes place (see
`
`figure below). Most lesions requiring treatment are within these three primary arteries, or
`
`occasionally a major branch stemming therefrom.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`Page 16
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2056
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 125-22 Filed 04/10/19 Page 17 of 805
`
`
`
`
`
`Beyond the coronary arteries, the aorta has numerous branches and sub-branches
`
`as it feeds oxygenated blood to the rest of the body (see diagram below—A). The aortic arch is
`
`where the aorta turns and heads inferiorly (descending aorta) towards the legs. One of the
`
`branches off the aorta that feeds the arm is the right subclavian artery. A sub-branch of this artery
`
`is the radial artery near the wrist. Another branch from the aorta is the iliac artery, which further
`
`sub-branches into the femoral artery near the groin. The femoral artery and radial arteries are
`
`relatively close to the skin surface, and one or the other are typically used as the access vessels to
`
`gain access to the aorta and the coronary arteries as will be described below (see diagram
`
`below—B).
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`Page 17
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2056
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 125-22 Filed 04/10/19 Page 18 of 805
`
`
`
`In the following paragraphs, I will describe a typical treatment procedure. Many
`
`variations of this exist, but this description of a typical and common procedure will serve to
`
`illustrate the issues pertinent to the technology in the case at issue.
`
`
`
`The treatment of these lesions by catheter techniques involves accessing a remote
`
`blood vessel, e.g., the femoral artery, via a needle puncture from the skin into the vessel, known
`
`as percutaneous access. A series of devices and maneuvers (called the “Seldinger” technique)
`
`results in placement of an introducer sheath into this vessel (see below). The introducer sheath is
`
`a relatively short tubular access catheter, approximately 20 cm long. Its purpose is primarily to
`
`maintain an access pathway into the femoral artery to facilitate the rest of the procedure.1 These
`
`sheaths have a fixed inner diameter of 5, 6, 7, or 8 French. (One French is 0.33mm). A slitted
`
`seal is provided on the back (proximal) end of the sheath to keep blood from exiting. The size is
`
`chosen by the interventionalist and depends on numerous factors, including the sizes of the
`
`planned devices to be inserted through the sheath and used for the coronary lesion.
`
`
`1 In some angioplasty procedures, particularly those targeting sites in the peripheral
`vasculature, physicians use a long guiding sheath in lieu of a guide catheter. These guiding
`sheaths are different from the introducer sheaths I am now discussing.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`Page 18
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2056
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 125-22 Filed 04/10/19 Page 19 of 805
`
`
`
`Once access is established to the remote artery, a catheter (hollow tube) is
`
`advanced through the aorta into the heart where a “diagnostic” catheterization procedure is
`
`performed. This entails injectin

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket