throbber
1
`
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________________________________
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC
`VASCULAR, INC.,
`
` Petitioners,
`
`vs.
`
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.A.R.L.,
`
` Patent Owner.
`___________________________________________________
`IPR2020-00126 (Patent 8,048,032 B2)
`IPR2020-00127 (Patent 8,048,032 B2)
`IPR2020-00128 (Patent RE45,380 E)
`IPR2020-00129 (Patent RE45,380 E)
`IPR2020-00130 (Patent RE45,380 E)
`IPR2020-00132 (Patent RE45,760 E)
`IPR2020-00134 (Patent RE45,760 E)
`IPR2020-00135 (Patent RE45,776 E)
`IPR2020-00136 (Patent RE45,776 E)
`IPR2020-00137 (Patent RE47,379 E)
`IPR2020-00138 (Patent RE47,379 E)
`___________________________________________________
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
` DR. STEPHEN BRECKER
`
`DATE: January 14, 2021
`
`TIME: 5:06 a.m. (Central Standard Time)
`
`PLACE: Veritext Virtual Videoconference
`
`REPORTED BY: PAULA K. RICHTER, RMR, CRR, CRC
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`
`Page 1
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2238
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`1 INDEX
`2 WITNESS: DR. STEPHEN BRECKER PAGE:
`3 EXAMINATION BY MR. VANDENBURGH............. 8
`4 EXAMINATION BY MS. ROBERG-PEREZ............ 178
`5 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. VANDENBURGH..... 181
`
`6 7
`
`EXHIBITS MARKED: PAGE:
`8 EXHIBIT 2222 Teleflex Pronto V3 Extraction
`9 Catheter Brochure............... 84
`10 EXHIBIT 2223 Catheter Figures................ 43
`11 EXHIBIT 2224 U.S. Patent 7,273,486........... 45
`12 EXHIBIT 2225 Page 57 from Exhibit 1807,
`13 Jones Declaration............... 146
`14 EXHIBIT 2226 Modified Kontos Devices......... 160
`15 EXHIBIT 2227 Article - Advances in
`16 Procedural Techniques -
`17 Antegrade....................... 174
`18
`19 (Original exhibits attached to original transcript;
`20 copies provided to counsel.)
`21
`22 EXHIBITS PREVIOUSLY MARKED AND REFERRED TO:
`23 EXHIBIT 1007 U.S. Patent 7,736,355.......... 59
`24 EXHIBIT 1008 U.S. Patent 7,604,612.......... 65
`25 (EXHIBITS continued on next page)
`
`1 APPEARANCES
`2 (All parties appeared via videoconference)
`3 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
`4 Ms. Sharon Roberg-Perez, Esq.
`5 Mr. Cyrus A. Morton, Esq.
`6 Mr. Christopher A. Pinahs, Esq.
`7 ROBINS KAPLAN, LLP
`8 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
`9 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
`10 (612) 349-8500
`11 sroberg-perez@robinskaplan.com
`12 cmorton@robinskaplan.com
`13 cpinahs@robinskaplan.com
`14
`15 ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`16 Mr. J. Derek Vandenburgh, Esq.
`17 Mr. Peter M. Kohlhepp, Esq.
`18 CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH & LINDQUIST
`19 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`20 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`21 (612) 436-9600
`22 dvandenburgh@carlsoncaspers.com
`23 pkohlhepp@carlsoncaspers.com
`24
`25 (APPEARANCES continued on next page)
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 5
`
`1 APPEARANCES (Continued)
`2 ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`3 Mr. Kenneth E. Levitt, Esq.
`4 THE DORSEY FIRM
`5 50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500
`6 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`7 (612) 340-2600
`8 levitt.kenneth@dorsey.com
`9
`10
`11 ALSO PRESENT BY VIDEOCONFERENCE:
`12 Phil Glauberson - Videographer
`13 Greg Smock - Teleflex 05:05:52
`14 05:06:09
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1 (EXHIBITS continued)
`2 EXHIBIT 1009 U.S. Patent 5,439,445.......... 59
`3 EXHIBIT 1115 6/15/18 Deposition Transcript
`4 of Howard Root................. 120
`5 EXHIBIT 1806 Supplemental Declaration of
`6 Dr. Stephen Brecker............ 8
`7 EXHIBIT 1840 Article - Coaxial Technique for
`8 Catheterization of the Coronary
`9 Arteries With a Very Dilated
`10 Ascending Aorta by Geijer...... 34
`11 EXHIBIT 1841 Case Report - Coaxial Double
`12 Catheter Followed by Buddy Wire
`13 Placement by Furuichi.......... 34
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`2 (Pages 2 - 5)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`Page 2
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2238
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`1 P R O C E E D I N G S
`2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. We 05:06:09
`3 are going on the record at 5:06 a.m. Central Time, 05:06:10
`4 January 14, 2021. 05:06:18
`5 Please note that microphones are 05:06:20
`6 sensitive and may pick up whispering and private 05:06:23
`7 conversations. Please mute your microphone 05:06:25
`8 whenever possible. Audio and video recording will 05:06:29
`9 continue to take place unless all parties agree to 05:06:32
`10 go off the record. 05:06:35
`11 This is Media Unit 1 of the 05:06:38
`12 video-recorded deposition of Dr. Stephen Brecker, 05:06:41
`13 in the matter of Medtronic, Inc., et al. versus 05:06:44
`14 Teleflex Innovations, S.A.R.L., filed in the U.S. 05:06:52
`15 Patent and Trademark Office, Numbers 05:07:05
`16 IPR2020-00126, IPR2020-00129 -- 128, 05:07:08
`17 IPR2020-00129, IPR2020-00132, IPR2020-00134, 05:07:16
`18 IPR2020-00135, IPR2020-00137. 05:07:25
`19 This deposition is being held 05:07:32
`20 remotely. 05:07:34
`21 My name is Phil Glauberson from the 05:07:35
`22 firm Veritext, and I am the videographer. The 05:07:37
`23 court reporter is Paula Richter from Veritext. 05:07:40
`24 I am not authorized to administer an 05:07:43
`25 oath. I am not related to any party in this 05:07:46
`
`1 swear the witness, please. 05:08:57
`2 DR. STEPHEN BRECKER, 05:09:12
`3 duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 05:09:12
`4 EXAMINATION 05:09:12
`5 BY MR. VANDENBURGH: 05:09:12
`6 Q. All right. Good morning again, Dr. Brecker. 05:09:13
`7 A. Good morning. 05:09:16
`8 Q. I'm going to skip the usual intro. This is 05:09:17
`9 the third time that we've had one of these 05:09:19
`10 depositions. I guess the only thing I will ask 05:09:23
`11 is, is there anything that would prevent you from 05:09:27
`12 testifying truly or correctly today? 05:09:30
`13 A. There is not. 05:09:35
`14 Q. Okay. Can you -- I'm just going to just walk 05:09:37
`15 through your latest declaration today, so if you 05:09:40
`16 could just go ahead and pull that up and have that 05:09:44
`17 in front of you, the binder that we sent you, 05:09:47
`18 Exhibit 1806, for the record. 05:09:50
`19 A. I'm just going to make it a bit louder. 05:09:59
`20 Okay. 05:10:02
`21 Q. All right. And let's start near the 05:10:03
`22 beginning where you are talking on, oh, roughly 05:10:06
`23 paragraphs 7 through 13 regarding the term 05:10:13
`24 "interventional cardiology devices," and in 05:10:18
`25 particular, the Venn diagram that you have in 05:10:24
`
`Page 7
`
`Page 9
`
`1 action, nor am I financially interested in the 05:07:49
`2 outcome. 05:07:51
`3 Counsel will please now state their 05:07:52
`4 appearances and affiliations for the record. If 05:07:55
`5 there are any objections to proceeding or to the 05:07:58
`6 court reporter administering the oath virtually, 05:08:00
`7 please state them at the time of your appearance, 05:08:03
`8 beginning with the noticing attorney. 05:08:06
`9 MR. VANDENBURGH: Yes. On behalf of 05:08:07
`10 the Patent Owner, Teleflex, this is Derek 05:08:09
`11 Vandenburgh of the Carlson Caspers firm. Also 05:08:12
`12 with us today is Peter Kohlhepp of our firm, Ken 05:08:15
`13 Levitt of the Dorsey firm, and Greg Smock of 05:08:22
`14 Teleflex. 05:08:25
`15 MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: On behalf of 05:08:26
`16 Petitioner, Medtronic, Sharon Roberg-Perez of 05:08:27
`17 Robins Kaplan. With me are my colleagues, Chris 05:08:31
`18 Pinahs and Cy Morton. 05:08:35
`19 MR. VANDENBURGH: And before we 05:08:39
`20 swear the witness, I'll just state for the record, 05:08:40
`21 I appreciate the list of cases, Phil, but there 05:08:41
`22 are actually 11 total all together. I don't think 05:08:44
`23 they were all on your list, but I think counsel 05:08:46
`24 all understand which IPRs that are at issue here. 05:08:48
`25 So, Paula, can you go ahead and 05:08:55
`
`1 paragraph 12. 05:10:28
`2 Is it your opinion that everything 05:10:32
`3 that is used during an interventional cardiology 05:10:35
`4 procedure is an interventional cardiology device 05:10:40
`5 as that term is used in the Teleflex patents? 05:10:44
`6 A. Well, just to break that up, first of all, 05:10:53
`7 everything used -- not everything used in an 05:10:59
`8 interventional cardiology procedure would 05:11:03
`9 necessarily be called an interventional cardiology 05:11:07
`10 device, just thinking about it in the broadest 05:11:11
`11 sense. 05:11:13
`12 When you say how is an 05:11:17
`13 interventional cardiology device defined in the 05:11:20
`14 Teleflex patent, that's a separate issue; and 05:11:22
`15 there are various interpretations on that, as we 05:11:29
`16 have discussed. 05:11:32
`17 Q. So it sounds like you would agree that the 05:11:35
`18 term as it's used in the patents is not the same 05:11:42
`19 as it may be used outside the context of the 05:11:48
`20 patents? 05:11:51
`21 MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to form. 05:11:52
`22 THE WITNESS: It may or may not be. 05:11:56
`23 BY MR. VANDENBURGH: 05:12:00
`24 Q. Okay. So there are certainly instances where 05:12:00
`25 what's considered to be an interventional 05:12:08
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`3 (Pages 6 - 9)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`Page 3
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2238
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Page 10
`1 cardiology device outside the scope of the patents 05:12:10
`2 is broader than how you would use that term within 05:12:12
`3 the patent itself? 05:12:17
`4 A. That's correct. There are interventional 05:12:20
`5 cardiology devices which may not fulfill the 05:12:25
`6 criteria of an interventional cardiology device as 05:12:33
`7 one might interpret it in the patent. It's not 05:12:35
`8 defined in the patent. 05:12:40
`9 Q. I'm sorry. So it is -- you do consider it to 05:12:42
`10 be defined in the patent? 05:12:46
`11 MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to form. 05:12:48
`12 THE WITNESS: No. I said it's not 05:12:49
`13 defined in the patent. 05:12:50
`14 BY MR. VANDENBURGH: 05:12:53
`15 Q. I misheard. 05:12:54
`16 So as it's used in the patent, would 05:12:57
`17 you consider a guide catheter to be an 05:13:01
`18 interventional cardiology device? 05:13:04
`19 A. When you say "as it's used in the patent," 05:13:18
`20 you would need to take me to a specific example. 05:13:20
`21 Q. Okay. 05:13:24
`22 A. There are examples in the patent where it 05:13:26
`23 says interventional cardiology device, dot, dot, 05:13:29
`24 dot, and then it gives a specification to it. I 05:13:32
`25 mean, a guide catheter is an interventional 05:13:37
`
`Page 11
`
`1 cardiology device in general terms. 05:13:42
`2 Q. Okay. So, for example, let's -- we can go 05:13:44
`3 ahead and pull up a specific patent. Do you have 05:13:50
`4 a binder with the patents in them? 05:13:53
`5 A. I do. That would be -- I've got binder 2 05:13:56
`6 from the original deposition, which has the 05:14:04
`7 patents. 05:14:10
`8 Q. Perfect. So let's use as an example the '776 05:14:11
`9 Patent, RE 45776. 05:14:16
`10 A. Have you got that as a -- yeah, I have that. 05:14:22
`11 That's 135. 1001-135 as I've got it marked. 05:14:26
`12 Q. I believe it's Exhibit 1001 to the 035 IPR. 05:14:33
`13 A. Yeah, I have that. 05:14:42
`14 Q. Okay. And if we go to Claim 25 of the '776 05:14:46
`15 Patent. 05:15:04
`16 A. I have it. 05:15:04
`17 Q. I believe you will see two-thirds of the way 05:15:04
`18 down the longer paragraph that starts, "A segment 05:15:08
`19 defining ..." It says, it needs to be configured 05:15:11
`20 to receive one or more interventional cardiology 05:15:14
`21 devices therethrough." 05:15:17
`22 So in the context that it's used 05:15:21
`23 there, would you consider a guide catheter to be 05:15:24
`24 an interventional cardiology device? 05:15:27
`25 A. It doesn't define an interventional 05:15:45
`
`Page 12
`1 cardiology device. It just says that the segment 05:15:48
`2 defining a partially cylindrical opening is 05:15:53
`3 configured to receive one or more interventional 05:15:58
`4 cardiology devices. 05:16:01
`5 Now, it's saying it's configured to 05:16:06
`6 receive devices. That doesn't -- if you're saying 05:16:09
`7 could -- let me -- could any device be considered 05:16:15
`8 an interventional cardiology device, well, it 05:16:20
`9 could still be considered an interventional 05:16:23
`10 cardiology device without it necessarily 05:16:26
`11 fulfilling the ability for this to be configured 05:16:27
`12 to it, to accept it. This doesn't define an 05:16:33
`13 interventional cardiology device. 05:16:37
`14 Q. I agree. I'm not trying to at this point -- 05:16:39
`15 A. Yeah. 05:16:43
`16 Q. -- you know, get to a definition. I just 05:16:43
`17 want to understand when -- that term has a 05:16:46
`18 meaning, correct? We need to gives words and 05:16:52
`19 claims meaning. You understand that? 05:16:55
`20 A. I do. 05:16:57
`21 Q. Okay. So as those words are used in that 05:16:58
`22 claim, interventional cardiology device, what does 05:17:01
`23 it mean? 05:17:05
`24 A. Well, this -- what it means is a device that 05:17:06
`25 can go through a guide extension catheter. 05:17:09
`
`Page 13
`1 Q. Okay. So does that mean that anything that 05:17:13
`2 can go through a guide extension catheter is an 05:17:16
`3 interventional cardiology device within the scope 05:17:20
`4 of that claim, in your opinion? 05:17:22
`5 A. I'm not -- I'm not quite sure I understand. 05:17:29
`6 Anything that could go through an -- a guide 05:17:34
`7 extension catheter -- you're asking me in a 05:17:40
`8 different direction. This is simply saying 05:17:46
`9 that -- this is giving characteristics of a guide 05:17:50
`10 extension catheter and saying it's configured to 05:17:52
`11 accept one or more interventional cardiology 05:17:56
`12 devices, but that doesn't define what an 05:17:57
`13 interventional cardiology device -- nor does it 05:18:03
`14 say that anything, absolutely anything that goes 05:18:05
`15 through would be a device. So I'm struggling to 05:18:10
`16 think of something that you would put through a 05:18:14
`17 guide extension catheter that wouldn't be a 05:18:16
`18 device. I mean -- 05:18:19
`19 Q. Wouldn't it be an -- just to clarify, 05:18:21
`20 wouldn't it be an interventional cardiology 05:18:24
`21 device? 05:18:27
`22 A. Yes. I'm struggling to think of an example 05:18:29
`23 of something that a cardiologist would put through 05:18:33
`24 a guide extension catheter that wouldn't be an 05:18:38
`25 interventional cardiology device. I can't 05:18:42
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`4 (Pages 10 - 13)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`Page 4
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2238
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Page 14
`1 think -- I mean, I -- you know, you could inject 05:18:47
`2 drugs, for example. But, I mean, in terms of a 05:18:52
`3 piece of kit, if you were advancing a piece of 05:18:57
`4 equipment through a guide extension catheter, it 05:19:01
`5 would be an interventional cardiology device. 05:19:06
`6 Q. Okay. So you can't think of anything that a 05:19:09
`7 cardiologist would put through a guide extension 05:19:15
`8 catheter that would not be an interventional 05:19:22
`9 cardiology device? 05:19:24
`10 A. I'm struggling to think of an example. 05:19:27
`11 Q. Okay. Now, is it your opinion -- because you 05:19:30
`12 used the word "through," is it your opinion that 05:19:35
`13 to be an interventional cardiology device, it has 05:19:39
`14 to come out the other side of the guide extension 05:19:42
`15 catheter? 05:19:45
`16 MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to form. 05:19:45
`17 THE WITNESS: Again, if you're tying 05:19:57
`18 me to the language of the claim, again, this is 05:19:59
`19 defining what the guide extension catheter is 05:20:04
`20 doing, not what the interventional cardiology 05:20:09
`21 device is doing. 05:20:11
`22 For example, if you were advancing a 05:20:15
`23 stent through the extension catheter but you 05:20:18
`24 couldn't actually, for one reason or another, exit 05:20:26
`25 the extension catheter, that doesn't mean that the 05:20:28
`
`Page 15
`1 stent is not an interventional cardiology device. 05:20:34
`2 BY MR. VANDENBURGH: 05:20:40
`3 Q. Now, an interventional cardiology device can 05:20:46
`4 also include things that just go into the guide 05:20:50
`5 catheter, right? 05:20:52
`6 MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to form. 05:20:54
`7 THE WITNESS: It's possible, but do 05:21:03
`8 you have an example in mind? 05:21:07
`9 BY MR. VANDENBURGH: 05:21:08
`10 Q. Well, I mean, a stent catheter is an 05:21:08
`11 interventional cardiology device regardless of 05:21:11
`12 whether it's put in a guide catheter or a guide 05:21:13
`13 extension catheter, right? 05:21:16
`14 A. That's correct, yes. And that's the point I 05:21:17
`15 was making. 05:21:20
`16 Q. Yeah, yeah. Now, would a syringe for 05:21:21
`17 injecting contrast be considered to be an 05:21:28
`18 interventional cardiology device? 05:21:32
`19 A. Well, now, stepping back out of the context 05:21:38
`20 of the claims, if I went upstairs to the cath labs 05:21:42
`21 and asked my colleague, is that syringe that 05:21:48
`22 you're using to inject an interventional 05:21:51
`23 cardiology device, you'd get a range of answers. 05:21:53
`24 Q. Okay. So the answer is, if it's outside the 05:21:59
`25 scope of the patent, it depends on who you ask. 05:22:01
`
`Page 16
`1 A. Yes. I mean, there are some syringes that 05:22:06
`2 are very specifically adapted and have 05:22:09
`3 characteristics to them, and there are some 05:22:10
`4 devices that are used for injection, like an 05:22:13
`5 automated injector. And I think many 05:22:16
`6 cardiologists would consider those interventional 05:22:19
`7 cardiology devices in the broadest general sense. 05:22:23
`8 But they wouldn't -- they wouldn't go into the 05:22:29
`9 guide catheter. 05:22:32
`10 Q. Okay. Does -- let's see. Does any part of 05:22:33
`11 the syringe go into the proximal end of the guide 05:22:43
`12 catheter? 05:22:47
`13 A. Well, the syringe typically does not. There 05:22:50
`14 is -- the syringe is attached to a manifold which 05:22:55
`15 has three-way taps on it and terminates in a flush 05:22:59
`16 port, that you then -- you screw onto the hub of 05:23:07
`17 the guide catheter -- well, you screw onto the hub 05:23:12
`18 of the O-ring hemostatic valve that screws onto 05:23:16
`19 the guide catheter. 05:23:20
`20 Q. Okay. All right. 05:23:21
`21 A. You don't inject -- you don't attach the 05:23:22
`22 syringe directly to a guide catheter heart. 05:23:25
`23 Q. Right. Right. The hemostatic valve, does it 05:23:29
`24 actually engage within the proximal end of the 05:23:31
`25 guide catheter? 05:23:35
`
`Page 17
`1 A. Well, the guide catheter will terminate in a 05:23:37
`2 hub. So the material of the -- the catheter will 05:23:41
`3 terminate at its proximal end in a hub made of 05:23:51
`4 plastic and that's the bit that screws onto the 05:23:59
`5 manifold. You -- where the hub is considered part 05:24:01
`6 of the guide catheter. I suppose it is, but it's 05:24:04
`7 a matter of debate, I suppose. I haven't thought 05:24:07
`8 about it. 05:24:11
`9 Q. So have you applied a definition of 05:24:12
`10 interventional cardiology device as you analyzed, 05:24:18
`11 for example, Claim 25 of the '776 Patent? 05:24:22
`12 A. So looking at Claim 25 -- and I'd just like 05:24:31
`13 to -- although I've read it several times, I just 05:24:34
`14 want to read it through myself again because I 05:24:36
`15 want to be -- I want to give you an accurate 05:24:39
`16 answer. (Reviews document.) 05:24:41
`17 The claim is describing 05:25:01
`18 characteristics of the guide extension catheter, 05:25:03
`19 and it's saying it's configured to receive 05:25:05
`20 interventional cardiology devices. So what the 05:25:08
`21 cardiologist is thinking reading that is, of all 05:25:15
`22 the interventional cardiology devices that exist, 05:25:19
`23 the ones that this is referring to are those that 05:25:20
`24 would be passed through or those that would be 05:25:23
`25 passed into, because it's configured to receive, 05:25:26
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`5 (Pages 14 - 17)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`Page 5
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2238
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Page 18
`1 an interventional cardiology device. So what it 05:25:33
`2 is being -- what is being said is it's those 05:25:35
`3 devices which would go into a guide extension 05:25:39
`4 catheter. 05:25:47
`5 Q. Let me ask you specifically about guidewires. 05:26:00
`6 Now, you cite to the deposition 05:26:08
`7 transcript of Dr. Graham in your supplemental 05:26:10
`8 report, correct? 05:26:14
`9 A. I do. 05:26:16
`10 Q. Did you read his transcripts? 05:26:16
`11 A. I have. 05:26:20
`12 Q. Okay. Remind me, did you actually sit in on 05:26:22
`13 his depositions? 05:26:28
`14 A. I did not. 05:26:29
`15 Q. Do you recall from reading his transcripts 05:26:29
`16 that he testified that often a guidewire will 05:26:36
`17 actually help to open a nearly closed lesion as 05:26:42
`18 you're passing the guidewire through the lesion. 05:26:50
`19 Do you remember that? Did you see that testimony? 05:26:54
`20 A. So -- 05:26:56
`21 Q. Now I'm just asking if you saw the testimony. 05:27:00
`22 A. I can't remember reading it. I am aware that 05:27:03
`23 he has said it. I do not -- I do not recall him 05:27:07
`24 saying that that would be the case often, so I 05:27:09
`25 can't recall, sitting here now, the exact words. 05:27:12
`
`Page 19
`1 Q. I want to start by asking: Have you had the 05:27:15
`2 similar experience? Have you found that in at 05:27:21
`3 least some instances, blood flow can be improved 05:27:24
`4 simply by pushing the guidewire through the 05:27:30
`5 occlusion? 05:27:34
`6 A. So the guidewire doesn't treat the lesion. 05:27:35
`7 That's the starting point. What Dr. Graham, I 05:27:39
`8 think, is referring to is, when you start with a 05:27:43
`9 completely occluded vessel, when you inject 05:27:46
`10 contrast, you see nothing, no perfusion at all. 05:27:53
`11 When you put the guidewire through, 05:27:57
`12 you can on occasions then see the fusion of 05:28:00
`13 contrast and blood going down the vessel. That 05:28:06
`14 act in of itself would not be considered 05:28:11
`15 treatment, if that's, I think, what the question 05:28:17
`16 is weighted towards. 05:28:20
`17 Q. Well, you've answered a lot of other 05:28:22
`18 questions that I might have gotten to, but 05:28:25
`19 actually the question I asked is: In the course 05:28:27
`20 when you used to treat patients, would you 05:28:31
`21 sometimes help to restore blood flow simply by 05:28:38
`22 passing the guidewire through the lesion? 05:28:46
`23 A. Not by intention. 05:28:49
`24 Q. Okay. But it, in fact, would occur, correct? 05:28:51
`25 A. It can occur, that after passing the 05:28:56
`
`Page 20
`1 guidewire, you can then see some flow; whereas, 05:29:01
`2 prior to passing the guidewire, there is no flow. 05:29:06
`3 Q. And while I understand that you might not 05:29:08
`4 stop there, that is a good thing for the patient, 05:29:17
`5 is it not, getting some additional flow? 05:29:20
`6 MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to form. 05:29:23
`7 THE WITNESS: It's the starting 05:29:30
`8 point of a procedure. 05:29:31
`9 BY MR. VANDENBURGH: 05:29:34
`10 Q. Understood. I think I've heard anecdotally 05:29:34
`11 about people -- you know, they refer to having a 05:29:39
`12 90 percent blockage or 100 percent blockage. I 05:29:42
`13 take it a 90 percent blockage is better than 100 05:29:45
`14 percent blockage. 05:29:51
`15 MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to form. 05:29:53
`16 THE WITNESS: It depends if you're 05:29:54
`17 talking about a chronic situation or an acute 05:29:56
`18 situation. 05:30:00
`19 BY MR. VANDENBURGH: 05:30:01
`20 Q. Okay. 05:30:01
`21 A. The acute situation of a completely blocked 05:30:03
`22 vessel, when you then put the guidewire down and 05:30:09
`23 you can then see some flow, that is not a bad 05:30:15
`24 thing. 05:30:18
`25 Q. That is a good thing, is it not? 05:30:20
`
`Page 21
`1 A. It doesn't define that the blockage is now 90 05:30:22
`2 percent. All that you are seeing is some distal 05:30:27
`3 penetration of contrast into the distal vessel. 05:30:33
`4 Q. Okay. And does that indicate that some blood 05:30:41
`5 flow has been restored? 05:30:48
`6 A. Yes. 05:30:49
`7 Q. And is that a bad thing? 05:30:49
`8 A. No, it is not a bad thing. 05:30:54
`9 Q. Is it a good thing? 05:30:56
`10 A. It can -- it can be. It's not a bad thing. 05:30:57
`11 I mean, you don't -- you don't relax at that point 05:31:04
`12 in a primary angioplasty procedure. You would 05:31:07
`13 never turn around and say, good. Right. Let's -- 05:31:12
`14 you wouldn't describe -- I've never described it 05:31:20
`15 as a good thing. It happens. That's the start of 05:31:23
`16 the procedure. 05:31:26
`17 Q. Do you -- when this happens, when you 05:31:31
`18 actually are -- in the course the procedure, the 05:31:54
`19 guidewire, it reopens a blocked artery. Do you 05:31:57
`20 see at that point improved hemodynamics in the 05:32:02
`21 patient? 05:32:08
`22 A. So that can happen sometimes. I wouldn't 05:32:09
`23 describe it as hemodynamics. Let me correct my 05:32:14
`24 answer to that question. 05:32:20
`25 You wouldn't typically see improved 05:32:21
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`6 (Pages 18 - 21)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`Page 6
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2238
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Page 22
`1 hemodynamics. You may see improvement in ST 05:32:24
`2 segment change. 05:32:27
`3 Q. And just because I didn't totally hear the 05:32:34
`4 answer to that, can you give that again? 05:32:37
`5 A. You wouldn't typically see improved 05:32:39
`6 hemodynamics by just having a wire across the 05:32:43
`7 occlusion, no. You may see improvement in ST 05:32:45
`8 segments on an ECG. 05:32:49
`9 Q. And I'm hearing NST? I mean, I understand -- 05:32:52
`10 you're basically talking about the cardiac wave 05:33:02
`11 form at this point? 05:33:04
`12 A. Yes. The ST segment. 05:33:05
`13 Q. ST segment. That's, I think, what I wasn't 05:33:07
`14 hearing correctly. Okay. So you're going to see 05:33:10
`15 improved cardiac wave form as a result of having 05:33:12
`16 reopened a blockage with a guidewire? 05:33:16
`17 MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to form. 05:33:20
`18 THE WITNESS: You can. You can see 05:33:23
`19 that. I have also seen patients deteriorate at 05:33:26
`20 that point, with only partial reperfusion. 05:33:30
`21 BY MR. VANDENBURGH:

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