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
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________________________________
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC
`VASCULAR, INC.,
`
`Page 1
`
` 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)
`___________________________________________________
`
` VOLUME II
`
` REMOTE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
`
` MICHEAL JONES
`
`DATE: January 20, 2021
`TIME: 7:58 a.m. (Pacific)
`PLACE: Veritext Virtual Videoconference
`
`PAGES: 1 to 163
`JOB NO.: MW 4402861
`REPORTED BY: Merilee Johnson, RDR, CRR, CRC, RSA
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`
`Page 1
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2241
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`1 E X H I B I T S
`2 (Continued)
`3 Exhibit 1015 Baim Article: Section VII: 30
`4 Interventional Techniques
`5 Exhibit 1025 United States Patent Application 53
`6 Publication No. 2005/0015073 A1,
`7 Publication Date: January 20,
`8 2005
`9 Exhibit 1055 Sakurada Brochure: 65
`10 Catheterization and
`11 Cardiovascular Interventions,
`12 dated November 2004
`13 Exhibit 1807 Declaration of Michael Jones 6
`14 Submitted in Support of
`15 Petitioner's Replies
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 5
`
`1 A P P E A R A N C E S
` (All appearing remotely via videoconference)
`
`2 3
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
`4 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`BY: Christopher A. Pinahs, Esq.
`5 Cyrus A. Morton, Esq.
` Shelley R. Gilliss, Ph.D.
`6 800 LaSalle Avenue
` Suite 2800
`7 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
` Phone: (612) 349-8500
`8 Email: CMorton@RobinsKaplan.com
` Email: CPinahs@RobinsKaplan.com
`9 Email: SGilliss@RobinsKaplan.com
`10
`11 ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNERS:
`12 CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH,
`LINDQUIST & SCHUMAN, PA
`13 BY: Joseph W. Winkels, Esq.
` Peter M. Kohlhepp, Esq.
`14 225 South Sixth Street
` Suite 4200
`15 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
` Phone: (612) 436-9600
`16 Email: JWinkels@CarlsonCaspers.com
` Email: PKohlhepp@CarlsonCaspers.com
`
`17
`18 ALSO APPEARED:
`19 Greg Smock (Teleflex)
` Peter Keith (Teleflex)
`20 Justin Bond (Videographer)
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1 I N D E X
`
`1 (PROCEEDINGS, 01/20/2021, 9:58 a.m.)
`2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. Today
`3 is January 20, 2021. We're on the record at
`4 7:58 a.m. Today we'll take the videotaped
`5 deposition in Case No. IPR2020-00138.
`6 This deposition is being held remotely.
`7 Counsel, please state your appearance and
`8 affiliation for the record.
`9 MR. WINKELS: Good morning. On behalf
`10 of patent owner, Joe Winkels with the Carlson
`11 Caspers firm. Also with me from my firm is Peter
`12 Kohlhepp. And on the line is Greg Smock from
`13 Teleflex, as well as Pete Keith.
`14 MR. PINAHS: Christopher Pinahs from
`15 the Robins Kaplan law firm on behalf of the
`16 petitioner, Medtronic. I'm also joined this
`17 morning by my colleague Cyrus Morton and
`18 Shelley Gilliss.
`19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you. Would
`20 you please swear the witness.
`21 MICHEAL JONES,
`22 duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
`23 EXAMINATION
`24 BY MR. WINKELS:
`25 Q. Good morning, Mr. Jones.
`
`2 3
`
`WITNESS: MICHEAL JONES PAGE
`4 Examination by Mr. Winkels....................... 5
`5 Examination by Mr. Pinahs........................161
`
`6 7
`
`CAUTION OR INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO ANSWER:
`8 Page 156, Line 13
`9
`10 E X H I B I T S
`11
`12 EXHIBITS FIRST REFERRED TO: PAGE
`13 Exhibit 1001 United States Patent No. 56
`14 8,048,032 B@, Date of Patent:
`15 November 1, 2011
`16 Exhibit 1007 United States Patent No. 22
`17 7,736,355 B2, Date of Patent:
`18 June 15, 2010
`19 Exhibit 1009 United States Patent No. 89
`20 5,439,445, Date of Patent: August
`21 8, 1995
`22 Exhibit 1010 Takahashi Brochure: 82
`23 Catheterization and
`24 Cardiovascular Interventions,
`25 dated December 2004
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`2 (Pages 2 - 5)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`Page 2
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2241
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`1 A. Good morning.
`2 Q. Do you have Exhibit 1807 in front of you?
`3 (Exhibit No. 1807 was introduced.)
`4 A. Yes, I do. Hang on just a second. Let me
`5 open to that. Okay.
`6 Q. All right. And Exhibit 1807 is your
`7 declaration in this IPR matter, correct?
`8 A. That's correct.
`9 Q. Okay. And I'm going to try to start where
`10 we kind of left off on Monday, and we'll keep going
`11 through your declaration as we did on Monday.
`12 Does that sound okay?
`13 A. Yes, it does.
`14 Q. All right. And, likely, I will also move
`15 the exhibits into the Exhibits folder on the
`16 Exhibit Share. Do you have the Exhibit Share up,
`17 Mr. Jones?
`18 A. Yes. Yes, I do.
`19 Q. Okay. And just to make sure we're seeing
`20 the same things. If you go into the Marked
`21 Exhibits folder, do you see your declaration there
`22 now, 1807?
`23 A. Yes, I do.
`24 Q. Okay. Perfect. So if you could turn to
`25 page 49 of your declaration. It's around
`
`1 in that alternative combination?
`2 A. Yes, I would.
`3 Q. Okay. Now, at paragraph 124 of your
`4 declaration, in that first sentence of
`5 paragraph 124 you're discussing Itou and Ressemann.
`6 And you say, "...these areas can be estimated based
`7 on the figures and dimensions reported in each
`8 patent."
`9 Correct?
`10 A. Yes, I do.
`11 Q. You agree it is appropriate to look at the
`12 figures in Itou and Ressemann to estimate relative
`13 dimensions of the various portions of the device,
`14 right?
`15 A. I believe when you take the figures of both
`16 Itou and Ressemann and then bring them -- scale one
`17 relative to the other to bring them to the same, in
`18 my case, internal dimension -- ID of the two, or
`19 the ID of the opening, then at that point you can
`20 approximate the area of the openings to give a
`21 relative size comparison.
`22 Q. Right. And that's the only point I wanted
`23 to make, is that throughout your declaration you
`24 are looking at patent figures, and if a patent
`25 figure doesn't have a specific dimension specified
`
`Page 7
`
`Page 9
`
`1 paragraph 121.
`2 A. Okay.
`3 Q. And just to orient us: On Monday evening
`4 when we concluded, we were discussing the two
`5 alternatives that you proposed for modifying the
`6 Itou reference with the Ressemann collar, right?
`7 A. I believe that is correct.
`8 Q. And the two alternatives you proposed, one
`9 is where you take the Ressemann collar and you set
`10 the tab portion of the collar on top of the Itou
`11 wire, and the other alternative is where you take
`12 the Ressemann collar and you situate the tab
`13 portion on the bottom of the Itou wire. Right?
`14 A. Yes. I believe we were at that point when
`15 we ended the deposition.
`16 Q. Yep. Perfect. And we discussed in the
`17 situation -- or the proposal you have where you put
`18 the Ressemann collar on top of the wire in Itou,
`19 you said in that combination you would remove both
`20 the Itou collar and the Itou coil; is that right?
`21 A. Yes.
`22 Q. In the alternative embodiment where you put
`23 the Ressemann collar and the tab portion of the
`24 Ressemann collar underneath the Itou wire, would
`25 you also remove the Itou collar and the Itou coil
`
`1 in the specification, you are using that patent
`2 figure and scaling that patent figure to try to
`3 ascertain dimensions of that structure, right?
`4 A. I'll re- -- I'll try to answer your
`5 question in my verbiage.
`6 So where a patent had a dimension
`7 specified, we've applied -- I've applied those
`8 dimensions to the drawing to translate or place in
`9 the drawing the appropriate dimensions that are
`10 specified in its patent.
`11 And then where there are not dimensions
`12 specified from those patents, estimating, based on
`13 some known dimensions or some known geometric
`14 reference, what the drawing represents as the --
`15 what the drawing represents dimensionally.
`16 And then in the cases where we have patents
`17 with different IDs, I'm bring- -- scale the
`18 assembly to the same internal dimension and then
`19 run my calculations or estimations based on those
`20 similar internal dimensions as the basis for, say,
`21 the scale between the two -- two patents.
`22 Q. And in doing the estimation part of the
`23 analysis you just described, you are using the
`24 figures of the patents to aid you in that
`25 estimation of various dimensions, right?
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`3 (Pages 6 - 9)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`Page 3
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2241
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Page 10
`1 A. Yes. I am using the patent drawings to aid
`2 me in that estimation.
`3 Q. Okay. Looking down to paragraph 127.
`4 A. Okay.
`5 Q. All right. Now, in 127 you are saying that
`6 using Ressemann's collar would reduce kinking
`7 because it would eliminate the weld point between
`8 the wire 25 and the proximal opening, right?
`9 A. Hold on a second. Let me read that
`10 paragraph before you . . . (Reviewing document.)
`11 Okay. Okay. So, again, your question,
`12 please?
`13 Q. Yeah. Are you saying that you would use
`14 Ressemann's collar to eliminate the weld point in
`15 Itou to reduce kinking?
`16 MR. PINAHS: Objection. Form.
`17 A. Can you re-ask that question?
`18 Q. Let's just break it up. Are you saying you
`19 would use Ressemann's collar 2141 in your proposed
`20 combination that you discuss in paragraph 127 to
`21 eliminate the weld point in Itou?
`22 A. The answer is yes. So I would be using the
`23 collar in Ressemann in place or to trans- -- in
`24 place of the weld point in Itou. So the collar
`25 would provide an increase -- or the ability to
`
`Page 11
`1 provide a transition in stiffness between the wire
`2 and the opening of Itou.
`3 Q. Is it your opinion that the weld point in
`4 Itou is a location that may increase kinkability?
`5 A. Yeah. It's my -- it's my opinion that the
`6 weld point being -- essentially having -- sorry.
`7 It's my opinion that the transition between
`8 the Itou collar and the wire would have a -- the
`9 transition area where the wire has been flattened
`10 and welded to the Itou collar provides a risk of a
`11 kink forming at that joint, just due to the
`12 shortness of the transition.
`13 And the fact that the -- flattening the
`14 wire by crushing it is going to locally result in
`15 work hardening and a decrease in the ductility of
`16 the wire at that location.
`17 Q. Right. I want to talk about that. Before
`18 we get to that, though, I have a -- my first
`19 question is: If you look at the combination you
`20 show in paragraph 121 of your declaration.
`21 A. Okay. Let me flip over to that.
`22 Q. Can you see at -- in paragraph 121 of your
`23 declaration, you show your proposed combination
`24 where you've included the Ressemann collar on top
`25 of the wire in Itou?
`
`Page 12
`
`1 A. Mm-hmm. Yes, I see that.
`2 Q. In the combination you show in
`3 paragraph 121, the weld point is still present,
`4 right,
`5 A. No, I --
`6 MR. PINAHS: Object to form.
`7 A. -- think --
`8 MR. PINAHS: You can answer, Mr. Jones.
`9 A. Now, in this schematic I basically overlaid
`10 what the -- where the -- where I would place the
`11 collar in relation to the Itou construction.
`12 So the wire that's shown in Itou here is
`13 unmodified. It's just the Itou form that was
`14 provided, and then on top of it is placed the
`15 Ressemann collar. And you can see it's embedded
`16 within the wall on the top, and there's some
`17 manipulation or modification I'd have to make to
`18 get it fully embedded in the wall at the proximal
`19 end of Itou.
`20 So the -- I don't -- my attempt is not to
`21 show the weld point of Itou. My attempt is to show
`22 where I believe the Ressemann collar would fit
`23 within this construction.
`24 Q. Okay. So is it fair to say that the figure
`25 you show in paragraph 121 is not an accurate
`
`Page 13
`1 representation of the ultimate combination you are
`2 proposing between Ressemann and Itou?
`3 MR. PINAHS: Objection. Form.
`4 A. Can you rephrase that, please? Just to
`5 make sure I answer the right question.
`6 Q. Sure. Is it fair to say that the figure
`7 you show in paragraph 121 is not an accurate
`8 representation of the ultimate combination you are
`9 proposing between Ressemann and Itou?
`10 MR. PINAHS: Same objection.
`11 A. It's in an -- it's an attempt -- my attempt
`12 to demonstrate what the combination -- what Itou's
`13 layout would look like with the Ressemann collar
`14 attached.
`15 I think this is, you know, an interim view
`16 of what would be done with the product. There are
`17 other changes that I would probably make in
`18 conjunction with this, where I would make this full
`19 change, but this is -- my best description, an
`20 interim view of the -- what it would look like.
`21 Q. Thank you. That's all I'm trying to
`22 establish, is that the figure you show in
`23 paragraph 121, you would make further modifications
`24 beyond those shown in that figure to arrive at the
`25 ultimate combination you are proposing between
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`4 (Pages 10 - 13)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`Page 4
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2241
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
`1 Ressemann and Itou, right?
`2 A. Yeah. I make other modifications that are
`3 routine engineering decisions to improve the
`4 transition from one to the other.
`5 Q. Okay. Let's talk about that ductility
`6 issue you referenced. And I'll draw your attention
`7 back to paragraph 127. That's where you talk about
`8 ductility. Let me know when you're there, please.
`9 A. Okay. Back to 127.
`10 Q. Okay. In that paragraph you refer to
`11 "ductility." What is ductility?
`12 A. Ductility is essentially the -- the
`13 materials in the -- in relation to metal, ductility
`14 is the ability for material to bend, to be
`15 reshaped. I think those would be the two features
`16 that would -- are related to the ductility of a
`17 metal.
`18 Q. Do you agree that "ductility" refers to a
`19 metal's ability to permanently deform?
`20 A. Can you rephrase that question? It's -- I
`21 just want to make sure we're accurate on wording
`22 there -- or my understanding of your question.
`23 Q. Yeah. And that's what I'm trying to
`24 understand, is what you mean by "ductility." Does
`25 "ductility" refer to a material's ability to
`
`Page 16
`1 kinking, are you saying a reduction in ductility
`2 would be more susceptible to kinking?
`3 A. No, I don't think -- well, I don't think
`4 that's the intent -- or I don't believe that is
`5 accurate.
`6 The localized -- so in this -- in the Itou
`7 collar-to-wire weld, the combination of the
`8 work-hardening and the welding will make a -- the
`9 work-hardening due to crushing the wire and the
`10 welding to attach the collar to the wire, we're
`11 going to have a dis- -- there will be a
`12 discontinuity in the stiffness of the wire. And
`13 that discontinuity is the place most likely to
`14 kink.
`15 So it may not be necessarily at the -- that
`16 transition, but immediately adjacent to it.
`17 Q. Okay. Are you saying that the
`18 work-hardening that Itou does reduces the
`19 ductility?
`20 A. Yes, I am.
`21 Q. Okay. And isn't something that is ductile
`22 more able to bend and kink than something that is
`23 not ductile?
`24 A. No.
`25 Q. Okay.
`
`Page 15
`
`Page 17
`
`1 permanently deform?
`2 A. Yes, in general, it does. In the case of
`3 stainless steels, permanently deforming them by, in
`4 this case a crushing action, adds work-hardening.
`5 So that work-hardening reduces the ductility of the
`6 metal locally.
`7 Q. Okay. And in the context of these
`8 interventional devices we're talking about, we
`9 refer to "kinking." And "kinking" implies
`10 permanent deformation, right?
`11 A. In regards to a metal, it typically does
`12 refer to a permanent deformation.
`13 Q. Okay. Okay. So in paragraph 127, if you
`14 can look at the second-to-last sentence of that
`15 paragraph. And what you say is, "A reduction in
`16 ductility at a critical stiffness transition point
`17 is known in the art to be susceptible to kinking."
`18 Right? That's what you said, right?
`19 A. "A reduction..."
`20 Q. I just read what you said in paragraph 127.
`21 A. Yes, I'm reading it.
`22 Q. Okay.
`23 A. Yes, that's what's written.
`24 Q. Okay. My question is: When you say a
`25 reduction in ductility would be susceptible to
`
`1 A. So if we want to use -- so a nonductile
`2 wire may be able to bend in a large curvature --
`3 yeah, when it's forced into a small curvature will
`4 exceed its elastic limit, producing a permanent
`5 change in shape that's not recoverable.
`6 A ductile wire will have -- in a similar
`7 circumstance, could go through a large-diameter
`8 bend and not be affected, but a ductile wire would
`9 have -- have a permanent deformation happen at
`10 potentially a less -- under a less extreme bend.
`11 So . . .
`12 Q. Okay. I just want to understand what you
`13 believe ductility relates to in this context. My
`14 question is: Do you agree that the more something
`15 is ductile, the more likely it is to kink?
`16 A. Not necessarily. I want to -- I would
`17 rephrase that statement slightly, I think. The
`18 more something is ductile, the easier it is to bend
`19 and the easier it is for that bend to become
`20 permanent. And similarly, the more something is
`21 ductile, the easier it is to unbend and
`22 restraighten.
`23 The less ductile a wire is, the production
`24 of a kink, from whatever reason, would be nearly --
`25 would require substantial amount of work to
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`5 (Pages 14 - 17)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`Page 5
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2241
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
`Page 20
`
`1 restraighten. So a kink is generally something
`2 that would be unrecoverable. It would -- you
`3 couldn't restraighten it to its initial form.
`4 So ductility, in my experience and
`5 understanding, is the ability -- would be described
`6 or is -- can be described by the ability of
`7 something to be bent and to be restraightened or
`8 reformed.
`9 Lack of ductility would be the opposite;
`10 something that could be bent but then be very
`11 difficult to reform or recover.
`12 Q. Do you agree that the less something is
`13 ductile, the less it is likely to permanently
`14 deform?
`15 A. Again, can you rephrase that, please?
`16 Q. Yeah.
`17 A. That's not the way it -- I'm sorry. The
`18 wording doesn't register with how I think of
`19 ductility, so if you could please rephrase that.
`20 Q. Sure. And I'm just trying to understand
`21 how you're referring to "ductility" in your
`22 explanation.
`23 Do you agree the less something is ductile,
`24 the less likely it is that that structure will
`25 permanently deform?
`
`1 Q. Okay. So your opinion is that the
`2 flattening of the Itou wire is a potential problem
`3 point in the Itou design, true?
`4 A. Yes. The transition -- the flattening of
`5 that wire by the localized discontinuity risks a
`6 kink in that location.
`7 Q. Okay. If I can draw your attention to
`8 paragraph 130 of your declaration.
`9 A. Okay. Give me a minute to go through 130,
`10 if you would.
`11 Q. Okay.
`12 A. (Reviewing document.) Okay. I read 130.
`13 Q. Okay. On Monday we discussed various
`14 potential issues with how you were combining the
`15 Itou collar on top of the tube in Ressemann.
`16 Do you recall that discussion?
`17 A. Yes, I do.
`18 Q. Okay. And I don't want to rehash all that
`19 discussion. I'm hoping we don't have to. Will you
`20 agree with me that to the extent there are problems
`21 associated with sticking the Ressemann collar on
`22 top of the Ressemann tube, those same problems
`23 would exist when sticking the Ressemann collar on
`24 top of Itou's push wire?
`25 MR. PINAHS: Objection. Form.
`
`Page 19
`
`Page 21
`
`1 A. No, I don't agree with that.
`2 Q. Okay. Okay.
`3 A. The less ductile a wire is, the actual
`4 force required to create a permanent deformation --
`5 make sure I get -- try to get this worded right.
`6 So a less ductile wire may take more force
`7 to generate a permanent deformation, but that
`8 permanent deformation would be very difficult to
`9 recover from and require the wire to have
`10 substantial -- that deformation or kink would be
`11 basically unrecoverable in its nonductile form.
`12 Q. Okay. So getting back to the Itou --
`13 A. Yeah.
`14 Q. -- prior art, or what you allege to be
`15 prior art, the location -- well, strike that.
`16 Is it your opinion that the location in
`17 Itou that is cold-worked and flattened is a
`18 location of likely kinking?
`19 A. Yes. It's my assessment that the
`20 transition between the Itou collar, where it is cut
`21 and a tab is left on it and then the Itou wire is
`22 crushed to reshape it and then attached to the Itou
`23 collar, that that discontinuity and localized
`24 work-hardening is an area that would generate a
`25 kink.
`
`1 A. Would you like to rephrase that, please?
`2 Q. Sure. We talked extensively on Monday
`3 about potential issues that may arise in the manner
`4 in which you combine -- or you propose combining
`5 the Ressemann collar on top of the tube in
`6 Ressemann's first embodiment, right?
`7 A. Yes. We discussed a number of steps that
`8 would be required to join the two.
`9 Q. Right. And my question is, to try to
`10 short-circuit a lot of things for today: Will you
`11 agree with me that to the extent that there are
`12 steps necessary to join the two -- or potential
`13 problems with that connection -- those same
`14 problems and steps would exist when sticking the
`15 Ressemann collar on top of Itou's push wire?
`16 MR. PINAHS: Objection. Form.
`17 A. No, I don't agree with you. I would --
`18 when we try to break up my understanding about the
`19 similarities, or my -- what I see to be
`20 similarities between them, a number of steps would
`21 have to be done to join these two.
`22 All those steps are -- once you've decided
`23 to make the combination, are relatively -- are
`24 routine engineering steps that would be laid out,
`25 directions would be given to a CAD operator, and
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`6 (Pages 18 - 21)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`Page 6
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2241
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Page 22
`1 you could then make the parts and proceed to build
`2 these.
`3 So the -- all those steps that we discussed
`4 on Monday related to the combination, the
`5 individual steps are probably very similar, but all
`6 of them are routine engineering -- are routine
`7 adaptation of engineering and assembly principles.
`8 Q. Now, in paragraph 130, the first diagram
`9 you show in paragraph 30 -- or I'm sorry, the first
`10 diagram you show in paragraph 130 refers to
`11 shaft 120.
`12 Do you see that?
`13 A. Yes, I do.
`14 Q. Itou does not have a shaft 120, right?
`15 A. Now, let me go to Itou, just to make sure.
`16 Q. Okay. And it's Exhibit 1007. And I'll put
`17 that on the Exhibit Share for you as well.
`18 (Exhibit No. 1007 was introduced.)
`19 A. Yes, you're correct. Itou does not have a
`20 shaft 120.
`21 Q. Okay. The next -- if you go back to your
`22 declaration, Exhibit 1807, paragraph 130 again.
`23 A. Okay.
`24 Q. The next figure you show is a figure with a
`25 bunch of color at the bottom of page 54, right?
`
`Page 24
`
`1 Q. On page 54 of your declaration, on the
`2 bottom of that page, you show a proposed
`3 combination with various colors, right?
`4 A. Yes, I do.
`5 Q. Is that an image that you created of your
`6 proposed combination?
`7 A. Yes, it is.
`8 Q. Okay. And am I correct that what you've
`9 shown in red you are asserting would be polymer in
`10 that proposed combination?
`11 A. Yes.
`12 Q. Okay. Does the polymer coating go on the
`13 inside of the Ressemann collar in this proposed
`14 combination?
`15 A. "On the inside"? Can you be more specific?
`16 It's -- as stated in my deposition -- or
`17 declaration, I'm sorry. As stated in my
`18 declaration, Ressemann's collar would be
`19 incorporated between the inner and outer layers of
`20 the Itou tube. And then solvent or spray -- "cast"
`21 may not be the right word here, but sprayed layer,
`22 the red layer, would encase the pushrod, the tab,
`23 and the tubular structure.
`24 Q. Right. Red polymer would encase the tab of
`25 the Ressemann collar, right?
`
`Page 23
`
`Page 25
`
`1 A. Yes.
`2 Q. Now, in this proposed combination, the red
`3 is polymer again, right?
`4 A. Excuse me. Let me just make sure I get the
`5 colorized version up here.
`6 Okay. Your question again?
`7 Q. Yeah. In the image on the bottom of
`8 page 54 in your declaration, which is in
`9 paragraph 130, the red is to designate polymer,
`10 right?
`11 A. The red is to designate the -- I think
`12 the -- make sure we're accurate here, the -- let me
`13 get it up: Ressemann. It's the polymer coating
`14 that's applied after assembly.
`15 Q. Right. And that's a polymer coating you're
`16 saying is applied in your proposed combination,
`17 right?
`18 A. Please restate that.
`19 Q. Right. The image we see on page 54 of your
`20 declaration is an image of a proposed combination
`21 you created, right?
`22 A. Well, hold on. Give me a second to re-read
`23 this paragraph and make sure I answer that
`24 correctly. (Reviewing document.)
`25 Yeah, so -- again, your question, please?
`
`1 A. The red -- as stated in my declaration, the
`2 red -- the red polymer, as represented by red here,
`3 would encase the pushrod, the tab, and the tubular
`4 structure.
`5 Q. Okay. And by "tab," you're referring to
`6 the tab of the Ressemann collar, right?
`7 A. I am referring to the tab of the Ressemann
`8 collar.
`9 Q. And in this combination that you show in
`10 paragraph 130, similar to the combination we
`11 discussed on Monday with Ressemann, you do not show
`12 polymer between the wire and the tab portion of
`13 Ressemann, right?
`14 A. I'm sorry. You broke up at the very
`15 beginning of that one, on my end.
`16 Q. Okay. Let's start over.
`17 On Monday we discussed the steps that you
`18 would propose to create this modified design,
`19 right?
`20 A. Yes, we did.
`21 Q. Yeah. And the only point I want to make
`22 is: Am I correct that you were proposing making
`23 this modification that you show in paragraph 130 in
`24 a way that you, first, use adhesive to join the
`25 wire to the tab portion in Ressemann?
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`7 (Pages 22 - 25)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`Page 7
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2241
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
`Page 28
`
`1 A. Again, can you rephrase that? So --
`2 Q. I can rephrase. I can try to simplify it,
`3 if you want.
`4 A. Yes, please.
`5 Q. Yeah. Is the first step using the adhesive
`6 or is the first step using the polymer?
`7 MR. PINAHS: Objection. Form.
`8 A. I think -- I believe or -- the polymer --
`9 the polymer is the last step.
`10 So whether the first step is apply
`11 adhesive, bring the parts together, or whether the
`12 first step is put the parts together, apply
`13 adhesive, either of those being the possibilities
`14 and depend on adhesive -- on all the things we
`15 discussed on Monday, most likely.
`16 Once those parts were joined, then the
`17 assembly being encased in polymer.
`18 Q. Okay.
`19 A. Or coated in polymer.
`20 Q. Okay. Paragraph 131 of your declaration.
`21 Am I correct that in paragraph 131 you proposed --
`22 A. And just for a moment, the -- I decided to
`23 go to the Exhibit Share, so --
`24 Q. Okay.
`25 A. -- let me just get to 131 then.
`
`Page 27
`1 Q. Okay. Just let me know when you're there,
`2 please.
`3 A. Yeah, I'm there. Just let me review it.
`4 (Reviewing document.)
`5 Okay. I've refreshed myself on 131.
`6 Q. Okay. Before we go to 131, let me ask you
`7 one more thing about your proposed combination in
`8 130.
`9 A. Okay. 130. Okay.
`10 Q. Are there any differences between what
`11 would be required to join Ressemann's collar on top
`12 of Ressemann's shaft 120, on the one hand, and
`13 joining Ressemann's collar on top of Itou's push
`14 wire on the other hand?
`15 MR. PINAHS: Objection. Form.
`16 A. There are a number of choices that could be
`17 made that are -- present differences in approach
`18 whether you are using a tube or a wire. I think
`19 the -- you know, one of the -- one of the biggest
`20 differences is the -- as -- so are we on -- so this
`21 goes to essentially those choices that I outlined
`22 in paragraph 131.
`23 So you might -- your choices for assembly,
`24 between the tube and the tab, I want to say are
`25 limited -- are clearly different than a wire and
`
`1 the tab. In the tube and the tab, your tubing is
`2 typically very constant in diameter from end to
`3 end. With a wire, you have the ability to taper
`4 it, flatten it, reduce it, present the wire as an
`5 additional means of changing stiffness along its
`6 axis.
`7 And I think probably -- I have it in here a
`8 little bit later in the deposition [sic], but I
`9 think the -- if you go to page 86 or page -- I
`10 think it's paragraph 189 is probably the -- the
`11 clearest difference between the choice of a tube,
`12 which would be -- and this is showing a wire a
`13 constant diameter, but tube would be a constant
`14 diameter too.
`15 At the top of page 86, we show essentially
`16 something very similar to what is shown in
`17 paragraph -- let me make sure I've got the right
`18 paragraph here as I flip back and forth -- 130.
`19 So the item on the left could be a tube on
`20 the bottom or a solid wire. The image on the right
`21 of paragraph 189, top of 86, would be a tapered
`22 wire placed under the tab. Either of those could
`23 be done, I think, from an engineering choice.
`24 In combination with the Ressemann tab, I'd
`25 want to taper the wire to be efficient on space,
`
`Page 29
`
`1 help gain everything I can in trying to smooth
`2 transitional flexibility. So -- and in that case
`3 of a wire, you have some additional ways they can
`4 be assembled, which would include some spot welding
`5 of the tab onto the wire in the localized -- in the
`6 areas where the metal Ressemann collar overlap onto
`7 the wire.
`8 Q. Is that everything? Are you done with your
`9 answer?
`10 A. I believe so.
`11 Q. Since you referred to paragraph 189, I want
`12 to ask you a question about that. You said that
`13 the wire could be tapered as shown in 189; is that
`14 right?
`15 A. Yes. One option in paragraph 189, which
`16 would be the image on the right, at the top of the
`17 page, would be the wire tapered down under the tab.
`18 Q. Okay. You have not identified any prior
`19 art that shows to taper a wire from a circular
`20 cross-section down to a smaller circular
`21 cross-section, right?
`22 MR. PINAHS: Object to form.
`23 You can answer, Mr. Jones.
`24 A. Was going to say guidewire's been used for
`25 a long, long time. I'm not the -- able to tell you
`
`www

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