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)
` ___________________________________________________
`
`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL PORTIONS - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
` REMOTE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
` PAUL ZALESKY, Ph.D.
`
` DATE: January 25, 2021
`
` TIME: 9:58 a.m. (Eastern)
`
` PLACE: Veritext Virtual Videoconference
`
` PAGES: 1 to 211
` JOB NO.: MW 4402874
` REPORTED BY: Merilee Johnson, RDR, CRR, CRC, RSA
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`1 E X H I B I T S
` (Continued)
`
`2 3
`
` Exhibit 1908 Reissue Patent Application for ... 90
`4 Coaxial Guide Catheter for
`5 Interventional Cardiology
`6 Procedures
`7 Exhibit 1919 Declaration of Paul Zalesky ...... 10
`8 Submitted in Support of
`9 Petitioners' Oppositions to
`10 Patent Owner's Motions to Amend
`11 Exhibit 2071 Medtronic marketing: An .......... 161
`12 Extension of You, Telescope Guide
`13 Extension Catheter
`14 Exhibit 2197 Proximal SA Tracker Week 28....... 206
`15 Exhibit 2225 Declaration of Dr. Paul Zalesky .. 26
`16 in Opposition to Motion for
`17 Preliminary Injunction
`18 Exhibit 2234 United States Reissued Patent .... 108
`19 Patent No. US RE46,116 E, Date of
`20 Reissued Patent: August 23, 2016
`21 Exhibit 2235 Medtronic Telescope Guide ........ 165
`22 Extension Catheter, Clinical
`23 Evaluation Report
`24 MED000134_0001 to 0126
`25
`
`1 A P P E A R A N C E S
` (All appearing remotely via videoconference)
`
`23
`
` ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
`4 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
` BY: Emily J Tremblay, Esq
`5 Cyrus A Morton, Esq
` 800 LaSalle Avenue
`6 Suite 2800
` Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`7 Phone: (612) 349-8500
` Email: ETremblay@RobinsKaplan com
`8 Email: CMorton@RobinsKaplan com
`9
`10 ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNERS:
`11 CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH,
` LINDQUIST & SCHUMAN, PA
`12 BY: Joseph W Winkels, Esq
` 225 South Sixth Street
`13 Suite 4200
` Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`14 Phone: (612) 436-9600
` Email: JWinkels@CarlsonCaspers com
`
`15
`
`16
`
` -and-
`
` DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP
`17 BY: Kenneth E Levitt, Esq
` 50 South Sixth Street
`18 Suite 1500
` Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402
`19 Phone: (612) 340-2600
` Email: Levitt Kenneth@Dorsey com
`
`20
`21 ALSO APPEARED:
`22 Greg Smock (Teleflex) (Until 1:28 p m )
` Jay Church (Videographer)
`
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 5
`
`1 E X H I B I T S
` (Continued)
`
`2 3
`
` Exhibit 2237 Patent Owner's Contingent Motion . 46
`4 to Amend U.S. Patent RE 45,380
`5 Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`6 Exhibit 2238 Patent Owner's Contingent Motion . 123
`7 to Amend U.S. Patent RE 45,776
`8 Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`9 Exhibit 2239 Patent Owner's Contingent Motion . 134
`10 to Amend U.S. Patent 8,048,032
`11 Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1 I N D E X
`
`2 3
`
` WITNESS: PAUL ZALESKY, Ph.D. PAGE
`4 Examination by Mr. Winkels....................... 7
`5 Examination by Ms. Tremblay......................207
`
`6 7
`
` SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
`8 Page 166, Line 2
`9
`10 E X H I B I T S
`11
`12 EXHIBITS FIRST REFERRED TO: PAGE
`13 Exhibit 1001 United States Reissued Patent .... 120
`14 Patent No. US RE47,379 E, Date of
`15 Reissued Patent: May 7, 2019
`16 Exhibit 1830 Declaration of Paul Zalesky ...... 148
`17 Submitted in Connection with
`18 Petitioners' Replies to Patent
`19 Owner's Responses
`20 Exhibit 1842 Application Transmittal for ...... 23
`21 Coaxial Guide Catheter for
`22 Interventional Cardiology
`23 Procedures
`24
`25
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`2 (Pages 2 - 5)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`1 (PROCEEDINGS, 01/25/2021, 9:58 a m.)
`2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. We
`3 are going on the record. The time is currently
`4 9:58 a m. This is Eastern Standard Time. Today's
`5 date is Monday, January 25, 2021.
`6 This is Media Unit No. 1 of the
`7 video-recorded deposition of Dr. Paul Zalesky.
`8 This is in the matter of Medtronic, Inc., et al.,
`9 versus Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L. This is filed
`10 in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent
`11 Nos. IPR2020-00126, 00127, 00128, 00129, 00130,
`12 00132, 00134, 00135, 00136, 00137, 00138.
`13 This deposition is being held remotely.
`14 The witness is currently located in East Greenwich,
`15 Rhode Island.
`16 My name is Jay Church from Veritext. I'm
`17 the videographer. The court reporter is Merilee
`18 Johnson. I'm not authorized to administer an oath.
`19 I'm not related to any party in the action nor am I
`20 financially interested in the outcome.
`21 If counsel has any objections to
`22 proceeding, please state them at the time of your
`23 appearance. And now if we could have counsel state
`24 your affiliations for the record and then, after
`25 which, the court reporter can swear in the witness.
`
`1 A. Yeah, I'm not seeing a date. I'm seeing
`2 "Date Modified" under the exhibits, but I'm not
`3 seeing the date of the actual share.
`4 Q. In the far-left window, do you have a bunch
`5 of folders that say "Depositions"? It should say,
`6 "Deposition of Dr. Paul Zalesky 1-25-2021."
`7 A. Just got to it, yeah.
`8 Q. Okay. Yeah. If you open up that folder --
`9 A. I'm sorry. No, these are January 8th.
`10 Q. January 8th.
`11 A. Let me try again. Oh, I've got one,
`12 January 24th. Got it. Okay. There.
`13 Q. Okay. Perfect. I'll generally refer to
`14 documents in hard copy, if you prefer to look at
`15 the documents in hard copy. But if you want to
`16 look on the screen, I'll put the documents in that
`17 Marked Exhibits folder as well for you. Okay?
`18 A. Okay.
`19 Q. All right. So you've had your deposition
`20 taken before, correct?
`21 A. Yes.
`22 Q. Yep. And you've had your deposition taken
`23 via Zoom before in this case with my colleague Tara
`24 Norgard, right?
`25 A. Yes.
`
`Page 7
`
`Page 9
`
`1 MR. WINKELS: Good morning. On behalf
`2 of patent owner, Joe Winkels with the Carlson
`3 Caspers firm. Also with me is Ken Levitt with the
`4 Dorsey & Whitney firm and Greg Smock from Teleflex.
`5 MS. TREMBLAY: Good morning. On behalf
`6 of petitioners, my name is Emily Tremblay with
`7 Robins Kaplan. Also with me is Cyrus Morton, also
`8 with Robins Kaplan.
`9 PAUL ZALESKY, Ph.D.,
`10 duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
`11 EXAMINATION
`12 BY MR. WINKELS:
`13 Q. Good morning, Dr. Zalesky. How are you?
`14 A. I'm good. How are you?
`15 Q. Very good.
`16 Do you have the Exhibit Share open as well
`17 as the hard-copy documents in front of you?
`18 A. I do, but it looks like exhibits from the
`19 last session or a previous session. I'm not sure.
`20 I'll try to refresh.
`21 Q. Yep. So if -- there's two folders,
`22 actually, for your name. One dated January 13th,
`23 one dated January 25th. On the left-hand side. If
`24 you can make sure you're in the January 25th
`25 folder.
`
`1 Q. Okay. So same process. As you've
`2 experienced before with these Zoom depositions,
`3 it's really important that you and I not speak over
`4 each other. So I will do my best to not interrupt
`5 you, and if you could do your best to not interrupt
`6 me, that'll make Merilee's job a lot easier as our
`7 court reporter.
`8 Does that sound fair?
`9 A. Yes.
`10 MR. WINKELS: It looks like Emily lost
`11 audio. Let's go off the record and try to get her
`12 connected to audio here.
`13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the
`14 record at 10:03 a m.
`15 (Break: 10:03 a m. to 10:04 a m.)
`16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going back on
`17 the record at 10:04 a m.
`18 BY MR. WINKELS:
`19 Q. Okay. Dr. Zalesky, so today we're talking
`20 about your opinions related to written description
`21 and the secondary considerations of copying. Okay?
`22 A. Yes.
`23 Q. And you submitted a couple declarations in
`24 this regard. The first one is Exhibit 1919; is
`25 that correct?
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`3 (Pages 6 - 9)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`Page 12
`
`1 A. Yes.
`2 (Exhibit No. 1919 was introduced.)
`3 Q. And do you have Exhibit 1919 in front of
`4 you?
`5 A. I do.
`6 Q. Okay. We'll focus on your opinions in that
`7 declaration for the first part of today and then
`8 we'll transition to your second declaration later
`9 in the day.
`10 In connection with your Exhibit 1919, with
`11 that declaration, what did you review in support of
`12 that declaration?
`13 A. There was a brief, I believe. Probably two
`14 of them, one from different counsels, regarding
`15 suggested claim amendments. So that was the
`16 primary document that I reviewed. And the
`17 background to that including, I believe, a case
`18 special expert report.
`19 Q. Okay. Now, in this case you've also
`20 reviewed the five patents and claims that are at
`21 issue in these IPRs, right?
`22 A. My emphasis was on the '629 application and
`23 the '032 issue, as it was my understanding that
`24 that's where the -- I don't know if "baseline" is
`25 the correct term, but the original specifications
`
`1 the 2011-2012 time frame.
`2 Q. Okay. So let me just go through one by one
`3 because I do want to understand what you reviewed
`4 and what you haven't reviewed.
`5 Have you reviewed the entirety of the '032
`6 prosecution history?
`7 A. I don't believe I've seen the entire
`8 prosecution history.
`9 Q. Okay. Have you reviewed the entirety of
`10 the '380 prosecution history?
`11 A. The same answer. In each of these, I don't
`12 recall looking at the entire prosecution histories.
`13 Q. Okay. And just for the record, that's the
`14 same answer for the '776 patent, the '760 patent,
`15 and the '379 patent, correct?
`16 A. Yes.
`17 Q. Okay. Is the only portion of the
`18 prosecution history that you've reviewed are
`19 portions that were specifically given to you by
`20 counsel to review?
`21 A. That's my recollection, yes. And just to
`22 give you a very specific example, on page 19
`23 there's a citation regarding patent office claim
`24 rejection.
`25 So it's only that level of detail that I
`
`Page 11
`
`Page 13
`
`1 resided.
`2 Q. Okay. Did you look at the claims of the
`3 other patents in addition to the '032 patent?
`4 A. I would certainly have looked at those.
`5 It's been a while, quite honestly. But I did look
`6 at them and saw a lot of redundancy.
`7 Q. Okay. How about the prosecution histories
`8 for the five patents that are at issue in these
`9 IPRs. Have you reviewed the prosecution history
`10 for those five patents?
`11 A. I was given at some point a chart of the
`12 file history, and there was also a table on page 11
`13 of the application numbers, filing dates, and
`14 patent numbers at issue. But as I said earlier, I
`15 emphasized the '629 and '032 and didn't re-review
`16 in any detail the other patents -- or applications.
`17 Q. Okay. When I refer to "prosecution
`18 history," do you understand that I'm referring to
`19 the process by which the application is reviewed by
`20 the patent office and there's some correspondence
`21 that is generated as part of that process?
`22 A. I do. I'm familiar with that. I don't
`23 recall seeing a detailed prosecution history or
`24 detail. I do recall some specific excerpts, such
`25 as a hearing from the patent office, I believe, in
`
`1 reviewed.
`2 Q. Okay. So is it fair to say that the only
`3 portions of the prosecution history of the five
`4 patents you reviewed are the portions that you
`5 expressly discuss in your declaration,
`6 Exhibit 1919?
`7 A. Yes, that's correct.
`8 Q. Now, you also mention the motions to amend.
`9 Do you understand that there were motions to amend
`10 brought in each of the five -- strike that.
`11 Do you understand that there were motions
`12 to amend brought regarding each of the five patents
`13 at issue in this case?
`14 A. I don't remember explicitly seeing that,
`15 but that was my understanding, that the proposed
`16 amendments applied to the various patents.
`17 Q. Okay. And through your process of
`18 providing your opinions in this case, did you
`19 review all of the proposed amendments for the
`20 five patents in this case?
`21 A. I don't believe I did. You know, I'd have
`22 to go through each one, literally, one by one.
`23 And, of course, that's all in my declaration. So
`24 the specific amendments that I did review are as
`25 listed in the Substitute Claim section of my
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`4 (Pages 10 - 13)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
`1 declaration.
`2 Q. Okay. And that's -- and paragraph 14 of
`3 your declaration, that's what I was kind of asking
`4 you about, is you said, "I have been asked to
`5 review the Root patents and patent owner's
`6 contingent motions to amend the Root patents..."
`7 And I just want to confirm that you did, in
`8 fact, look at all five of the motions to amend for
`9 the five patents that were at issue in the case.
`10 A. I believe so, yes.
`11 Q. Okay. Now, did you prepare to testify
`12 today, I take it?
`13 A. Yes. I had some preparation with counsel
`14 on -- this past Friday. And then over the weekend,
`15 I probably spent maybe an hour just reviewing my
`16 declaration.
`17 Q. Okay. Let's go to just the background part
`18 of your declaration. And I just want to understand
`19 just a little bit of your prior work because I know
`20 you've done a lot of work in the catheter area. So
`21 I just have a few questions about that.
`22 In paragraph 5 you discuss the advent --
`23 what I call the advent of interventional cardiology
`24 in the '70s and '80s; is that right?
`25 A. Yes.
`
`Page 15
`
`1 Q. Is that when you would say interventional
`2 cardiology started, is in the '70s?
`3 A. I probably wouldn't make that general of a
`4 statement. I was fortunate in my very first job in
`5 the medical industry to be at an American Heart
`6 meeting, I believe it was in Florida, when
`7 Dr. Andreas Grüntzig from Switzerland made a
`8 presentation in a very small meeting room about
`9 doing the very first what is now known as coronary
`10 angioplasty.
`11 So you could argue that -- I believe that
`12 was 1979. You could argue that was the initiation,
`13 but interventional cardiology, I think in general,
`14 is more of a 1980s event.
`15 Q. Okay. And it looks like at least as early
`16 as 1986 you started working directly in
`17 interventional cardiology; is that right?
`18 A. Actually a bit before that. So in 1984, as
`19 a vice president for a company called Meadox, I
`20 went over to Denmark, to a young company in a small
`21 town outside of Copenhagen and looked at guide
`22 catheters that were being fabricated for
`23 commercialization.
`24 So I would say starting in 1984. And then
`25 between 1984 and 1986, I worked at a fledgling
`
`Page 16
`1 division of Boston Scientific called Mansfield
`2 Scientific, which evolved into their interventional
`3 cardiology company. And during my tenure there as
`4 the head of R&D, I presented, for instance, to the
`5 panel at the FDA for Boston's first approval of its
`6 initial coronary angioplasty catheter.
`7 Q. And how long were you at Boston Scientific
`8 in that role?
`9 A. Approximately two years.
`10 Q. Then as we move on to paragraph 6, it looks
`11 like around 1986 you cofounded InterTherapy; is
`12 that right?
`13 A. Yes.
`14 Q. And with InterTherapy, were you still
`15 working and designing catheters and working in the
`16 cath lab?
`17 A. Pretty much so. It was a startup, which we
`18 thought was the only one in the world, dealing with
`19 what's called intravascular ultrasound. In other
`20 words, putting ultrasound technology into a
`21 catheter that could actually fit inside of a
`22 coronary artery.
`23 So the focus was clearly on
`24 angioplasty-related procedures in a cardiac cath
`25 lab.
`
`Page 17
`1 Q. Okay. And then it looks like around 1990,
`2 am I correct that you transitioned to Baxter, the
`3 Baxter company?
`4 A. Yes.
`5 Q. And with Baxter, were you working on
`6 catheters and catheter design as well?
`7 A. Baxter had a group called the
`8 CardioVascular Specialties group in Irvine,
`9 California, which is where I was located. And I
`10 had a dual role. I was VP of R&D for the
`11 cardiopulmonary bypass surgery division called
`12 Bentley, but I also was the point person for the
`13 various five divisions, one of which was called
`14 LIS, Least Invasive Surgery. And that was
`15 dedicated to interventional cardiology.
`16 I represented that company and regularly
`17 participated in their developments and their
`18 related activities to cardiology.
`19 Q. And did that include developments in
`20 catheter design and things of that nature?
`21 A. Yes.
`22 Q. Okay. And then in 1995 you founded the
`23 TherOx company; is that right?
`24 A. Yes.
`25 Q. And I believe you said that you were
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`5 (Pages 14 - 17)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 18
`1 working on catheters in your role at TherOx, right?
`2 A. It was more than catheters. It was also
`3 guidewires and some other devices. But the main
`4 focus was an intercoronary catheter for delivery of
`5 a very specialized solution to treat ischemia or
`6 myocardial pain associated with a heart attack.
`7 So, again, all the cardiac cath lab, all
`8 interventional cardiology.
`9 Q. Okay. And then in paragraph 10, you say,
`10 "In the 1995 to 2005 time period, myriad guide
`11 catheter configurations were developed and tested
`12 by many different companies, including
`13 multi-hardness bodies, multi-flexibility
`14 properties, various tip geometries and materials,
`15 and various lumen geometries."
`16 Did I read that right, in paragraph 10?
`17 A. Yes.
`18 Q. What did you mean by "multi-hardness
`19 bodies"?
`20 A. Several companies -- and I'm sure it
`21 included what is now Abbott, included Boston
`22 Scientific, probably included Medtronic or a
`23 company that it subsequently acquired or acquired
`24 during that time frame -- would develop what I call
`25 a multi-hardness catheter.
`
`Page 19
`1 And by that I mean the proximal portion --
`2 and that could be anywhere from, say, 20 percent to
`3 80 percent from the proximal hub, going distal --
`4 would be a relatively high-durometer or
`5 high-hardness polymer that was excluded. The
`6 rationale for that was to give it the pushability,
`7 or the push force, because of its relative
`8 stiffness.
`9 And then some more distal portion of that
`10 same catheter would utilize a different polymer
`11 hardness or durometer so that it would have
`12 inherently more flexibility and also be less
`13 traumatic when it was inserted into the
`14 cardiovascular anatomy.
`15 So that's one example. There were
`16 variations on a theme. I saw catheters that had
`17 three or four or even five different zones of
`18 hardness from proximal to distal end.
`19 Q. Okay. And you also refer to
`20 multi-flexibility properties. What do you mean by
`21 "multi-flexibility properties" in that
`22 paragraph 10.
`23 A. That's related to what I just described in
`24 terms of different hardness polymers. But in
`25 addition to the hardness of the polymers, you could
`
`Page 20
`1 modify the underlying braid or coil that gave it --
`2 the lumen support, so that the lumen would not
`3 collapse.
`4 And, for instance, you could have a coil
`5 with one pitch proximally and another pitch
`6 distally to enhance the distal flexibility while
`7 maintaining the relative proximal stiffness.
`8 Q. Okay. And in paragraph 10, you also refer
`9 to various materials. What are some of the various
`10 materials that were being used for catheter design
`11 in the 1995 to 2005 time period?
`12 A. It was literally all over the map. From
`13 stainless steel hypotubing to various versions of
`14 polyurethanes, which subsequently became what's
`15 commonly called PVACs these days, which is
`16 essentially an engineered polymer with selected
`17 properties. But also polyethylene; PVC,
`18 polyvinylchloride; and others.
`19 So it was a function of what properties
`20 were you actually looking for in terms of the
`21 material selected.
`22 Q. And would engineers in the field in that
`23 '95 to 2005 time frame, depending on what
`24 properties they were looking for, am I correct that
`25 they would change materials and/or change
`
`Page 21
`1 thicknesses of materials to ascertain or achieve
`2 those properties; is that right?
`3 A. Yes.
`4 Q. And so all this work that you're referring
`5 to designing catheters with multi-hardness bodies
`6 and multi-flexibility properties and different
`7 materials, that was all being done in the '95 to
`8 the 2005 time frame?
`9 A. Yes. I think it actually started well
`10 before that. Certainly in the latter '80s and
`11 through the '90s, but certainly through that time
`12 frame as well.
`13 Q. Okay. So by 2005, am I correct that the
`14 catheter field was pretty mature at that point?
`15 A. I would say very mature.
`16 Q. Okay. And there wasn't anything
`17 unpredictable about the field by 2005?
`18 MS. TREMBLAY: Objection. Form.
`19 A. I don't think I would make that kind of
`20 general statement. I mean, there are always new
`21 challenges. You know, different kinds of lesions
`22 that, for instance, in 1995 would end up going to
`23 bypass surgery because of their difficulty, whereas
`24 by 2005 the interventional cardiologist had
`25 new-and-improved tools, including better stents,
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`6 (Pages 18 - 21)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
`Page 24
`
`1 lower-profile devices, and so forth.
`2 Q. Based on what you said about catheter
`3 design kind of starting in the 1980s, as we move
`4 forward 20 years to the 2005 time period, catheter
`5 design wasn't a new field in 2005, right?
`6 A. That's correct.
`7 Q. And there was a lot of prior work that had
`8 been done with catheter design that allowed
`9 engineers to predict how a certain catheter design
`10 may function, right?
`11 MS. TREMBLAY: Objection. Form.
`12 A. I would say that's true in general, but
`13 with exceptions, in the sense that especially when
`14 you're playing with a different geometry of a
`15 device or looking for lower profile, you really had
`16 to evaluate prototypes to see if they, in fact,
`17 would function as you hoped.
`18 Q. Okay. Now, I believe you say in your
`19 declaration you're an inventor on more than
`20 20 patents; is that right?
`21 A. It's roughly 20. I haven't kept count for
`22 a while. So that's roughly the number, yes.
`23 Q. Okay. And in various management positions
`24 you've had through the years, you were in charge of
`25 intellectual property for those companies; is that
`
`1 application?
`2 A. My understanding is it's what I would call
`3 a specialized guide catheter for use with
`4 interventional cardiology devices and procedures.
`5 And the specialized nature was intended to provide
`6 enhanced backup support for those procedures.
`7 Q. And what do you understand the structure of
`8 the device that is disclosed in the '629
`9 application?
`10 A. Aside from things like a proximal hub and a
`11 hemostasis valve, which I would argue are
`12 accessories, the fundamental device appeared to
`13 have really just two portions. They have a rigid
`14 portion and a flexible portion that was usable with
`15 a rapid exchange procedure.
`16 Q. And I'd like to hone in on that and ask you
`17 to be more specific. What do you understand the
`18 scope of the invention was that the inventors were
`19 in possession of?
`20 MS. TREMBLAY: Objection. Form.
`21 MR. WINKELS: Counsel, what's your
`22 objection there?
`23 MS. TREMBLAY: I'm objecting to the --
`24 to you characterizing the disclosure as a single
`25 invention, when each claim would arguably be
`
`Page 23
`
`Page 25
`
`1 right?
`2 A. In most cases, yes.
`3 Q. Did you have responsibilities to review
`4 patent applications and prosecution histories for
`5 those companies?
`6 A. I often would defer to the -- either the
`7 out-house -- out-of-house -- external patent
`8 counsel or, in some cases, internal patent counsel
`9 to obviously manage the details of prosecution
`10 histories and so forth, and he or she would give me
`11 the highlights. But in terms of an application, I
`12 would almost in all cases review it in detail.
`13 Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned the '629
`14 application, and I want to draw your attention to
`15 that. I believe you referred to it as Exhibit 1842
`16 in your declaration, right?
`17 A. I believe so.
`18 (Exhibit No. 1842 was introduced.)
`19 Q. And if you look at Exhibit 1842, am I
`20 correct that this is the '629 application that you
`21 reviewed in working on your opinions in this case?
`22 A. Just paging through it to make sure
`23 it's . . . I believe so, yes.
`24 Q. Okay. What do you understand the invention
`25 to be in the patent application of the '629
`
`1 considered its own invention.
`2 MR. WINKELS: Okay.
`3 BY MR. WINKELS:
`4 Q. So let's talk -- Dr. Zalesky, as your
`5 counsel just identified, there's multiple things
`6 disclosed in the '629 application, right?
`7 A. Yes.
`8 Q. Okay. So what do you understand the
`9 inventor was in possession of in the '629
`10 application?
`11 A. I believe the inventor had ideas and he had
`12 a sketch or two, from documents I've looked at in
`13 previous filings.
`14 And the idea is related to having, as I
`15 mentioned, two different segments or two different
`16 portions of a device. One being what he refers to
`17 as a substantially rigid portion, made from some
`18 version of hypodermic needle tubing that would
`19 enable a pushing force, and a more distally located
`20 flexible segment that would accommodate an
`21 interventional cardiology device.
`22 Q. Okay. And you referred to a sketch. I've
`23 also included in your binder Exhibit 2225. If you
`24 could turn to Exhibit 2225. And let me know when
`25 you're there, please.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`7 (Pages 22 - 25)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
`Page 28
`
`1 (Exhibit No. 2225 was introduced.)
`2 A. Okay. I'm there.
`3 Q. And Exhibit 2225 is a declaration that you
`4 provided in the district court litigation in this
`5 case, where you also opined on the written
`6 description requirement. Right?
`7 A. Yes.
`8 Q. Okay. If I could draw your attention to
`9 paragraph 26.
`10 A. Okay.
`11 Q. And in paragraph 26, you are discussing the
`12 Itou reference, right?
`13 A. Yes.
`14 Q. And at the bottom of paragraph 26, you are
`15 discussing how Itou discloses an oblique opening
`16 section 23, right?
`17 A. Yes.
`18 Q. Okay. Then in paragraph 28, on the next
`19 page, you show a drawing from one of the inventors
`20 of the patents in this case, right?
`21 A. Yes.
`22 Q. And am I right that the point you are
`23 making is that the inventor's sketch that you show
`24 in paragraph 28 incorporated an angled opening,
`25 right?
`
`1 A. No. It appears to be clearly just a
`2 perpendicular -- what I would call a perpendicular
`3 end opening.
`4 Q. Okay. So your position is not that the
`5 inventors in this case took the idea of an angled
`6 opening from Itou, right?
`7 MS. TREMBLAY: Objection. Form.
`8 Scope.
`9 A. Itou describes, as you refer to, an oblique
`10 opening, yes.
`11 Q. Okay. Are you contending that the
`12 inventors got the idea of the angled opening from
`13 Itou or not?
`14 A. In the inventor's sketch, I don't see any
`15 indication of an oblique or an angular opening.
`16 Q. Okay.
`17 A. I simply see an end opening.
`18 Q. Okay. All right. Let's turn back to that
`19 Exhibit 1842, which is the '629 application.
`20 A. Okay.
`21 Q. And if I could draw your attention to
`22 Figure 1, then, of the application, which is on
`23 page 25 of Exhibit 1842.
`24 A. I have it.
`25 Q. Okay. Thank you. How would you describe
`
`Page 27
`
`Page 29
`
`1 A. No --
`2 MS. TREMBLAY: Objection. Scope.
`3 A. No, that's not what I'm trying to state
`4 here.
`5 Q. So your position here was not that the
`6 inventors got the idea of an angled opening from
`7 Itou; is that right?
`8 MS. TREMBLAY: Objection. Scope.
`9 A. As I reviewed the inventor's sketch on the
`10 bottom -- well, paragraph 28, I did not speak to
`11 any kind of angulation of opening. What I was
`12 referring to is paragraph 26, where I make the
`13 comment you just mentioned about an oblique opening
`14 section. That, in fact, there was an opening
`15 section. But I didn't reference this specific
`16 geometry.
`17 Q. Okay. Does -- when you say "oblique
`18 opening section" in Itou, are you referring to
`19 Itou's angled opening?
`20 A. Yes.
`21 MS. TREMBLAY: Objection. Scope.
`22 A. Yes.
`23 Q. And when you look at the drawing in
`24 paragraph 28, is there an angled opening shown in
`25 that drawing in paragraph 28?
`
`1 the device that is shown in Figure 1?
`2 A. This looks like a slightly cleaned-out
`3 version of the figure we just reviewed excerpted in
`4 my declaration, which was based on a sketch by the
`5 inventors of the two components I described a
`6 few minutes ago with an end opening into the
`7 flexible portion.
`8 Q. Okay. So Figure 1 shows an end opening or
`9 a perpendicular opening in the flexible section,
`10 right?
`11 A. I have to assume -- when you say "in the
`12 flexible section," that's not really clear.
`13 There's no -- there's no delineation of where the
`14 rigid segment ends and the flexible portion begins.
`15 But it's certainly an end opening.
`16 Q. And it shows that the end opening is in the
`17 reinforced portion it refers to as Item 18, right?
`18 A. I have to go back and check the embodiment
`19 description, but it appears to be an end opening
`20 into -- that leads into that section, yes.
`21 Q. Yeah. And let's go back, because I do want
`22 to confirm this. And I believe in this
`23 application -- if you go to page 12.
`24 A. Okay.
`25 Q. And I'd draw your attention to lines 17 to
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`8 (Pages 26 - 29)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 30
`1 20 on page 12. And why don't you just go ahead and
`2 review lines 17 to 20, and then I'll ask my
`3 qu

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