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
`PETER KEITH
`
`DATE: November 24, 2020
`
`TIME: 9:00 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
`
`IPR2020-01344
`
`Medtronic Ex-1800
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`1 INDEX
`
`Page 4
`
`2 3
`
`WITNESS: PETER KEITH PAGE:
`4 EXAMINATION BY MR. MORTON.................. 6
`5 EXAMINATION BY MR. WINKELS................. 193
`
`6 7 8
`
`EXHIBITS MARKED: PAGE:
`9 EXHIBIT 1122 Photos of GuideLiner Versions
`10 1, 2 and 3...................... 43
`11 EXHIBIT 1123 U.S. Patent 7,422,579........... 146
`12
`13 (Original exhibits attached to original transcript;
`14 copies provided to counsel.)
`15
`16 EXHIBITS PREVIOUSLY MARKED AND REFERRED TO:
`17 EXHIBIT 1008 U.S. Patent 7,604,612.......... 159
`18 EXHIBIT 1009 U.S. Patent 5,439,445.......... 69
`19 EXHIBIT 1035 U.S. Patent Application
`20 Publication US2004/0010280..... 99
`21 EXHIBIT 2138 Declaration of Peter Keith
`22 in IPR2020-00127............... 83
`23
`24
`25
`
`1 APPEARANCES
`2 (All parties appeared via videoconference)
`
`3 4
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
`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 cmorton@robinskaplan.com
`12 cpinahs@robinskaplan.com
`13
`14 ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`15 Mr. Joseph W. Winkels, Esq.
`16 Mr. J. Derek Vandenburgh, Esq.
`17 CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH & LINDQUIST
`18 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`19 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`20 (612) 436-9600
`21 jwinkels@carlsoncaspers.com
`22 dvandenburgh@carlsoncaspers.com
`23
`24
`25 (APPEARANCES continued on next page)
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 5
`
`1 P R O C E E D I N G S
`2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. We
`3 are going on the record at 9:00 a.m. CST, on
`4 Tuesday, November 24th, 2020. Audio and video
`5 recording will continue to take place unless all
`6 parties agree to go off the record.
`7 This is Media Unit 1 of the
`8 video-recorded deposition of Peter Keith, in the
`9 matter of Medtronic versus Teleflex Innovations,
`10 filed in the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, case
`11 number IPR2020-00127.
`12 The deposition is being held via
`13 video conference. My name is Craig Jones, from
`14 the firm Veritext Midwest, and I'm the
`15 videographer. The court reporter is Paula
`16 Richter, from the firm Veritext Midwest.
`17 I am not related to any party in
`18 this action, nor am I financially interested in
`19 the outcome.
`20 Counsel and all present in the room
`21 and everyone attending remotely will now state
`22 their appearance and affiliations for the record.
`23 If there are any objections to proceeding, please
`24 state them at the time of your appearance,
`25 beginning with the noticing attorney.
`
`1 APPEARANCES (Continued)
`
`23
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`4 Mr. Kenneth E. Levitt, Esq.
`5 THE DORSEY FIRM
`6 50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500
`7 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`8 (612) 340-2600
`9 levitt.kenneth@dorsey.com
`10
`11
`12 ALSO PRESENT BY VIDEOCONFERENCE:
`13 Craig Jones - Videographer
`14 Grant Franks - Veritext Concierge
`15 Greg Smock - Teleflex
`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
`
`IPR2020-01344
`
`Medtronic Ex-1800
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`1 MR. MORTON: Good morning. This is
`2 Cyrus Morton from the law firm of Robins Kaplan,
`3 on behalf of Petitioner Medtronic. With me also
`4 is Christopher Pinahs.
`5 MR. WINKELS: On behalf of patent
`6 owner, Joe Winkels with the Carlson Caspers firm.
`7 With me from Carlson Caspers is Derek Vandenburgh.
`8 Also on the line is Ken Levitt, from The Dorsey
`9 Firm, and Greg Smock from Teleflex.
`10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the court
`11 reporter please swear in the witness.
`12 PETER KEITH,
`13 duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
`14 EXAMINATION
`15 BY MR. MORTON:
`16 Q. All right. Good morning, Mr. Keith. I know
`17 you were deposed yesterday and a lot of your
`18 background was covered, so I'll try not to be too
`19 repetitive on that. But I do want to walk through
`20 some things that are in your declaration,
`21 specifically your declaration for the '032 patent
`22 in IPR2020-00127.
`23 Do you have that available?
`24 A. I do.
`25 Q. Okay. And we'll be walking through that and
`
`1 inspected the devices, does that mean basically
`2 you had a version of them and looked at it,
`3 checked it over outside of kind of the operating
`4 context?
`5 A. Yes. In more of a -- like an R&D lab-type
`6 setting.
`7 Q. And you note that you've performed testing on
`8 the GuideLiner, QXM, and Medtronic guide extension
`9 catheters.
`10 Do you see that?
`11 A. Yes.
`12 Q. What testing did you do on GuideLiner?
`13 A. On GuideLiner, I -- in addition to my visual
`14 inspections, I did some flexibility
`15 characterizations, some bending, stiffness
`16 characterizations on different portions of the
`17 device.
`18 Q. Any other testing besides bending and
`19 stiffness testing?
`20 A. I don't recall any others sitting here right
`21 now.
`22 Q. Okay. And then how about same question for
`23 the QXM Boosting Catheter; what testing did you do
`24 on that?
`25 A. I did similar types of testing on that
`
`Page 7
`
`Page 9
`
`1 through some of the other exhibits and prior art
`2 as we go through the day.
`3 So looking at that declaration, you
`4 note in paragraph 18 that you have inspected the
`5 GuideLiner devices, Boston Scientific Guidezilla,
`6 QXM Boosting Catheter, and the Medtronic Telescope
`7 guide extension catheter.
`8 Do you see that?
`9 A. Yes.
`10 Q. And in addition to inspecting, you said you
`11 performed testing?
`12 A. Correct.
`13 Q. Okay. So first, is it true you haven't
`14 actually used any of those devices to perform a
`15 procedure on a patient, correct?
`16 A. That's correct.
`17 Q. Have you witnessed any procedures using those
`18 devices?
`19 A. I have not witnessed any in person. I -- you
`20 know, over the course of the years, I may have
`21 seen some video snippets or certainly, you know,
`22 read some references related to the use of these
`23 devices, but I have not seen a device used in
`24 person.
`25 Q. Okay. So for this case, when you say you
`
`1 device, and I think I also did some dimensional
`2 measurements. I think I -- yeah, that's --
`3 sitting here right now, those are the types of
`4 tests that I recall doing on that device.
`5 Q. All right. And finally, for the Medtronic
`6 Telescope guide extension catheters, what testing
`7 did you perform?
`8 A. Again, similar types of flexibility testing
`9 that I did on the other devices.
`10 Q. All right. Do you have, in your history or
`11 experience, any experience as a librarian?
`12 A. No.
`13 Q. Have you ever worked as an editor of an
`14 engineering journal?
`15 A. No.
`16 Q. All right. Let's jump ahead.
`17 You get into your declaration in,
`18 say, paragraph 38. You're going through a lot of
`19 background and teaching, and here you're teaching
`20 about the use of balloons and stents.
`21 Do you see that?
`22 A. Yes.
`23 Q. And can you tell me -- and take yourself back
`24 into the 1990s -- how does a stent operate? What
`25 is its function? How does it work?
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`3 (Pages 6 - 9)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Page 3
`
`IPR2020-01344
`
`Medtronic Ex-1800
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`Page 12
`
`1 A. I think I outlined it pretty well in my
`2 report. I'm not sure -- you want me to add more
`3 to that or -- I guess I'm not quite sure what
`4 you're asking. I mean, at a high level, they're
`5 devices that are implanted into blood vessels to
`6 dilate and maintain a dilation of a blockage.
`7 Q. Okay. So does the stent dilate the vessel?
`8 A. Typically the stents are mounted on a balloon
`9 catheter, and it's the combination of the stent on
`10 the balloon that's inflated to dilate the lesion.
`11 Q. I think you said the stent is there to
`12 maintain that dilation; is that correct?
`13 A. Yeah. The stent is something that's left
`14 behind as an implant in the patient.
`15 Q. And does it have to then basically press out
`16 against the artery that it's in, or how much force
`17 does it have to apply to maintain that dilation?
`18 A. It's really a function of what -- how much
`19 resistance the dilated lesion is presenting back
`20 onto the stent, so it could be different depending
`21 on the patient's anatomy.
`22 Q. All right. So -- but the stent is designed
`23 to withstand whatever it needs to in order to
`24 maintain that dilation, right?
`25 A. I would say for the most part, yes.
`
`Page 11
`
`1 Q. If you want to follow along in your
`2 declaration, you get to paragraph 57 and you're
`3 now talking about -- you say, "Numerous variables
`4 can impact how easy or difficult it is to treat a
`5 particular patient lesion."
`6 Do you see that?
`7 A. Yes.
`8 Q. Okay. Can you list all the variables you can
`9 think of, please?
`10 A. I -- again, at a high level, I think the
`11 variables that can impact that are the nature of
`12 the lesion itself, the tightness of the lesion.
`13 Is it heavily calcified? Where is it located? Is
`14 it in tortuous anatomy? Is there tortuous anatomy
`15 leading up to it? Is it, you know, in a vein
`16 graft versus in a native coronary artery?
`17 Those are some of the variables that
`18 I can think of sitting here right now.
`19 Q. All right. Let's go down on one of them.
`20 Let's go with a tighter lesion. And I know you
`21 talk about that here, and you say, "tighter lesion
`22 will require a higher advancement force."
`23 Do you see that about halfway down
`24 that paragraph?
`25 A. Yes.
`
`1 Q. So what is a normal advancement for?
`2 A. I'm not sure I understand the question. What
`3 I said here is that -- I think I'm describing sort
`4 of a relative comparison. If it's a tighter
`5 lesion versus one that's not as tight; you may
`6 have to push harder to get across that lesion.
`7 Q. Right. But from an engineering standpoint,
`8 is that something that can be measured, that you
`9 can talk about whether a normal advancement force
`10 versus a higher advancement force?
`11 A. I think it can be measured. I don't have
`12 those numbers in my head right now.
`13 Q. So when you say "higher," do you have any way
`14 to quantify this or give me any idea of what
`15 you're talking about in terms of a higher
`16 advancement force?
`17 A. Sitting here right now, I can't really
`18 quantify that, but I think it's -- I think one
`19 could measure that in different types of lesions.
`20 Q. How would you measure it?
`21 A. Again, I mean, I haven't thought about it. I
`22 don't know exactly how you'd measure it. But, you
`23 know, I think it would be possible to measure --
`24 with a force gauge measure, you know, an
`25 advancement force on the proximal end of the
`
`Page 13
`1 device. You could measure a force being applied
`2 to a lesion if you were doing more of a bench-type
`3 test. I think there are ways that it could be
`4 done, but, again, I haven't given that a whole lot
`5 of thought.
`6 Q. Have you ever done that in your long history
`7 of working on catheters and catheter design?
`8 A. I may have. I don't recall specifically.
`9 Q. And you talk about here the reactive force
`10 for the end, right, and it could cause a guide
`11 catheter to back out.
`12 Do you see that?
`13 A. Yes.
`14 Q. So for that reactive force, again, is there
`15 any way to quantify that for me or tell me how
`16 much force will be required to make the guide
`17 catheter back out?
`18 A. Again, I mean, I think it would depend on
`19 different factors, but for a given situation, I
`20 think that is something that could possibly be
`21 measured. I wouldn't know exactly how to do that
`22 just off the top of my head.
`23 Q. Okay. And so is there sort of a range of
`24 forces that might cause it to back out?
`25 A. There probably is, but I don't know exactly
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`4 (Pages 10 - 13)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Page 4
`
`IPR2020-01344
`
`Medtronic Ex-1800
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
`1 what those would be.
`2 Q. You don't know what the minimum force would
`3 be required to cause it to back out, right?
`4 A. Well, again, it would depend on other factors
`5 too. It could depend on the guide catheter
`6 itself, the anatomy. But for a given scenario, I
`7 think that's something that could be measured.
`8 Q. Okay. And how could it depend on the guide
`9 catheter?
`10 A. Shape, size, construction. Those things can
`11 influence how much -- how easily a guide catheter
`12 could back up -- back out. Sorry.
`13 Q. Okay. And how about the anatomy you said?
`14 How could that impact how much a reactive force is
`15 required to have it back out?
`16 A. Some things I think would be the size of the
`17 aorta, how the guide catheter is positioned within
`18 the aorta relative to the -- to the coronary
`19 artery. Those are a couple examples.
`20 Q. Okay. And are there any other factors
`21 besides the structure or whatever of the guide
`22 catheter and the patient anatomy that can affect
`23 the amount of reactive force required for the
`24 guide catheter to back out?
`25 A. There may be. I can't think of any right
`
`Page 16
`1 know, the guide catheter itself, the construction
`2 details, how far it's being deep-seated.
`3 Those are some of the variables that
`4 could affect that if you were to deep seat a guide
`5 catheter.
`6 Q. All right. And how about another thing that
`7 you discuss in here, the mother and child
`8 arrangement for addressing backup support like the
`9 Shockey patent you discuss. In the mother and
`10 child context, do you have any idea how much extra
`11 force can be applied?
`12 A. I don't have a specific number for that.
`13 And, again, I think it would depend on some
`14 variables of what that mother and child
`15 arrangement is.
`16 Q. Again, in the mother and child context, you
`17 could measure how much extra backup support that's
`18 giving, but that's not something you've done for
`19 this case, right?
`20 A. I think it is something that could be
`21 measured. I have not specifically done that.
`22 Q. Okay. Paragraph 61, your -- again, here
`23 you're talking about teaching mother and child was
`24 known prior to May 2006 to provide backup support;
`25 is that right?
`
`Page 15
`
`Page 17
`
`1 now.
`2 Q. Okay. And, again, this reactive force, this
`3 is something that you could measure, but you
`4 haven't done that for this case; is that right?
`5 A. Not specifically. Correct.
`6 Q. Let's talk about some of the other things
`7 that were done to address this backout problem.
`8 How well does deep-seating work in
`9 terms of preventing backout?
`10 A. I believe that it works to some extent. It's
`11 just a very risky thing to consider, so it's --
`12 it's -- I think it tends to be rarely employed
`13 because of the concerns that can come about by
`14 deep seating a conventional guide catheter into a
`15 patient.
`16 Q. Sure. And I'm aware of the concerns to the
`17 anatomy. I want to focus just on how much
`18 additional backup support, if you will, can be
`19 offered by deep-seating.
`20 Do you know that in any kind of
`21 qualitative or quantitative sense, how much extra
`22 force can be applied to crossing a lesion if the
`23 guide catheter is deep-seated?
`24 A. I don't. Again, I think that also would
`25 depend on some different variables, like, you
`
`1 A. Correct.
`2 Q. And, in fact, mother and child was known to
`3 provide increased backup support for, like, a
`4 decade or more prior to May 2006, right?
`5 A. I don't know how long it was known.
`6 Q. You don't know when the earliest mother and
`7 child catheters were?
`8 A. Sitting here right now, I don't recall that.
`9 Q. In paragraph 62 of your declaration, you say,
`10 "The Shockey patent was 1991."
`11 Does that refresh your recollection
`12 that it's been more than a decade of mother and
`13 child known to provide backup support prior to
`14 2005, 2006 time frame?
`15 A. Yes. So that particular reference is from
`16 1991.
`17 Q. Let's go back to your example in paragraph 61
`18 that you give.
`19 You say the child catheter is more
`20 flexible than the larger diameter guide catheter,
`21 right?
`22 A. I believe so.
`23 Q. Well, what materials is the child catheter
`24 typically made of?
`25 A. It would depend on what child catheter you're
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`5 (Pages 14 - 17)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Page 5
`
`IPR2020-01344
`
`Medtronic Ex-1800
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
`Page 20
`
`1 talking about.
`2 Q. Do you know for this example you give here in
`3 paragraph 61?
`4 A. I'm not sure I do know that.
`5 Q. Is it important for the material in the child
`6 catheter to be more flexible than the mother guide
`7 catheter in order to prevent damage to the
`8 vascular?
`9 A. I -- I think it typically would be in a
`10 variety of examples of that, but whether that's
`11 crucial, I don't know.
`12 Q. Is there any limit to how flexible the child
`13 catheter should be?
`14 A. I think it's -- yeah, there's a point where
`15 if it's not flexible enough, I don't think it's
`16 going to provide meaningful backup support --
`17 Q. Okay. So if I understand your testimony
`18 there correctly, it's all going to provide some
`19 backup support, but if it gets too flexible, it
`20 won't provide what you call meaningful backup
`21 support?
`22 A. -- yeah, or it could be trivial.
`23 Q. How much backup support is meaningful backup
`24 support?
`25 A. I -- I don't have a specific number for that.
`
`1 A. Yes.
`2 Q. And so that's your testimony, correct, that
`3 you could advance various stent delivery catheters
`4 or other catheter devices through your example of
`5 a 4 French child guiding catheter?
`6 A. No. This example is not meant to be an all
`7 inclusive example of mother and child. This is an
`8 image that happens to show a 4 French catheter.
`9 And it's really for illustrative
`10 purposes of showing that it's one inside the other
`11 and that they're full-length devices.
`12 In my last sentence there, if the
`13 child catheter is big enough, it certainly could
`14 be used to deliver stents. If it's not big
`15 enough, it might not be able to deliver stents,
`16 but it might be able to deliver other catheter
`17 devices.
`18 Q. Okay. So the example that you give in your
`19 declaration, is it big enough?
`20 A. I don't know. I think it quite possibly is
`21 not, but I don't know.
`22 Q. Do you know if the inner diameter of a 4
`23 French child catheter is?
`24 A. In this example, I don't know what that is.
`25 Q. Do you know what the -- do you know if there
`
`Page 19
`1 Q. Okay. You can't quantify what is more
`2 than -- what is meaningful or more than trivial
`3 backup support?
`4 A. I don't -- I didn't say that it couldn't be
`5 quantified, but I don't have that number.
`6 Q. Okay. So it could be quantified, but you're
`7 not able to do that here today in your deposition?
`8 A. Right here right now, that's correct.
`9 Q. Okay. And this example in paragraph 61 is a
`10 4 French child catheter, right?
`11 A. That's what's shown in the image, correct.
`12 Q. And you say at the end of the paragraph that
`13 a stent could be delivered through this 4 French
`14 child catheter, right?
`15 A. I don't know if I say that. I mean, if it's
`16 going to be used to deliver a stent, it would need
`17 to be big enough to deliver a stent.
`18 Q. So your last paragraph of -- or excuse me --
`19 your last sentence of paragraph 61 says, "It
`20 should be noted that while the child catheter has
`21 a smaller diameter than the larger guide catheter,
`22 its inner diameter is still large enough to allow
`23 various stent delivery catheters or other catheter
`24 devices to be advanced within it."
`25 Do you see that?
`
`Page 21
`
`1 were -- as of 2005, 2006, were there, in your
`2 words, various stent delivery catheters or other
`3 catheter devices that could be advanced through 4
`4 French child guided catheter?
`5 A. I think there -- I think there could be other
`6 catheter devices that would be relatively small
`7 that could fit through that, but I don't
`8 necessarily think a stent would fit through that,
`9 any stent. It's pretty small.
`10 Q. So this is your example, 4 French child
`11 guided catheter.
`12 As of 2005, what devices would fit
`13 through it?
`14 A. I think a -- again, the -- my last sentence
`15 there I think is trying to describe the general
`16 concept of mother and child.
`17 And it's not specifically reflective
`18 of this one example, but I think in this one
`19 example, I think probably a guidewire would go
`20 through there.
`21 Q. Okay. As of 2005, what other devices besides
`22 a guidewire would fit through a 4 French child
`23 catheter?
`24 A. You said the GuideLiner.
`25 Q. I said "guidewire."
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`6 (Pages 18 - 21)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Page 6
`
`IPR2020-01344
`
`Medtronic Ex-1800
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
`Page 24
`
`1 A. I thought I heard GuideLiner. I'm sorry.
`2 I'm not sure.
`3 Q. You can't say one way or another what other
`4 devices would fit through?
`5 A. Correct.
`6 Q. If you did know the inner diameter of that 4
`7 French child catheter, then could you figure out
`8 what devices would fit through?
`9 A. That wouldn't necessarily tell me for sure
`10 which devices would fit through. I think a
`11 guidewire is pretty small, and this is a
`12 full-length device where you've got access to
`13 place and position the guidewire into the proximal
`14 end under direct visualization, so I would be
`15 pretty confident that a guidewire is going to go
`16 through there.
`17 But beyond that, I -- it's hard for
`18 me to say without actually seeing this specific
`19 device.
`20 Q. Well, as you teach this principle in your
`21 paragraph, you just say of the child catheter, its
`22 inner diameter is still large enough to allow
`23 various devices to be advanced through it.
`24 Do you see that language?
`25 A. Yes.
`
`1 coaxial arrangement.
`2 Q. Okay. And were -- I mean, was it common
`3 prior to 2005 to use, in addition to this 4 and 6
`4 example, say a 5 and 7 or a 6 and 8?
`5 Was that well known and understood?
`6 A. I'm not sure. I -- there's another
`7 reference, I believe it's at Takahashi, that talks
`8 about a 5 in 6 example.
`9 So, you know, at some point that was
`10 known, but I don't know about the other examples
`11 that you're talking about.
`12 Q. All right. Let's jump ahead to paragraph 64,
`13 and I'm just kind of giving you that for context
`14 so it will be in the right section of your
`15 declaration for my question.
`16 But you talk a lot in here about --
`17 there's over-the-wire techniques and rapid
`18 exchange techniques, right?
`19 A. Sure.
`20 Q. And over-the-wire was common by the early
`21 '90s, wasn't it?
`22 A. In what context? I mean, what --
`23 Q. As a concept for catheters.
`24 A. For balloon angioplasty catheters and stent
`25 delivery catheters, I would say that was pretty
`
`Page 23
`
`Page 25
`
`1 Q. So if you know -- if the inner diameter is
`2 large enough, the devices are small enough, you
`3 know they'll fit through, right?
`4 A. No, not necessarily. If the inner diameter
`5 is smaller than the device, I think you'd be
`6 hard-pressed to get a device into that.
`7 So it, at least, needs to be large
`8 enough. But, again, depending on the device --
`9 the devices that you're talking about, that may
`10 not be the only consideration.
`11 And, again, in a mother and child
`12 situation, your ability to get certain devices in,
`13 I think, is -- I mean, you're able to put them in
`14 right there outside the patient into that lumen.
`15 So, you know -- but ultimately I
`16 don't know beyond a guidewire which other types of
`17 devices would fit into this particular example of
`18 a mother and child.
`19 Q. Okay. This particular example is a 4 French
`20 child catheter and a 6 French mother, correct?
`21 A. Yes, that's what's shown.
`22 Q. And I think we covered this yesterday, but
`23 that is a coaxial arrangement, right?
`24 A. I haven't made a specific opinion on that,
`25 but I think that's -- it very well could be a
`
`1 common, that those catheters were -- had full
`2 length guidewire lumens that ran for the full
`3 length of the catheter.
`4 Q. Okay. So, again, this was at least by the
`5 early '90s, I think you said, balloon angioplasty
`6 catheters and stent delivery catheters were
`7 commonly used in an over-the-wire manner, right?
`8 A. Yes. I mean, the word "commonly," I just
`9 want to qualify a little bit. I mean, stents -- I
`10 don't have these exact dates in terms of the early
`11 '90s off the top of my head. I mean, at some
`12 point stents and stent delivery catheters, you
`13 know, continued to be more common as part of
`14 interventional cardiology procedures through the
`15 '90s. You know, at what point were they common?
`16 They certainly were out there in the early '90s,
`17 on the stent side. On the balloon angioplasty,
`18 absolutely.
`19 Q. Got it. So I think I understand. But those
`20 two were definitely known. Were there any other
`21 types of over-the-wire devices or technique
`22 besides the two you listed?
`23 A. Those are the ones I can think of. I can't
`24 think of any others sitting here right now.
`25 Q. All right. And then how about the concept of
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`7 (Pages 22 - 25)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Page 7
`
`IPR2020-01344
`
`Medtronic Ex-1800
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Page 26
`1 rapid exchange? Where did that show up first?
`2 A. Well, so rapid exchange in the context of,
`3 you know, cardiology procedures really showed up
`4 in the balloon angioplasty catheter-type devices
`5 that made use of the short guidewire lumen. And
`6 there's a couple of early patents and early
`7 devices that had those shorter guidewire lumens.
`8 One of the devices is described in the Bonzel
`9 patent.
`10 Q. Okay. Is it fair to say the rapid exchange
`11 technology replaced the over-the-wire for balloon
`12 angioplasty over time?
`13 A. No, it didn't replace it. It became more
`14 common and more popular, but I think even to this
`15 day there's still some usage of over-the-wire
`16 balloon angioplasty and stent delivery catheters.
`17 Q. Okay. At least fair to say there's a lot
`18 more use of the rapid exchange version once
`19 that -- once that came out and became popularized?
`20 A. Yeah. I wouldn't say that it immediately
`21 skyrocketed, but over time, it definitely became
`22 more common, more popular.
`23 Q. And how about the over-the-wire stent
`24 delivery catheters; did that also go to a rapid
`25 exchange version?
`
`Page 27
`1 A. Well, you're comparing over-the-wire stent
`2 delivery catheters versus rapid exchange stent
`3 delivery catheters?
`4 Q. That's my question. Did the rapid exchange
`5 have an impact on there as well?
`6 A. Yes. There are, over time, more stent
`7 delivery catheters that have been rapid
`8 exchange -- of a rapid exchange design.
`9 Q. Real basic question, I guess. For both of
`10 these things you mentioned balloon angioplasty and
`11 stent delivery catheters. Is backup support an
`12 issue or a concern with these two things?
`13 A. Is your question is backup support a concern
`14 when you're using those types of products?
`15 Q. Yes.
`16 A. Yes, it certainly can be.
`17 Q. Okay. And so when those migrated from
`18 over-the-wire to rapid exchange, was there any
`19 change in the backup support that they provided?
`20 A. Well, they don't provide backup support.
`21 Q. Yeah. It's a poor question.
`22 I guess I should say, is there any
`23 change in the backup support issue that we just
`24 talked about? Did that change at all moving from
`25 the over-the-wire version to the rapid exchange
`
`Page 28
`
`1 version?
`2 A. I'm not sure if that changed the issues
`3 around backup support.
`4 Q. If we jump ahead to paragraph 75 of your
`5 declaration, do you see here you're talking about
`6 the Ressemann prior art reference that's at issue
`7 in these IPRs?
`8 A. Yes.
`9 Q. And we talked about, somewhat yesterday, your
`10 relationship to Mr. Ressemann. Are you familiar,
`11 based on that, with this product you have here,
`12 the Ressemann product called Proxis?
`13 A. Yes, I do have familiarity with that.
`14 Q. Is this something that you worked on, this
`15 Proxis product, or consulted on?
`16 A. I did. I was involved in this project early
`17 on in the conceptual phase, and then we hired on
`18 engineers over time, and so my day-to-day
`19 involvement became less over time. But, you know,
`20 it's a small company, so still pretty familiar
`21 with what everybody is working on.
`22 Q. Okay. So the Ressemann prior art reference
`23 we talked about, that discloses a rapid exchange
`24 device, right?
`25 A. It discloses a device with a -- I mean, it
`
`Page 29
`
`1 discloses a device with an evacuation lumen
`2 that's -- there's embodiments where that's
`3 relatively short compared to -- I think there are
`4 embodiments where that evacuation lumen is a full
`5 length through the device.
`6 Q. Right. But it includes and discloses
`7 basically a rapid exchange version, right?
`8 A. Yeah. I mean, if you're using rapid exchange
`9 in the context of that it's got a shorter lumen,
`10 then yes.
`11 Q. Yes. And I was trying to use it in the same
`12 context as we talked about earlier.
`13 So the Ressemann product you note
`14 here is not a rapid exchange version. It's a --
`15 basically a mother and child, right?
`16 A. Yeah, in the sense that it's got a
`17 full-length lumen.
`18 Q. Okay. When bringing this product to market,
`19 why didn't you guys -- why didn't Mr. Ressemann
`20 bring forward the rapid exchange version?
`21 A. There were some -- I mean, I -- you know,
`22 there were a lot of engineering decisions and, you
`23 know, feedback from physicians and whatnot that
`24 would have been part of that project, and it
`25 ultimately was determined that this was a better,
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`8 (Pages 26 - 29)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Page 8
`
`IPR2020-01344
`
`Medtronic Ex-1800
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Page 30
`
`Page 32
`
`1 simpler approach.
`2 Q. Okay. Do you remember any specifics as to
`3 why it was better or simpler to go with the mother
`4 and child than with the rapid exchange version?
`5 A. I -- again, I wasn't that involved day to day
`6 when a lot of those decisions were being made, so
`7 I -- I really can't speak to those specific
`8 reasons.
`9 Q. All right. So, certainly, from a --
`10 technologically, from an engineering standpoint,
`11 you could have designed and come forward with a
`12 rapid exchange version of Ressemann and the Proxis
`13 device, right?
`14 A. Well, it wasn't commercialized, so I don't
`15 know that I would agree with that. It certainly
`16 was possible to design and build prototypes of
`17 something like that, but as I describe here, that
`18 was not commercialized. So, you know, I don't
`19 know that it -- it could have been a futile thing
`20 to try to commercialize that for whatever the
`21 reasons were that -- that it wasn't
`22 commercialized.
`23 Q. But you don't think you could have just cut
`24 the tube shorter and added a push rod instead to
`25 make it rapid exchange, as an engineer?
`
`1 development p

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