`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.A.R.L.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01344
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner hereby submits its notice
`
`of objections to certain evidence that Petitioner submitted in connection with
`
`IPR2020-01344, including evidence submitted in connection with Petitioner’s
`
`briefing relating to conception and reduction to practice.
`
`Patent Owner notes that certain exhibits were cited in one or more of the
`
`above-referenced IPR proceedings but do not appear to have been filed (either at
`
`all or only in some of the IPRs); Patent Owner reserves the right to file
`
`supplemental and/or additional objections and/or move to strike those exhibits.1
`
`In addition, the depositions of Patent Owner’s experts Mr. Keith and Dr.
`
`Graham in the eleven instituted IPRs each occurred over two days. It appears that
`
`Petitioner only filed certain days of deposition transcripts in certain IPRs and not in
`
`others. As noted below, Patent Owner objects to this practice on the basis of
`
`incompleteness (see FRE 106). In addition, the parties’ practice in these IPRs has
`
`been to file deposition transcripts in each of the eleven instituted IPRs, and
`
`Petitioner had represented it intended to do so.
`
`
`
`Exhibit Number
`1122
`
`Objections
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This document is not relevant. To the
`extent this document is relevant, its probative value is
`outweighed by the danger of causing unfair prejudice,
`
`
`1 By way of example, it appears that Petitioner cited but did not file Ex-1755, Ex-
`1801, and Ex-1846.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1123
`
`1762
`
`1764
`
`1800
`
`
`
`confusing the issues, causing undue delay, wasting time,
`or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence, and
`therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This document is not relevant. To the
`extent this document is relevant, its probative value is
`outweighed by the danger of causing unfair prejudice,
`confusing the issues, causing undue delay, wasting time,
`or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence, and
`therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Portions of this document are not
`relevant. To the extent this document is relevant, the
`probative value of certain portions is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`causing undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore those
`portions are inadmissible under Rule 403. Patent Owner
`reasserts and reserves all of its objections under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.64(a) made during the November 13, 2020 deposition
`of Howard Root.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Portions of this exhibit are not
`relevant. To the extent this document is relevant, its
`probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing
`unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`evidence, and therefore the document is inadmissible
`under Rule 403. Patent Owner reasserts and reserves all of
`its objections under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a) made during the
`December 1, 2020 deposition of Peter Keith.
`FRE 106: Patent Owner objects to the filing of only Day 2
`of the transcript, when in fairness Day 1 of the transcript
`ought to be considered at the same time.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Portions of this document are not
`relevant. To the extent this document is relevant, the
`probative value of certain portions is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`causing undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore those
`portions are inadmissible under Rule 403. Patent Owner
`reasserts and reserves all of its objections under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.64(a) made during the November 24, 2020 deposition
`of Peter Keith.
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1806 to the extent Dr.
`Brecker has not disclosed materials considered other than
`those referenced in his declaration. See 37 C.F.R. §§
`42.65(a) and (b). Patent Owner additionally objects to
`Exhibit 1806 to the extent it improperly raises new
`arguments in support of Petitioner’s Reply. 37 C.F.R. §
`42.23(b).
`
`FRE 702, 703, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65:
`
`¶¶ 8-16, 19, 22-30, 34, 36-38, 40-42, 43-44, 47-51, 53, 57,
`59-60, 62-63, 66-71, 73-75, 77-81, 83-93, 97-98, 100-106,
`107-120, 122-125, 127-141, 143, and 147-158 are not
`based on sufficient facts and data and do not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403:
`
` §
`
` III is not relevant; to the extent it is relevant, its
`probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing
`unfair prejudice and confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 702, 703, 704:
`
`¶¶ 42, 61, 81, 114, 132, 133, 139, 143-145 and headings
`IV.C, IV.E, and V state improper legal conclusions.
`
`FRE 602:
`
`¶¶ 10-11, 42-43, 58, 66, 89, 92, 101, 108-110, 113, 115-
`116, 118, 120, 128-130, 134, 144-147, 154 are not based
`on personal knowledge.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`1806
`
`
`
`
`
`1807
`
`
`
`Patent Owner additionally objects to Exhibit 1806 under
`FRE 802 (hearsay) to the extent that Patent Owner does
`not have the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Brecker
`regarding his declaration.
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1807 to the extent
`Michael Jones has not disclosed materials considered
`other than those referenced in his declaration. See 37
`C.F.R. §§ 42.65(a) and (b). Patent Owner additionally
`objects to Exhibit 1807 to the extent it improperly raises
`new arguments in support of Petitioner’s Reply. 37
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b).
`
`FRE 702, 703, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65:
`
`¶¶ 21, 34-46, 52-72, 74, 87, 88-100, 106-112, 114-117,
`120-135, and 137-160 are not based on sufficient facts and
`data and do not reliably apply facts and data using
`scientific principles.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403:
`
`§§ V-VIII are not relevant; to the extent they are relevant,
`their probative value is outweighed by the danger of
`causing unfair prejudice and confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 702, 703, 704:
`
`§§ X and XI and ¶¶ 158 and 160 state improper legal
`conclusions.
`
`FRE 602:
`
`¶¶ 12, 33, 72, 109, 114, and 142 are not based on personal
`knowledge.
`
`Patent Owner additionally objects to Exhibit 1807 under
`FRE 802 (hearsay) to the extent that Patent Owner does
`not have the opportunity to cross-examine Michael Jones
`regarding his declaration.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1813
`
`1819
`
`1821
`
`1822
`
`
`
`FRE 106: Patent Owner objects to the filing of only Day 1
`of the transcript, when in fairness Day 2 of the transcript
`ought to be considered at the same time.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Portions of this document are not
`relevant. To the extent this document is relevant, the
`probative value of certain portions is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`causing undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore those
`portions are inadmissible under Rule 403. Patent Owner
`reasserts and reserves all of its objections under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.64(a) made during the November 18, 2020 deposition
`of John J. Graham.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Portions of this document are not
`relevant. To the extent this document is relevant, the
`probative value of certain portions is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`causing undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore those
`portions are inadmissible under Rule 403.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Portions of this document are not
`relevant. To the extent this document is relevant, the
`probative value of certain portions is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`causing undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore those
`portions are inadmissible under Rule 403. Patent Owner
`reasserts and reserves all of its objections made during the
`October 30, 2019 deposition of Amy L. Welch.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This document is not relevant. To the
`extent this document is relevant, its probative value is
`outweighed by the danger of causing unfair prejudice,
`confusing the issues, causing undue delay, wasting time,
`or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence, and
`therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`
`FRE 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a
`printed publication.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This document is not relevant. To the
`extent this document is relevant, its probative value is
`outweighed by the danger of causing unfair prejudice,
`confusing the issues, causing undue delay, wasting time,
`or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence, and
`therefore the document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`
`FRE 901, 902: This document has not been authenticated.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311: This document does not qualify as a
`printed publication.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Portions of this document are not
`relevant. To the extent this document is relevant, the
`probative value of certain portions is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`causing undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore those
`portions are inadmissible under Rule 403.
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1830 to the extent Dr.
`Zalesky has not disclosed materials considered other than
`those referenced in his declaration. See 37 C.F.R. §§
`42.65(a) and (b).
`
`FRE 702, 703, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.65:
`
`¶¶ 17, 25 and introductory paragraphs 8-9 are not based
`on sufficient facts and data and do not reliably apply facts
`and data using scientific principles.
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403:
`
` §
`
` V is not relevant; to the extent it is relevant, its probative
`value is outweighed by the danger of causing unfair
`prejudice and confusing the issues.
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`1824
`
`1825
`
`1830
`
`
`
`1844
`
`1851
`
`1854
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner additionally objects to Exhibit 1830 under
`FRE 802 (hearsay) to the extent that Patent Owner does
`not have the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Zalesky
`regarding his declaration.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Portions of this document are not
`relevant. To the extent this document is relevant, its
`probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing
`unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, causing undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`evidence, and therefore the document is inadmissible
`under Rule 403.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Portions of this document are not
`relevant. To the extent this document is relevant, the
`probative value of certain portions is outweighed by the
`danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`causing undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore those
`portions are inadmissible under Rule 403. Patent Owner
`reasserts and reserves all of its objections under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.64(a) made during the June 15, 2018 deposition of
`Howard Root.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: This document is not relevant to the
`proposition for which it is cited. To the extent this
`document is relevant, its probative value is outweighed by
`the danger of causing unfair prejudice, confusing the
`issues, causing undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`presenting cumulative evidence, and therefore the
`document is inadmissible under Rule 403.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 13, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/J. Derek Vandenburgh /
`J. Derek Vandenburgh (Lead Counsel)
`Registration No. 32,179
`Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh
` & Lindquist, P.A.
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 436-9600
`Facsimile: (612) 436-9650
`Email:
`DVandenburgh@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the agreement of the parties, the
`
`
`
`undersigned certifies that on August 13, 2021, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence was served via electronic mail
`
`upon the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cyrus A. Morton (Reg. No. 44,954)
`Sharon Roberg-Perez (Reg. No. 69,600)
`Christopher A. Pinahs (Reg. No. 76,375)
`William E. Manske
`Emily J. Tremblay
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
`Minneapolis, MN 55401
`Phone: 349-8500
`Fax: 612-339-4181
`Email: Cmorton@robinskaplan.com
`Email: Sroberg-perez@robinskaplan.com
`Email: Cpinahs@robinskaplan.com
`Email: WManske@robinskaplan.com
`Email: ETremblay@robinskaplan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/J. Derek Vandenburgh/
`J. Derek Vandenburgh (Lead Counsel for Patent Owner)
`
`
`
`