throbber
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.,
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00126
`U.S. Patent No. 8,048,032
`
`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)
`IPR2020-00135 (Patent RE45,776 E)
`IPR2020-00136 (Patent RE45,776 E)
`IPR2020-00137 (Patent RE47,379 E)
`IPR2020-00138 (Patent RE47,379 E)
`____________________________________________________
`
`VIDEOCONFERENCE VIDEOTAPED
`DEPOSITION OF
`PETER T. KEITH
`
`DATE: November 23, 2020
`
`TIME: 8:58 a.m.
`
`PLACE: Minneapolis, Minnesota
`
`(via videoconference)
`
`JOB NO.: MW 4338308
`
`REPORTED BY: Dawn Workman Bounds, CSR
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`IPR2020-01344
`
`Medtronic Ex-1805
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Page 1 of 87
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`1 A P P E A R A N C E S
`2 (ALL APPEARANCES VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE)
`3 ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:
`4 SHARON ROBERG-PEREZ, ESQ.
` EMILY TREMBLAY, ESQ.
`5 CYRUS A. MORTON, ESQ.
` ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`6 2800 LaSalle Plaza
` 800 LaSalle Ave
`7 Minneapolis, MN 55401
` 612.349.8500
`8 sroberg-perez@robinskaplan.com
` camorton@rkmc.com
`9 ETremblay@RobinsKaplan.com
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23 (APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
`24
`25
`
`1 I N D E X
`2 WITNESS: PETER T. KEITH PAGE
`3 EXAMINATION BY MS. ROBERG-PEREZ.................... 6
`4 EXAMINATION BY MR. VANDENBURGH..................... 181
`5 EXHIBITS MARKED/REFERRED TO
`6 No. 1118: Picture/diagram of GuideLiner
` Version 2 EX-2138, IPR2020-00132,
`7 p. 150.................................. 83
`8 No. 1119: Picture/diagram of GuideLiner
` Version 2 EX-2138, IPR2020-00132,
`9 pp. 150; 152............................ 84
`10 No. 1120: U.S. Patent 5,658,251................... 155
`11 No. 1121: U.S. Patent 5,156,594................... 162
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 5
`
`1 ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`2 DEREK VANDENBURGH, ESQ.
` JOSEPH W. WINKELS, ESQ.
`3 CARLSON CASPERS VANDENBURGH & LINDQUIST, PA.
` Capella Tower, Suite 4200
`4 225 South Sixth Street
` Minneapolis, MN 55402
`5 612.436.9623
` dvandenburgh@carlsoncaspers.com
`6 jwinkels@carlsoncaspers.com
`7 KENNETH E. LEVITT, ESQ.
` DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP
`8 50 S. Sixth Street, Suite 1500
` Minneapolis, MN 55402
`9 612.340.2600
` levitt.kenneth@dorsey.com
`
`10
`11 ALSO PRESENT:
`12 Greg Smock, Teleflex
`13 Adam Venturini, Videographer
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1 P R O C E E D I N G S
`2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. We are
`3 going on the record at 8:58 a.m. Eastern Standard Time,
`4 on November 23, 2020. Please note that the microphones
`5 are sensitive and may pick up whispering, private
`6 conversations, and cellular interference. Please turn
`7 off all cell phones and place them away from microphones
`8 as they can possibly interfere with deposition audio.
`9 Audio and video recording will continue to take place
`10 unless all parties agree to go off the record.
`11 This is media unit 1 of the video-recorded
`12 deposition of Peter T. Keith, in the matter of Medtronic
`13 v. Teleflex Innovations. My name is Adam Venturini from
`14 the firm Veritext, and I'm the videographer. The court
`15 reporter is Dawn Bounds from the firm Veritext.
`16 I'm not authorized to administer an oath.
`17 I'm not related to any party in this action nor am I
`18 finally interested in the outcome.
`19 Counsel and all present remotely will now
`20 state their appearances and affiliations for the record.
`21 If there are any objections to proceeding, state them at
`22 the time of your appearance, beginning with the noticing
`23 attorney.
`24 MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Sharon Roberg-Perez
`25 representing Petitioner Medtronic of the firm Robins
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`2 (Pages 2 - 5)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`IPR2020-01344
`
`Medtronic Ex-1805
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Page 2 of 87
`
`

`

`Page 6
`1 Kaplan. With me are my colleagues Cy Morton and Emily
`2 Tremblay.
`3 MR. VANDENBURGH: This is Derek
`4 Vandenburgh here today on behalf of Teleflex.
`5 Also appearing is Joe Winkels of the Carlson Caspers
`6 firm, as well as Ken Levitt of the Dorsey firm; and Greg
`7 Smock of Teleflex is here as well.
`8 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: All right. Will the
`9 court reporter please swear in the witness.
`10 THE REPORTER: Due to the need for this
`11 deposition to take place remotely because of the
`12 government's order for physical distancing, the parties
`13 will stipulate the court reporter may swear in the
`14 witness over the videoconference and that the witness has
`15 verified that he is in fact Peter T. Keith.
`16 Agreed, counsel?
`17 MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Agreed.
`18 MR. VANDENBURGH: Agreed.
`19 PETER T. KEITH,
`20 duly sworn via videoconference as stipulated by counsel
`21 was examined and testified as follows:
`22 EXAMINATION
`23 BY MS. ROBERG-PEREZ:
`24 Q. Good morning, Mr. Keith.
`25 You've been deposed before, haven't you?
`
`Page 8
`
`1 Q. Okay. Is there any reason today, such as
`2 illness or medication, that you will not be able to
`3 testify fully and accurately?
`4 A. No.
`5 Q. You've submitted declarations in several IPRs
`6 initiated by Medtronic, right?
`7 A. Yes.
`8 Q. You've also submitted declarations in
`9 connection with the district court litigation that
`10 Teleflex initiated against Medtronic, right?
`11 A. Yes.
`12 Q. Aside from counsel, have you spoken about the
`13 IPRs with anyone?
`14 A. No.
`15 Q. What about the district court litigation?
`16 A. No.
`17 Q. You're familiar with the name Tom Ressemann,
`18 right?
`19 A. Yes, I am.
`20 Q. Have you spoken with him in the last six
`21 months?
`22 A. Yes, I have.
`23 Q. What about?
`24 A. Well, we're -- we have a friendship. We've
`25 worked together professionally. I've spoken to him about
`
`Page 7
`
`Page 9
`
`1 A. I have, yes.
`2 Q. About how many times?
`3 A. I -- it's -- I've been deposed many times over
`4 a long career in medical devices, so I don't really have
`5 a particular figure, but probably could be approaching 20
`6 times maybe.
`7 Q. Okay. Have you ever testified at trial?
`8 A. I have.
`9 Q. How many times?
`10 A. Just one time for that.
`11 Q. And when was that?
`12 A. That was, I believe, in the early 2000s.
`13 Q. Was that a patent matter?
`14 A. Yes.
`15 Q. And who did you testify for?
`16 A. I testified on behalf of Boston Scientific.
`17 Q. Was Boston Scientific the plaintiff in that
`18 case or defendant?
`19 A. Well, it was a complicated proceeding that I
`20 think they were a plaintiff in aspects and a defendant in
`21 aspects, I believe.
`22 Q. Were you an expert witness in that trial?
`23 A. Yes, I was.
`24 Q. Do you recall who prevailed in that trial?
`25 A. I believe it was a settlement.
`
`1 some companies that he's involved with that I have
`2 offered some thoughts and comments in terms of potential
`3 employment opportunities that he's looked into.
`4 He sits on the board of directors of a few
`5 companies, one of which he talked with -- or he and I
`6 talked about, and I have done a little bit of consulting
`7 with that company.
`8 Q. And to confirm, you have not spoken with him
`9 about the subject matter of these IPRs, correct?
`10 A. Correct. He knows that I'm involved in this
`11 patent litigation, but I've not spoken about any subject
`12 matter.
`13 Q. Okay. Who wrote your declarations submitted in
`14 these IPRs?
`15 A. They're my declarations.
`16 Q. And so you wrote these declarations?
`17 A. I -- they're certainly my words. The process
`18 of the writing was done, you know, in coordination with
`19 the lawyers; but I -- I -- you know, I drafted much of --
`20 you know, did the initial drafts of much of them.
`21 You know, they may have done some initial
`22 drafting of portions, and -- but it was always -- there
`23 was always an extraordinary amount of discussion and
`24 editing; and at the end of the day, they're my words.
`25 Q. Okay. Now, in connection with the drafting,
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`3 (Pages 6 - 9)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`IPR2020-01344
`
`Medtronic Ex-1805
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Page 3 of 87
`
`

`

`Page 10
`1 was there any material, other than what you've cited in
`2 your declarations, that you considered?
`3 A. I don't believe so.
`4 Q. Anything that -- any material that you reviewed
`5 but did not cite in your declarations?
`6 A. I don't think so.
`7 Q. How did you prepare for your deposition today?
`8 A. I rereviewed my declarations and some of the
`9 other materials in the case, and I had some conversations
`10 with counsel.
`11 Q. How long were those conversations?
`12 A. I mean, in the last several days, say, the
`13 conversations that I've had with counsel have probably
`14 been maybe 10 hours.
`15 Q. Did you review any of the material cited in
`16 your declarations?
`17 A. I think so.
`18 Q. What material?
`19 A. I looked at the root patents. I looked at a
`20 number of the prior art patents that are of relevance to
`21 the case. Those are things that I can think of.
`22 I probably looked at more, but I can't
`23 recall them right now.
`24 Q. Did you review any material not cited in your
`25 declarations?
`
`Page 12
`
`1 Q. Well, what is a cutting balloon?
`2 A. There's one product in particular -- this is a
`3 long, long time ago.
`4 But there's one product in particular that
`5 was referred to as a "cutting balloon" that had
`6 essentially some short longitudinal razor blades affixed
`7 to the surface of the balloon.
`8 Q. Was that a Boston product or a Grayzel product?
`9 A. This was so long ago, I -- honestly, I don't
`10 remember.
`11 Q. You testified on behalf of Boston, though,
`12 right?
`13 A. Yes.
`14 Q. What was your opinion in the case?
`15 A. I don't recall.
`16 Q. To the extent you can -- okay.
`17 Do you remember if you opined on claim
`18 construction?
`19 A. I don't recall.
`20 Q. Okay. You also in your CV list a case Boston
`21 Scientific v. Cordis on behalf of the plaintiffs.
`22 What was the technology at issue in that
`23 case?
`24 A. That, I believe, was related to multilayer
`25 extrusions used in angioplasty catheters.
`
`Page 11
`
`Page 13
`
`1 A. I don't think so.
`2 Q. Did you attend the depositions given by
`3 Dr. Graham?
`4 A. No.
`5 Q. Have you reviewed his testimony?
`6 A. No.
`7 Q. Okay. You testified that you've previously
`8 been deposed.
`9 And am I correct those depositions were
`10 largely in patent cases?
`11 A. Yes.
`12 Q. And you testified truthfully in those cases,
`13 right?
`14 A. Yes.
`15 Q. I'd like to understand what types of cases
`16 those were.
`17 Your CV mentions a matter Grayzel versus
`18 Boston Scientific?
`19 A. Yes.
`20 Q. What was the technology at issue in that case?
`21 A. I believe that related to balloon angioplasty
`22 catheters and some aspects of -- of the balloon itself in
`23 terms of having cutting elements or rigid elements.
`24 Q. Does that refer to a cutting balloon?
`25 A. Yes. Sure, that's one way to describe it.
`
`1 Q. Was that the case that you testified at trial?
`2 A. Yes.
`3 Q. Do you remember what your -- and you testified
`4 as an expert, right?
`5 A. Correct.
`6 Q. Did you also testify at a claim construction
`7 hearing in that case?
`8 A. I don't think so.
`9 Q. Do you remember what your opinion was in that
`10 case?
`11 A. No. Again, that was so long ago and, you know,
`12 very involved. I do not recall.
`13 Q. Okay. Your CV also lists a matter SciCo v.
`14 Boston Scientific.
`15 What was the technology in that case?
`16 A. I believe that was related to some design
`17 aspects of rapid exchange angioplasty catheters.
`18 Q. Do you -- do you remember what your opinion was
`19 in that case?
`20 A. No.
`21 Q. Okay. Aside from those three matters, what
`22 other patent matters have you offered testimony in?
`23 A. I have been a fact witness in a number of
`24 patent cases. I think at least primarily related to my
`25 work at SCIMED Life Systems, which became part of Boston
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`4 (Pages 10 - 13)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`IPR2020-01344
`
`Medtronic Ex-1805
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Page 4 of 87
`
`

`

`Page 14
`1 Scientific, related to various angioplasty catheters that
`2 I either designed or was an inventor on.
`3 Q. So did those matters account for the lion's
`4 share of the 20 or so depositions you mentioned?
`5 A. Yes.
`6 Q. Okay. You've got a bachelor's degree in
`7 mechanical engineering, right?
`8 A. Yes.
`9 Q. And you mentioned your work for SCI -- SCIMED.
`10 And when did you start working at SCIMED?
`11 A. Well, I think all this is laid out on my
`12 resume, but I believe that was 1985.
`13 Q. And SCI -- I'm correct in understanding that
`14 SCIMED's products included interventional cardiology
`15 products?
`16 A. Well, I mean, interventional cardiology
`17 products is a particular term that's used in some of the
`18 patents at issue here, so I -- I -- I don't know what
`19 context you're asking me that question.
`20 Q. Do the patents use the term "interventional
`21 cardiology products"?
`22 A. I think they use "interventional cardiology
`23 devices."
`24 Q. Okay. Understood.
`25 So I'm not -- I'm trying to stay away from
`
`Page 15
`1 patent terms, and I'm really just interested in the types
`2 of products that you worked on when you were at SCIMED.
`3 You mentioned one type, balloon
`4 angioplasty catheters, I think; is that correct?
`5 A. Yes.
`6 Q. What other types of interventional cardiology
`7 products did you work on at SCIMED?
`8 A. Well, I just want to be clear that we're
`9 talking about -- I mean --
`10 Q. Products.
`11 A. -- not specifically to what that term might
`12 strictly mean in the context of the patents, but if -- I
`13 mean, it sounds like you're trying to ask it in -- you
`14 know, in maybe a broader sense of interventional
`15 cardiology.
`16 Q. Mr. Keith --
`17 A. I --
`18 Q. -- can we agree that the patents do not refer
`19 to "interventional cardiology products"?
`20 A. They refer to "interventional cardiology
`21 devices."
`22 Q. Correct.
`23 And my question to you --
`24 A. Very similar terms.
`25 Q. But they're not the same term, are they?
`
`Page 16
`
`1 A. No, they're not exactly the same.
`2 Q. Okay. All I want to know is what kind of
`3 products -- I won't even use a modifier.
`4 What kind of products did you do work on
`5 at SCIMED?
`6 A. So I worked on fixed wire angioplasty catheter
`7 products. I worked on rapid exchange angioplasty
`8 catheter products. I worked on guidewires. I worked on
`9 atherectomy catheters. I worked on vascular sealing
`10 products. I worked on drug delivery products.
`11 And I probably worked on other products,
`12 but I can't recall other ones sitting here right now.
`13 Q. Okay. So you mentioned fixed wire angioplasty
`14 products, rapid exchange angioplasty products,
`15 guidewires, atherectomy catheters, vascular sealing
`16 products, and drug delivery products.
`17 Of those six categories, which of those
`18 products are introduced into the coronary vasculature?
`19 A. I would say all of those with the exception of
`20 vascular sealing products.
`21 Q. So when you mentioned drug delivery products,
`22 what type of products were you referring to?
`23 A. These would be products that -- they were
`24 catheters that would go into coronary arteries for the
`25 purpose of being able to deliver a drug.
`
`Page 17
`
`1 Q. Were these drug-eluting stents?
`2 A. No.
`3 Q. So of the fixed wire angioplasty products, how
`4 many were there?
`5 Do you remember their names?
`6 A. There were -- the first family of products --
`7 and by family I'm referring to that the balloons were
`8 available in different inflated diameters as well as
`9 different coil tip lengths. Those were referred to the
`10 as the ACE catheters.
`11 And then I was involved in some -- some
`12 more recent products after the ACE was introduced that
`13 were called the Pivot products. Again, there may be
`14 more. I'm just recalling all of them as I sit here
`15 today.
`16 Q. But for the fixed wire angioplasty products,
`17 there were at least the ACE and the Pivot products,
`18 right?
`19 A. Correct.
`20 Q. Do you remember what the names were of the
`21 rapid exchange angioplasty products?
`22 A. The one I was most directly involved with was
`23 the Express catheter. And then there were some more
`24 recent products that -- one was referred to as the Rally.
`25 And, again, there may be some others that
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`5 (Pages 14 - 17)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`IPR2020-01344
`
`Medtronic Ex-1805
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Page 5 of 87
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
`1 I'm just not recalling sitting here today.
`2 Q. Do you recall a product by the name of
`3 Rendezvous?
`4 A. No.
`5 Q. Okay. What were the names of the guidewire
`6 products that you worked on?
`7 A. I think those -- well, the first products that
`8 I recall that were developed, which I wasn't particularly
`9 involved with, was the Enteer.
`10 And then I -- my involvement related to
`11 more recent products, but I can't remember the product
`12 names.
`13 Q. What atherectomy catheters were you involved
`14 with?
`15 A. I was involved in the development of a couple
`16 of different catheter -- atherectomy catheter designs
`17 that were never commercialized, so they didn't end up
`18 getting a name.
`19 Q. But there were two different designs?
`20 A. Yes.
`21 Q. Are there patents on these designs?
`22 A. At least on one. I think probably on both.
`23 Q. And understanding that these were never
`24 products that were launched, are there names of these
`25 catheters?
`
`Page 20
`1 Q. Okay. Of the catheters that were designed to
`2 go into the coronary artery to deliver a drug, what were
`3 the names of those products?
`4 A. One that I recall was called the Dispatch
`5 catheter. And I think there's at least one other that I
`6 don't recall the name.
`7 Q. Okay. Let's start with the ACE.
`8 Well, before we do that, what's the
`9 difference between an angioplasty catheter and an
`10 atherectomy catheter?
`11 A. Well, there are numerous differences, but I'll
`12 highlight one difference, which is a balloon angioplasty
`13 catheter has an expandable balloon, which is used to --
`14 to dilate the lesion in the coronary artery.
`15 And generally an atherectomy catheter goes
`16 in; and rather than dilates, it tries to actually remove
`17 that lesion either by cutting or abrading.
`18 Q. And is the goal of using a balloon angioplasty
`19 catheter to dilate a lesion, is the goal to ensure that
`20 there's blood flow in the coronary vasculature?
`21 A. The goal is to improve the blood flow.
`22 Q. And is the goal for using an atherectomy
`23 catheter to remove or cut or abrade material to improve
`24 blood flow through coronary vasculature?
`25 A. I would say that's also a goal with
`
`Page 19
`
`Page 21
`
`1 A. Not other than just the -- sort of the generic
`2 atherectomy catheter.
`3 The projects probably had names, sort of
`4 internal to the development team, internal to the
`5 company, but I don't recall what those were.
`6 Q. And so you said at least one of these
`7 atherectomy catheters, there is a patent on and probably
`8 for the other one, too.
`9 How are these catheters different from
`10 each other?
`11 A. I actually don't -- I recall one of them more
`12 specifically, and my role at the time was managing a
`13 department at SCIMED that was called "new modalities."
`14 So we had engineers that were more
`15 directly involved in the day-to-day development, but I
`16 was involved from -- at sort of a higher level from a
`17 managerial standpoint, so that's why -- is partly why the
`18 details are little bit less clear in my ability to recall
`19 those.
`20 Q. Of the two catheters that you referred to,
`21 which of the atherectomy catheters do you recall better?
`22 You said you recall one better than the
`23 other. Which one is that?
`24 A. One of them was a -- it was an expan -- it was
`25 called an expandable atherectomy catheter.
`
`1 atherectomy.
`2 Q. What about the Dispatch catheter that you
`3 talked about, is that -- is the goal of using that
`4 catheter also to improve blood flow in the coronary
`5 vasculature.
`6 A. Well, that catheter was designed to be able to
`7 deliver a drug agent to the lesion or the vessel wall
`8 under the lesion as a -- more as an adjunctive treatment.
`9 Q. Adjunctive to what?
`10 A. Could be adjunctive to an angioplasty or
`11 perhaps an atherectomy treatment.
`12 Q. And we've already talked about how both
`13 angioplasty and atherectomy are directed to improving
`14 blood flow in the coronary vasculature, right?
`15 A. At a very high level, yes.
`16 Q. Have you observed angioplasty procedures?
`17 A. Yes.
`18 Q. About how many?
`19 A. Oh, I mean, many, many -- I mean, during the
`20 development of these devices, it was common to be able to
`21 observe angioplasty procedures both directly in the cath
`22 lab as well as at -- you know, more remotely via video at
`23 conferences. But I -- you asked me about a number. I
`24 can't really put a number on it.
`25 Q. Well, when you were developing an angioplasty
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`6 (Pages 18 - 21)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`IPR2020-01344
`
`Medtronic Ex-1805
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Page 6 of 87
`
`

`

`Page 22
`1 catheter, would you say you observed a procedure on a
`2 weekly basis or not that frequent?
`3 A. It wouldn't be quite so regular as that.
`4 Q. Maybe on a monthly basis?
`5 A. Again, that's implying sort of a level of
`6 regularity. I mean, it would be, you know, more
`7 clustered around the -- maybe the early development
`8 stages of the project. And then maybe towards the -- as
`9 the device is being used for the first times, that it was
`10 often a worthwhile endeavor to observe cases at that
`11 stage as well in a product -- in the product life cycle.
`12 Q. Okay. So understanding that there wasn't so
`13 much a regularity to your observations, in the early
`14 stages of the development of an angioplasty product, how
`15 many times would you observe angioplasties?
`16 A. Well, physically, in person probably half a
`17 dozen to a dozen times.
`18 Q. And about how many times as the product
`19 approached its first use?
`20 A. Probably similar, maybe more.
`21 Q. And these instances in which you would be
`22 observing angioplasty procedures, would you make these
`23 observations for each product that you were involved in
`24 the development of?
`25 A. Certainly the ACE and the Express products, I
`
`Page 23
`1 would have -- you know, that would have been my level of
`2 observing procedures. I think for some of the other
`3 products that -- you know, at that point I was in more of
`4 a managerial capacity, so I probably was a little bit
`5 less involved in specific procedures related to those
`6 technologies.
`7 But, there again, I would have been still
`8 observing cases, you know, with our physician advisors.
`9 So I mean, even though they may have been little bit less
`10 specific to those development projects and those
`11 particular products, I still would have had some
`12 opportunities to be observing procedures directly.
`13 Q. Have you observed atherectomy procedures?
`14 A. I think so. I don't know for sure.
`15 Q. You think so.
`16 Okay. Sorry. How do you -- you say you
`17 think so. You don't know for sure.
`18 What do you mean by that?
`19 Were you in a procedure where more than
`20 one technique was used?
`21 A. No. I just -- what I mean by that is that I
`22 was less directly involved in the day-to-day design work
`23 on those projects; but I was, you know, quite familiar
`24 with the -- you know, generally the -- like other types
`25 of atherectomy catheter devices, like the ROTABLATOR
`
`Page 24
`1 device. And I -- I believe I probably would have seen
`2 some procedures where that device was used.
`3 Q. Was the ROTABLATOR device a Boston -- sorry --
`4 a SCIMED product?
`5 A. Well, it's a -- it was developed by a company
`6 called Heart Technologies, which was then acquired by
`7 SCIMED and ultimately by Boston Scientific via SCIMID.
`8 Q. Okay. Other than the ROTABLATOR device that
`9 you referred to, do you remember seeing any other
`10 procedures involving an atherectomy catheter?
`11 A. I don't have a specific recollection of the
`12 procedures. The other atherectomy catheter that I -- was
`13 in -- was commercially available is the PBI atherectomy
`14 catheter.
`15 There again, I probably have seen some of
`16 those cases in person. And I certainly would have seen
`17 them via medical conferences that I would have attended
`18 in those days.
`19 Q. Do you recall how long the ACE catheter was?
`20 A. Not exactly.
`21 Q. Do you recall --
`22 A. I think it was about 140 centimeters.
`23 No, I'm -- no.
`24 Yeah, no, I think that's right.
`25 Q. Was the ACE catheter of uniform rigidity
`
`Page 25
`
`1 along its longitudinal axis?
`2 A. What do you mean by uniform rigidity?
`3 Q. Well, as a mechanical engineer, what's your
`4 understanding of catheter rigidity?
`5 A. Well, there can be a lot of definitions of
`6 rigidity.
`7 Q. And --
`8 A. There's axial, there's lateral, there's column
`9 strength, there's -- just to name a few -- compression.
`10 Q. You said axial, lateral, column strength, and
`11 compression.
`12 Was the ACE -- did the ACE catheter have
`13 uniform axial rigidity along its longitudinal axis?
`14 A. Well, even with axial, I think we have to be
`15 more specific than that.
`16 There's sort of a bending rigidity
`17 approach to that, or there's also sort of a column
`18 approach to -- to that rigidity.
`19 Q. And is the column approach to axial rigidity,
`20 is that different than column strength?
`21 A. Could be.
`22 Q. So with the ACE catheter, was its axial bending
`23 rigidity uniform along its longitudinal axis?
`24 A. Bending rig -- okay. Here again, I want to be
`25 absolutely clear that we're -- that we know what the
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`7 (Pages 22 - 25)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`IPR2020-01344
`
`Medtronic Ex-1805
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Page 7 of 87
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
`Page 28
`
`1 definition of these terms are.
`2 I mean, I was throwing those terms out in
`3 sort of a high level, general way just to illustrate that
`4 there can be many ways that one could think about the
`5 rigidity of a device.
`6 So if you want to be more specific, I'd be
`7 happy to do that. I -- it seems like you may maybe have
`8 a particular thing that you're looking for, and I'm not
`9 exactly sure what you're looking for.
`10 Q. Understood.
`11 Well, you have patents on angioplasty
`12 catheters, right?
`13 A. Yes.
`14 Q. In some of those patents, you refer to portions
`15 of the catheter being relatively flexible right?
`16 A. I don't have those patents in front of me.
`17 It certainly wouldn't surprise me if I
`18 used those terms.
`19 Q. And would you also not be surprised that in
`20 some of those patents you've used to term "relatively
`21 stiff"?
`22 A. Again, I wouldn't be surprised, but I don't
`23 have those patents in front of me.
`24 Q. And that's fine.
`25 So going back to the ACE catheter, would I
`
`1 diameter.
`2 Q. How did you make sure the tip was atraumatic?
`3 A. Well, at least one thing that I recall doing is
`4 doing some testing in -- in some animals.
`5 But it's -- you know, it was very similar
`6 in design to other products that have -- like the distal
`7 portions of guidewires.
`8 Q. Similar how --
`9 A. So --
`10 Q. Similar how?
`11 A. In the construction.
`12 Q. You mean in the materials used to construct it?
`13 A. Materials, dimensions.
`14 Q. What materials were used?
`15 A. Stainless steel and a platinum-iridium alloy.
`16 Q. Was there any polymer used?
`17 A. Not in the distal 2 millimeters.
`18 Q. Okay. So let's then move more proximal of the
`19 distal 2 millimeters. Let's just consider say the next
`20 100 millimeters after the most distal 2 millimeters.
`21 Would it be fair to think of that next 100
`22 millimeters as being relatively flexible?
`23 A. Again, I'm not sure we've really described
`24 exactly what that means.
`25 But, you know, it had the ability to bend
`
`Page 27
`1 be correct in assuming that there are portions of the ACE
`2 catheter that are relatively flexible and portions of the
`3 ACE catheter that are relatively stiff?
`4 A. Well, again, it depends on how you measure it
`5 and exactly what that definition is.
`6 I mean, there -- there could be, depending
`7 on how you measure it.
`8 Q. Well, let's consider the -- the distal 2
`9 millimeters of the ACE catheter.
`10 Was the distal 2 millimeters of the ACE
`11 catheter flexible?
`12 A. I don't really know how to answer that.
`13 Q. You're familiar with coronary catheters, having
`14 worked on many of them over your career, right?
`15 A. Yes.
`16 Q. What properties do you want in the distal 2
`17 millimeters of a coronary catheter?
`18 A. It depends on the catheter.
`19 Q. ACE catheter.
`20 A. The distal 2 millimeters of the ACE catheter
`21 are a portion of the -- of the coil tip of the device.
`22 So at least a couple of properties that I
`23 think are -- could be considered important would be
`24 that it's -- it's atraumatic, that it's visible on an
`25 x-ray, and that's about 14 thousandths of an inch in
`
`Page 29
`
`1 and navigate into coronary arteries.
`2 Q. And having the property -- or the ability to
`3 bend and navigate into coronary arteries, that was also
`4 true of the most distal 2 millimeters, right?
`5 A. Well, the most distal 2 millimeters were part
`6 of the -- of the coil tip. So -- and, you know, taken as
`7 a whole, the coil tip certainly had that ability.
`8 Q. Okay. So now, I'd like to move to the distal
`9 most 300 millimeters of the ACE catheter.
`10 Would that section have had the ability to
`11 bend and navigate into the coronary artery?
`12 A. You're asking questions -- I mean, if I had a
`13 blueprint of that device in front of me, probably it
`14 would be easier. I don't know exactly what the -- all
`15 the structure of the ACE catheter was in the distal most
`16 300 millimeters.
`17 Q. I'm not asking about the exact structure.
`18 I'm asking if the d

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