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.
`___________________________________________________
`
`IPR2020-00134
`Patent 8,142,413
`___________________________________________________
`
` REMOTE DEPOSITION OF
`
` STEPHEN BRECKER, M.D.
`
`DATE: September 14, 2021
`TIME: 12:02 p.m. (British Summer Time)
`PLACE: Veritext Virtual Videoconference
`
`JOB NO.: MW 4788352
`REPORTED BY: Merilee Johnson, RDR, CRR, CRC, RSA
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`
`
`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.
`___________________________________________________
`
`IPR2020-00134
`Patent 8,142,413
`___________________________________________________
`
` REMOTE DEPOSITION OF
`
` STEPHEN BRECKER, M.D.
`
`DATE: September 14, 2021
`TIME: 12:02 p.m. (British Summer Time)
`PLACE: Veritext Virtual Videoconference
`
`JOB NO.: MW 4788352
`REPORTED BY: Merilee Johnson, RDR, CRR, CRC, RSA
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
` (All appearing remotely via videoconference)
`
`Page 2
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`BY: Sharon E. Roberg-Perez, Esq.
` 800 LaSalle Avenue
` Suite 2800
` Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
` Phone: (612) 349-8500
` Email: SRoberg-Perez@RobinsKaplan.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH,
`LINDQUIST & SCHUMAN, PA
`BY: Peter M. Kohlhepp, Esq.
` 225 South Sixth Street
` Suite 4200
` Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
` Phone: (612) 436-9600
` Email: PKohlhepp@CarlsonCaspers.com
`
`ALSO APPEARED:
`
` Greg Smock (Teleflex)
`
`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
`
`
`
` I N D E X
`
`WITNESS: STEPHEN BRECKER, M.D. PAGE
`Examination by Mr. Kohlhepp.................... 5
`
`Page 3
`
` E X H I B I T S
` ("N/M" = Exhibits attached and referred to but not
` mentioned)
`EXHIBITS MARKED OR REFERRED TO: PAGE
`Exhibit 1001 United States Patent............. 27
` No. 8,142,413 B2
` dated March 27, 2012
`Exhibit 1001 United States Reissued Patent ... 97
` No. RE46,116 E
` dated August 23, 2016
`Exhibit 1005 Declaration of Stephen Jon David. N/M
` Brecker, MD, FRCP, FESC, FACC,
` Case No. IPR2020-01341,
` U.S. Patent No. 8,142,413
`
`Exhibit 1005 Declaration of Stephen Jon David. N/M
` Brecker, MD, FRCP, FESC, FACC,
` Case No. IPR2020-01343
` U.S. Patent No. RE46,116
`Exhibit 1007 United States Patent............. N/M
` No. 7,736,355 B2
` dated June 15, 2010
`Exhibit 1008 United States Patent............. N/M
` No. 7,604,612 B2
` dated October 20, 2009
`Exhibit 1009 United States Patent............. 89
` No. 5,439,445
` dated August 8, 1995
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
` E X H I B I T S
` (Continued)
`
`Exhibit 1010 Takahashi Brochure: ............. 90
` Catheterization and
` Cardiovascular Interventions,
` dated December 2004
`Exhibit 1405 Declaration of Stephen Jon David. N/M
` Brecker, MD, FRCP, FESC, FACC,
` Case No. IPR2020-01342
` U.S. Patent No. 8,142,413
`
`Exhibit 1405 Declaration of Stephen Jon David. N/M
` Brecker, MD, FRCP, FESC, FACC,
` Case No. IPR2020-01344
` U.S. Patent No. RE46,116
`Exhibit 1806 Supplemental Declaration of ..... 11
` Stephen Jon David
` Brecker, MD, FRCP, FESC, FACC,
` IPR2020-01341 and IPR2020-1342,
` U.S. Patent No. 8,142,413
` -and-
` IPR2020-01343 and IPR2020-01344,
` Patent No. RE 46,116
`
`Exhibit 2238 Deposition transcript of......... 6
` Dr. Stephen Brecker
` dated January 14, 2021
`
`Exhibit 2240 Deposition transcript of ........ 6
` Stephen Brecker, M.D.,
` dated January 19, 2021
`
`REPORTER'S NOTE: All quotations from exhibits are
`reflected in the manner in which they were read
`into the record and do not necessarily indicate an
`exact quote from the document.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
` (PROCEEDINGS, 09/14/2021, 12:02 p.m.)
`
` STEPHEN BRECKER, M.D.,
`
` duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
`
` MR. KOHLHEPP: Good morning. This is
`
`Peter Kohlhepp of the Carlson Caspers law firm on
`
`behalf of the patent owner, Teleflex. And with me
`
`today is also Greg Smock of Teleflex.
`
` MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Sharon Roberg-Perez,
`
`Robins Kaplan, appearing for petitioner, Medtronic.
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. KOHLHEPP:
`
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Brecker.
`
` A. Good morning.
`
` Q. I'm not sure if we have met yet, but I'm an
`
`attorney from Carlson Caspers, and I'll be talking
`
`with you this morning.
`
` You've been deposed in these matters many
`
`times now, so I will not spend really any time on
`
`preliminary matters. The only thing that I'll ask
`
`as we get started: Is there anything that would
`
`prevent you from testifying truthfully today?
`
` A. No, there isn't.
`
` Q. Okay. I'd like to start by just talking
`
`about a couple of exhibits that are in the
`
`electronic Exhibit Share interface. So if you
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`could pull up the two exhibits, it should be
`
`Exhibit 2238 and 2240.
`
` (Previously marked Exhibit Nos. 2238
`
` and 2240 were introduced.)
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. So this current set of IPRs, this is
`
`the second set of IPRs that the petitioner,
`
`Medtronic, has retained you for; is that correct?
`
` A. Yes, that's correct.
`
` Q. Okay. And you provided opinions in a
`
`previous set of IPRs in 2020 and early 2021. Does
`
`that sound correct?
`
` A. Yes, it does.
`
` Q. And you would agree that, in this current
`
`set of IPRs, you offer many of those same opinions
`
`again; is that correct?
`
` A. Yes, there's a lot of repetition between
`
`all of these. I'm conscious that there are
`
`multiple declarations, multiple depositions, and
`
`there's a consistent theme in my opinion
`
`throughout.
`
` Q. Have your opinions changed at all from the
`
`opinions you offered in the first set of IPR
`
`matters compared to the opinions that you've
`
`offered in this current set of IPR matters?
`
`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
`
`
`
`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 7
`
` MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to form.
`
` A. So I have to be frank that I've lost count
`
`of the number of documents in this case, and I've
`
`lost count of the number of declarations. I was
`
`reminded that this is my sixth deposition.
`
` I do not believe that the substance of my
`
`opinions has changed significantly. It has
`
`developed in certain -- there may be certain areas
`
`where I have gone into more detail. There are
`
`certain areas where I may have cited additional
`
`material, but the substance of my opinion
`
`throughout this has remained the same.
`
` Q. All right. Please go ahead and pull up
`
`Exhibit 2238.
`
` A. Yeah, it's just opening -- I would say it's
`
`just taking a little bit longer than normal today.
`
` I have opened documents this morning, and
`
`they've just taken, you know, 30 seconds to open.
`
`I'm sorry about this. The alternative would be to
`
`use it on this laptop, but then it's going to
`
`conflict with having Zoom open. This is just --
`
` Q. We can just wait a few moments.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. It will be just these two on the electronic
`
`interface.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
` A. Okay. Yeah, I'm sorry. It's still just
`
`spinning. But it -- if I am patient, it will open,
`
`I'm sure, because this is what's been happening
`
`this morning on this desktop. I don't know why.
`
` Okay. I now have it. Yeah, I have it.
`
` Q. Okay. Do you recognize that Exhibit 2238
`
`as a true and correct copy of your January 14,
`
`2021, deposition?
`
` A. So it's dated January 2014, and it says it
`
`is the videotaped -- my videotaped deposition. I
`
`haven't looked through the document, but the front
`
`page identifies it as such.
`
` Q. I believe you may have misspoke there.
`
`It's dated January 14, 2021, correct?
`
` A. January 14, 2021. Sorry, what -- did I say
`
`an incorrect date?
`
` Q. That's okay. I think we're all on the same
`
`page as far as dates now.
`
` And I'd ask you also, then, please open
`
`Exhibit 2240.
`
` A. Yes, this is now open. 2240. This says,
`
`"Remote Videotaped Deposition, January 19, 2021."
`
` Q. And would you agree that Exhibit 2240 is a
`
`true and correct copy of your January 19, 2021,
`
`deposition?
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
` A. Again, I can only just go by the first page
`
`where it identifies it. I haven't looked through
`
`the document, but I have no reason to doubt that it
`
`is correct.
`
` Q. Okay. And if you want to take a minute to
`
`page through the document, feel free to do so.
`
` A. I'm sure it is. I've -- I just haven't
`
`looked through it, but I'm -- I recognize the
`
`opening couple of pages.
`
` Q. Okay. So I'm going to just ask you a
`
`couple questions about these two documents,
`
`Exhibit 2238 and 2240.
`
` Did you testify truthfully at your
`
`depositions on January 14th and 19th, 2021?
`
` A. Yes, I did.
`
` Q. And after those depositions, you had the
`
`chance to review those deposition transcripts,
`
`correct?
`
` A. So I know that over the course of all of
`
`these depositions, some. But I have to be
`
`completely honest. I think not every single one
`
`did I go through line by line. If I did, I will
`
`have filled out a form of any corrections, signed
`
`them, and sent them back.
`
` I can't remember, sitting here, whether I
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`did it for these two. I probably did, but I -- in
`
`that complete truthfulness, I know that maybe there
`
`was one out of these that I hadn't done over the
`
`course of all of these depositions.
`
` Q. Okay. Do you have any reason to believe
`
`that the -- either of these transcripts, 2238 or
`
`2240, are inaccurate representations of your
`
`testimony?
`
` A. No, I don't think so. I don't have any
`
`evidence. And when I've read through the
`
`depositions before, they've always been pretty
`
`accurate. The things that I've picked up on have
`
`been some typographical errors or one or two
`
`episodes where I misspoke, but nothing of -- not
`
`where there was a fundamental error.
`
` Q. Is it fair to say that you continue to hold
`
`the opinions that you stated during these
`
`depositions on January 14 and 19, 2021?
`
` A. Sorry. That I continue to hold those
`
`opinions? Was --
`
` Q. Yes, that's the question.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. You can set those aside for the
`
`moment.
`
` A. Okay. I don't want to close them. It
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`takes so long to open them, but that's fine.
`
` I'm ready.
`
` Q. Okay. I'd like you to now pull out
`
`Exhibit 1806. I believe that should be in your
`
`paper binder.
`
` (Previously marked Exhibit No. 1806
`
` was introduced.)
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. You recognize Exhibit 1806?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. What is it?
`
` A. This is my supplemental declaration.
`
` Q. So that's a supplemental declaration that
`
`you provided in the present -- I'll call them
`
`second set of IPRs?
`
` A. Yes. Those are 1341, 1342, 1343, and 1344.
`
`This was dated August 6th of this year.
`
` Q. Now, in this declaration, Exhibit 1806, you
`
`provide some opinions regarding what an
`
`interventional cardiology device is.
`
` Do you recall that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And you provide a definition of what you
`
`think an interventional cardiology device would
`
`have been -- or would have included in January --
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`in 2005 or 2006; is that correct?
`
` MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to form.
`
` Go ahead.
`
` A. So I'm happy to go into this declaration to
`
`specify exactly what I say.
`
` Q. Sure. And I think it's around -- beginning
`
`at paragraph 9.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And then I'm going to direct you
`
`specifically to paragraph 13.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Let me know when you've had a chance to
`
`review.
`
` A. (Reviewing document.) Yes.
`
` Q. And you provide a diagram there in
`
`paragraph 13.
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And it has sort of a set of circles
`
`superimposed on each other.
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And the largest one is labeled
`
`Interventional Cardiology Devices.
`
` Do you see that?
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So would you say that diagram accurately
`
`reflects your opinion of what the definition of
`
`interventional cardiology devices should be --
`
` MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to --
`
`BY MR. KOHLHEPP:
`
` Q. -- for these proceedings?
`
` MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to form.
`
`Mischaracterizes testimony.
`
` A. The diagram is just to represent the fact
`
`that there's a hierarchy of nomenclature in
`
`interventional cardiology. And an interventional
`
`cardiology device may include many, many things,
`
`some of which are unrelated to the coronary
`
`arteries.
`
` If one is looking at interventional
`
`cardiology devices that are relevant to the
`
`coronary arteries, not all of those interventional
`
`cardiology devices will be used for treatment.
`
`Some may be used for diagnosis and some may be used
`
`just for -- as a junctive device.
`
` So the diagram is merely there to represent
`
`the fact that there is a hierarchy. One could have
`
`done -- I could have represented it as a tree
`
`diagram, for example, or just a table. It doesn't
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`define them. It merely highlights the difficulties
`
`of using such a diffuse term as interventional
`
`cardiology device, which can't really be defined in
`
`a limiting way. You can't say, "This is the
`
`definition of an interventional cardiology device,"
`
`except in a very, very general way.
`
` Q. Is it fair to say that that diagram
`
`represents your view of how a person of ordinary
`
`skill would have understood the term
`
`"interventional cardiology devices" in 2005 or
`
`2006?
`
` MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to form.
`
`Asked and answered.
`
` A. So the diagram represents what I think all
`
`cardiologists would understand in 2005/'06 as to
`
`the hierarchy of using those terms. So they would
`
`all understand that interventional cardiology
`
`devices includes a wide range of devices, some of
`
`which you use in the coronary arteries, and some of
`
`those are used as treatment.
`
` So all interventional cardiologies would
`
`understand that concept. They may not show it in
`
`this way.
`
` Q. So is it fair to say that the understanding
`
`of interventional cardiology devices that you're
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`illustrating at paragraph 13 is the one that you
`
`are applying to the patents in these matters?
`
` A. Well, this -- what I've shown in
`
`paragraph 13 is what all cardiologists would
`
`understand is common knowledge. Therefore, if you
`
`are using a term "device" or "cardiology device,"
`
`that is what they would understand it to mean. And
`
`that applies to the patent.
`
` Q. So in your view, the patents are using the
`
`term "interventional cardiology device" according
`
`to its common and accepted meaning at the time?
`
` MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to form.
`
` Go ahead.
`
` A. Well, we can go to the patent -- we can go
`
`to the patent terminology. I'm also aware that the
`
`patent -- that the board have made conclusions or
`
`have made comments on this. All I can do is say
`
`again that cardiologists have an understanding of
`
`what an interventional cardiology device is and
`
`would apply that knowledge in terms of the patent.
`
` Now, if one goes specifically to the
`
`patent, and we can do that, we could look at the --
`
`exactly if there is any qualification as to what an
`
`interventional cardiology device is. But,
`
`generally, a cardiologist would understand that a
`
`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
`
`
`
`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 16
`
`device in the coronary arteries may or may not be a
`
`treatment device. It may just be a diagnostic
`
`device. But they would still be a subset of
`
`interventional cardiology devices.
`
` Q. So in your declaration at paragraphs 4
`
`through 16, you offer various opinions about the
`
`term "interventional cardiology device," correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. You offer opinions specifically
`
`about what that term means in the context of the
`
`patents at issue in this case, correct?
`
` A. Well, I've specified what the board have
`
`determined it refers to. That's what I was talking
`
`about before. And I've offered my opinions. I've
`
`set out exactly as I say here. But, I say again,
`
`I've applied what a cardiologist would understand
`
`by the term "interventional cardiology device," and
`
`it would be broader than just those four specific
`
`devices that I've set out.
`
` Q. And it would be broader than devices used
`
`in coronary arteries also?
`
` A. The term --
`
` MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to form.
`
` Go ahead.
`
` A. The term "interventional cardiology device"
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`would not be limited to term -- to devices only
`
`used in the coronary arteries in terms of how a
`
`cardiologist would understand the term
`
`"interventional cardiology device."
`
` Q. And is it your opinion that the patents at
`
`issue use the term "interventional cardiology
`
`device" in that nonlimited manner?
`
` MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to form.
`
` Go ahead.
`
` A. To a certain extent. I mean, clearly where
`
`the device that is the subject of the patent is a
`
`device that goes in a coronary artery, and it talks
`
`about interventional cardiology devices going
`
`through it, those devices are going to go into a
`
`coronary artery.
`
` So the way the patent is using the term
`
`could be construed that it would only be a device
`
`that would be used in a coronary artery. But to be
`
`clear, there are devices that are used in coronary
`
`arteries that are not used for treatment.
`
` Q. Okay. So I'm struggling a little bit to
`
`understand your opinions here, and that's kind of
`
`the purpose of the deposition is to understand what
`
`opinions you are offering in these IPRs. And what
`
`I'm trying to understand is: You've offered some
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`opinions about the meaning of the term
`
`"interventional cardiology device." And, in
`
`particular, you've offered opinions about the
`
`meaning of that term as used by the patents in this
`
`proceeding, correct?
`
` A. Sorry. Could you just repeat that last --
`
`the last bit?
`
` Q. So you've offered some opinions in your
`
`Exhibit 1806 about the meaning of the term
`
`"interventional cardiology device" --
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. -- as used in the patents that are at issue
`
`in this proceeding, correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. So what I'm trying to understand is:
`
`What is that meaning that you are applying when you
`
`analyze these patents?
`
` MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to --
`
`BY MR. KOHLHEPP:
`
` Q. And I'm asking --
`
` MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to form.
`
`BY MR. KOHLHEPP:
`
` Q. I'm asking: Does paragraph 13 and the
`
`diagram there accurately represent the meaning of
`
`"interventional cardiology device" that you are
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`applying when you analyze these patents?
`
` MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to form.
`
`Mischaracterizes testimony.
`
` A. The declaration, and, in particular,
`
`paragraph 13, accurately reflects my opinion. To
`
`put it in its simplest form, interventional
`
`cardiology treatment devices used in the coronary
`
`arteries are a subset of interventional cardiology
`
`devices.
`
` Now, I've said that repetitively that is my
`
`opinion, and that is the opinion in my -- of all
`
`interventional cardiologists.
`
` So if you go up to an interventional
`
`cardiologist, with or without a patent in hand, and
`
`say, "Is this device a treatment device?" the
`
`answer will be yes or no, depending on whether that
`
`device is used as treatment. That's my opinion,
`
`and I've said it repetitively. The declaration is
`
`an accurate reflection of my opinion.
`
` So to just add to that, it is not correct
`
`to use these terms interchangeably. That is my
`
`opinion.
`
` Q. Okay. So is it fair to say that when the
`
`patents in these matters use the term
`
`"interventional cardiology device," they are using
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`it to include interventional cardiology devices
`
`that are used in the coronary arteries as well as
`
`interventional cardiology devices that are not used
`
`in the coronary arteries?
`
` MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to form.
`
`Mischaracterizes testimony.
`
` A. Yeah, I have not said that. And I'm very
`
`happy to go to the specific area of the patent
`
`wherever the term is used, and I can tell you how a
`
`cardiologist would interpret it in that context.
`
` One of the -- one of the issues is that
`
`they are used differently. The terms are used
`
`differently within the patents, and it's unclear
`
`how specific it is meant to be. But I can go to a
`
`specific quotation where it is raised in the
`
`patent, and I am happy to tell you what a
`
`cardiologist would interpret. But, I say again, a
`
`cardiologist would not include all treatment
`
`devices as all devices.
`
` Q. Okay. Again, I think I'm struggling to
`
`follow your opinions a little bit.
`
` So I'm talking only about the term
`
`"interventional cardiology device." Okay?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. That's the term we're talking about.
`
`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
`
`
`
`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 21
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. And you agree the patents at issue
`
`here -- the patents at issue here use that term,
`
`correct?
`
` A. I would like -- I think it might actually
`
`be helpful and we would both understand each other
`
`if we actually went to the patent and saw where it
`
`was used, because I think that's helpful.
`
` Q. Okay. If you go to the heading above
`
`paragraph 4 in Exhibit 1806, your declaration.
`
` Are you there?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. It says, "Interventional cardiology
`
`device."
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. That's the term that you are
`
`offering opinions on with these patents, correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. And the patents use that term,
`
`correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. So my question is: You have now
`
`offered opinions on the meaning of that term as the
`
`patents use it, correct?
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
` A. Yes, that's correct.
`
` Q. Okay. And you say, for example, in
`
`paragraph 11, third sentence, "However, a POSITA
`
`would not even limit the term 'interventional
`
`cardiology device' in general to only the coronary
`
`arteries."
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes. And the key there --
`
` Q. Please let me finish my question.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. And then in paragraph 13, you have a
`
`diagram that shows interventional cardiology
`
`devices as being not limited to a device that's
`
`used in the coronary arteries, correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. So is it accurate to say that the
`
`definition of interventional cardiology devices, as
`
`used in the patents that you are applying, includes
`
`interventional cardiology devices that are not used
`
`in coronary arteries?
`
` MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to form.
`
`Asked and answered.
`
` A. My declaration has concluded a more general
`
`comment on interventional cardiology devices. It
`
`is quite clear that an interventional cardiology
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`device that is not designed for use in the coronary
`
`arteries would not be placed down a catheter that
`
`is in a coronary artery.
`
` What I have tried to set out in the
`
`declaration is how a cardiologist interprets these
`
`results -- or, I'm sorry, these terms. If one is
`
`considering interventional cardiology devices that
`
`are placed in a catheter in the coronary artery, it
`
`follows from common sense that those must be
`
`devices that are used in a coronary artery. I have
`
`used the term in general, and, at paragraph 11, I
`
`have said I understand the interventional
`
`cardiology treatment device to be a subset of the
`
`broader term "interventional cardiology device."
`
` So I think all I'm -- I'm not trying to
`
`make my opinion unclear. What I've tried to do is
`
`set out how a cardiologist sees these devices. But
`
`if one is limiting the discussions of devices that
`
`go into a catheter that is placed in a coronary
`
`artery, it is inevitable that there are
`
`interventional cardiology devices that are used in
`
`coronary arteries.
`
` Q. Okay. And, again, I'm just trying to
`
`understand your opinions here.
`
` So in your view, when the patent uses the
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`term "interventional cardiology device," just that
`
`term, it is using that term consistent with this
`
`understanding of interventional cardiology devices
`
`that you've laid out in your opinions; is that
`
`correct?
`
` A. In order to answer that question, I don't
`
`believe that there is 100 percent consistency
`
`throughout the patent in how they use the terms.
`
`Because there are some -- there are examples of
`
`where it's not completely clear. All I can do is
`
`just explain how a cardiologist uses -- looks at
`
`the term within the patent.
`
` If the -- if the term is only being used to
`
`describe what is placed in a coronary catheter, it
`
`must be a coronary device. But, for example, it
`
`might be that the patent put -- uses the term more
`
`generally in a preamble. I would have to go back
`
`and really look at the patent again for that term.
`
`Because it may be used in a more general sense at
`
`the beginning, and then when they talk about it in
`
`the claims, they're referring to a more specific
`
`use.
`
` I've tried to set out my opinion clearly.
`
`A cardiologist sees interventional cardiology
`
`devices as many things. There are a group of
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
`interventional cardiology devices that are used in
`
`the coronary arteries. Some, but not all, of those
`
`are treatment devices.
`
` Where the patent refers to an
`
`interventional cardiology device as being placed in
`
`a catheter that is then in a coronary artery, it
`
`has to be a device that would be a -- a device used
`
`in the coronary arteries.
`
` Q. Okay. So, in your opinion, what the patent
`
`means when it says the term "interventional
`
`cardiology device" depends on, I guess, where in
`
`the patent that term is being used, because it may
`
`have a different meaning?
`
` Am I understanding that correctly?
`
` MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to form.
`
`Mischaracterizes testimony.
`
` A. I would need to go to the specific area of
`
`the patent to tell you if it was being used in that
`
`way. But the patents are describing things that
`
`are put down coronary arteries. And a cardiologist
`
`would understand that an interventional cardiology
`
`device that is put through a catheter that is in
`
`the coronary artery would be a device that is used
`
`in the coronary artery. I can't -- I mean, I don't
`
`know how much clearer I can say that.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
` Q. I think what I'm understanding -- and,
`
`again, I'm just trying to understand the opinions
`
`in your declaration here -- is that the patents at
`
`issue here, in your opinion, use the term
`
`"interventional cardiology device" sometimes in a
`
`broader sense and sometimes in a narrower sense,
`
`depending on the context of the particular part of
`
`the patent --
`
` MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to --
`
`BY MR. KOHLHEPP:
`
` Q. -- is that correct?
`
` MS. ROBERG-PEREZ: Object to form.
`
`Mischaracterizes testimony.
`
` A. That is -- what you have said is possibly
`
`correct. I would need to go to the patent.
`
` Q. Okay. And we can do that. But to be
`
`clear, I'm asking you about opinions in your
`
`declaration, which is paragraphs 4 through --
`
` A. And I've set it out. I've set it out as
`
`clearly as I can in those opinions. But I'm not --
`
`sitting here now, I don't know if there is a
`
`sentence in the preamble or the base of the patent.
`
`Remember, I've looked at a large number of patents
`
`in this case.
`
` It is possible that the terms "cardiology
`
`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
`
`
`
`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 27
`
`device" or "interventional cardiology device" may
`
`not be used in a very restrictive way in one part
`
`of an introduction. Sometimes patents can use
`
`terms slightly more generally.
`
` But, to be clear, I'll just be repeating
`
`myself. I --
`
` Q. Okay. How about this. Let's go to the
`
`patent. Let's go to the '413 patent. And that's
`
`going to be Exhibit -- I'll call it the first
`
`Exhibit 1001 in your paper binder.
`
` (Previously marked Exhibit No. 1001
`
` was introduced.)
`
` A. '413 patent, yes.
`
` Q. Okay. And would you go to Claim 1.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And Claim 1 uses the term "interventional
`
`cardiology device," correct?
`
` A. Yes. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. And it then -- it specifies it for use in
`
`the coronary vasculature. So it quite clearly, in
`
`my opinion, is -- this is the second of those
`
`circles, which is interventional cardiology device
`
`for use in the coronary arteries.
`
` Q. Okay. But if we look at just the term
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`"interventional cardiology device"
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
