`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`NEW WORLD MEDICAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MICROSURGICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________________
`Case IPR2020-01573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,107,729
`_______________________
`Mailed: December 17, 2020
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REDACTED
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`Procedural Background .................................................................................... 2
`
`III. The Evidence Supports that the University is a Real Party in Interest ............ 4
`
`IV. The University Should be Subject to the Statutory Estoppel Provisions ....... 13
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`
`
`Exhibit List
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2001 Declaration of Teresa M. Summers, Esq.
`
`Erin G. Sieck et al., Outcomes of Kahook Dual blade Goniotomy with
`
`
`l
`
`Cataract Extraction, 2002 and without Phacoemulsifi.cation
`
`
`
`Ophthalmology Glaucoma, 75-81 (2018)
`
`
`
`
`2003
`
`
`UCHealth Today, January 6, 2016
`
`
`
`Todd Neff, UCHealth Eye Center lands global innovation awards,
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement (ECF No. 1) in MicroSurgical
`
`
`
`
`
`2004 Technology, Inc., et al. v. New World Medical, Inc., Case No. 1 :20-cv-
`
`
`00754-UNA (D. Del.), filed June 4, 2020
`
`Presentation by New World Medical titled "KDB Competitive:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trabectome/Goniotome {MST}, available at
`
`
`2005 <https:/www .leam.newworldmedical. com/wp-
`
`
`
`content/uploads/2020/04/ MSTTrabectome-Goniotome-min.pdf> and
`
`
`last accessed October 30, 2020
`
`
`
`
`2006
`
`
`
`cutting system" issued June 25, 2019
`
`
`
`Kahook, Malik Y., U.S. Patent No. 10,327,947, "Modified dual-blade
`
`
`
`
`
`October 21, 2015 press release titled "New World Medical to Launch
`2007
`the Kahook Dual Blade at AAO Meeting."
`
`University of Colorado a global leader in patents fog inventions,
`
`
`
`
`
`2008
`
`
`innovations, CU Connections, June 1, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2009 Draft Proposed Patent Owner's Additional Discovery Requests
`
`Email conversation between Lawrence Sung, counsel for Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2010 Owner, and Kyle Deighan, counsel for Petitioner, containing messages
`
`from October 6-7, 2020
`
`
`
`2011 Declaration of Maeve Hickey
`
`Patent Owner's Complaint filed November 4, 2020, in the U.S.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`District Court for the Western District of Washington (No.
`2012
`
`
`
`
`2:20-cv-01621) alleging infringement by Petitioner of U.S. Patent
`No. 10,786,391
`
`
`
`2013 Email from Lawrence Sung to PTAB (November 5, 2020)
`
`
`
`
`
`2014 KDB Glide comparison to the TrabEx
`
`
`
`2015 Kahook, Malik Y., U.S. Patent No. 10,786,391, “Intraocular device for
`dual incisions” issued September 29, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) “may be considered only if . . . the
`
`petition identifies all real parties in interest.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). “That statutory
`
`requirement, thus, defines a ‘threshold issue’ for substantive review of the merits of
`
`the challenges presented in the Petition.” Galderma S.A. v. Allergan Industrie, SAS,
`
`No. IPR2014-01422, 2015 WL 1022410, at *3 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2015). As
`
`explained in detail herein, The Regents of the University of Colorado (the
`
`“University”) is intimately intertwined with Petitioner New World Medical, Inc.’s
`
`(“Petitioner” or “NWM”) business related to the technology at issue in this case. The
`
`University also has a strong financial motivation to invalidate the patent at issue in
`
`this IPR and is a beneficiary of this IPR. For these reasons and more, the University
`
`should have been named as a real party in interest (“RPI”) in this proceeding.
`
`Petitioner, however, not only failed to include the University in its list of RPIs
`
`when it filed the Petition, it also has staunchly refused to amend its identification of
`
`RPIs after Patent Owner notified Petitioner of this failure. Exclusion of the
`
`University from Petitioner’s list of RPIs conceals the University’s meaningful
`
`interest in this proceeding and is a calculated, collective attempt to avoid critical
`
`implications of estoppel. By failing to name the University as an RPI, Petitioner is
`
`paving the way for the University to observe the outcome of this IPR and have a
`
`second bite at the apple, should this IPR not succeed in invalidating all of the
`
`
`
`2
`
`challenged claims. Petitioner’s indifference to the estoppel provisions that underpin
`
`the statutory requirement to name all RPIs should not be countenanced.
`
`For the reasons that follow, and because the Petition omits the University from
`
`its identification of RPIs, Petitioner does not meet its burden under § 312(a)(2), and
`
`the Board should deny institution or order that Petitioner amend its mandatory
`
`disclosures to name the University as an RPI. Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d
`
`1237, 1242, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“an IPR petitioner’s initial identification of the
`
`real parties in interest should be accepted unless and until disputed by a patent
`
`owner” and a patent owner need only “produce some evidence to support its
`
`argument that a particular third party should be named a real party in interest”).
`
`II.
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`On September 4, 2020, Petitioner filed this IPR, listing itself as the only RPI.
`
`Paper 1, p. ix. After an unfruitful meet-and-confer, Patent Owner emailed the Board
`
`on October 7, 2020, requesting a conference call to seek authorization to file a
`
`Motion for Additional Discovery related to whether the University is an RPI to this
`
`proceeding. Ex. 3001. A conference call was held on October 27, 2020. During the
`
`call, the parties explained that Petitioner licenses the right to make products that
`
`directly compete with those of Patent Owner from the University and, while
`
`Petitioner agreed to produce a redacted version of that license agreement, Patent
`
`Owner argued that was not sufficient to illustrate the relationship between Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`and the University. On October 27, 2020, in view of the parties’ impasse, the Board
`
`3
`
`granted Patent Owner leave to file the motion for additional discovery. Paper 6.
`
`On October 30, 2020, Patent Owner filed its motion and attached discovery
`
`requests targeted to learn about the extent of the entanglement between Petitioner
`
`and the University. Paper 7, Ex. 2009. Shortly thereafter, on November 4, 2020,
`
`Petitioner and the University jointly sued Patent Owner in district court and, the next
`
`day, on November 5, 2020, Patent Owner sent an email to the Board, submitting that
`
`the complaint in that case should be included in the Board’s consideration of Patent
`
`Owner’s pending motion. Ex. 2012; Ex. 2013.
`
`On November 6, 2020, Petitioner filed its opposition to Patent Owner’s
`
`motion for additional discovery and attached a redacted version of Petitioner’s
`
`license agreement with the University. Ex. 1022. Notably, the redactions conceal the
`
`financial terms and thus the scope and size of the University’s benefit in Petitioner’s
`
`invalidating Patent Owner’s patents. Compounding the issue is that Petitioner
`
`completely ignored the fact that, both this IPR and the recent district court litigation
`
`brought by the University and Petitioner against Patent Owner are part of the same
`
`litigation and commercial strategy to clear competitive hurdles and pave the way for
`
`Petitioner to sell more product, which results directly in financial gain to the
`
`University.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Nevertheless, on December 10, 2020, the Board denied Patent Owner’s
`
`motion for additional discovery. Paper 13. The Board’s decision, however, gave
`
`insufficient weight to the fact that the University’s role in its partnership with
`
`Petitioner is not confined to that of a mere patent licensee, which is shown by the
`
`recent district court litigation brought by the University and Petitioner together
`
`against Patent Owner and the terms of the license agreement between the University
`
`and Petitioner. As explained below, this new evidence underscores the hand-in-hand
`
`relationship that the University and the Petitioner have adverse to Patent Owner that
`
`speaks to the need for the University to be named as a RPI to attach the estoppel
`
`effect of this and four other related IPRs.
`
`III. THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THAT THE UNIVERSITY IS A REAL
`PARTY IN INTEREST
`
`The evidence addressed below supports that the University is an RPI to this
`
`proceeding at least because (1) the University has voluntarily joined Petitioner’s
`
`legal disputes with Patent Owner related to the technology at issue; (2) the
`
`University and Petitioner have a long-standing, symbiotic business relationship; and
`
`(3) the University has a strong financial motivation to invalidate the patent at issue.
`
`First, there is no question that the University views itself as intimately and
`
`directly implicated in Petitioner’s legal disputes with Patent Owner, as the
`
`University is a co-party with Petitioner in an infringement litigation involving the
`
`very technology at issue here. By way of background, Patent Owner MicroSurgical
`
`
`
`
`Technology, Inc. (“Patent Owner” or “MST”) acquired certain assets of its
`
`5
`
`predecessor, NeoMedix Corp. (“NeoMedix”), in 2019. The acquisition included the
`
`innovative technology to less-invasive ab interno operating principles to treat
`
`glaucoma, thereby reducing operative and postoperative trauma significantly. Patent
`
`Owner also acquired certain related technology and associated patents, including
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,107,729 (the “’729 Patent” or the “patent at issue”).
`
`Patent Owner competes directly, and arguably solely, with Petitioner in the
`
`market for its pioneering surgical devices, which include Patent Owner’s goniotome,
`
`TrabEx, TrabEX+, and Trabectome® products. Petitioner’s first competing product,
`
`developed roughly ten years after the Trabectome®, is known as the Kahook Dual
`
`Blade® (“KDB”). On June 4, 2020, Patent Owner filed a complaint of patent
`
`infringement against Petitioner, asserting that Petitioner’s ophthalmic surgical
`
`device infringes the patent at issue. Ex. 2004. Petitioner reacted by (1) filing this IPR
`
`on September 4, 2020, and then filing four other related IPRs;1 and (2) filing a
`
`
`1 Petitioner has sought IPR of all five patents-in-suit in the Delaware action.
`
`Patent Owner also asserts that University is a RPI in the four other IPRs: Nos.
`
`2020-01711, 2021-00017 and 2021-00065 (involving Petitioner and Patent Owner),
`
`and No. 2021-00066 (involving Petitioner and Patent Owner The Regents of the
`
`University of California). The Board’s RPI ruling should apply equally to all IPRs.
`
`
`
`
`retaliatory infringement suit against Patent Owner in the Western District of
`
`6
`
`Washington (the “Washington Litigation”), asserting its own recently-obtained
`
`patent against Patent Owner’s competing TrabExTM and TrabEx+TM (Ex. 2012) on
`
`November 4, 2020.
`
`While refusing to name the University as an RPI here, Petitioner joined the
`
`University as co-plaintiff in the Washington Litigation. The fact that separate lead
`
`counsel for the University have entered an appearance in the Washington litigation
`
`underscores that the University has an independent interest in that case, distinct from
`
`that of a mere licensor. Indeed, the University is the sole co-beneficiary of
`
`Petitioner’s infringement lawsuit. Under the redacted license, discussed further
`
`below, it is clear that the University controlled the decision to sue Patent Owner,
`
`making it entirely reasonable to believe the University is doing so likewise in this
`
`proceeding. Ex. 1022, p, 8 § 10.2 (
`
`); id. § 10.4 (
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`); id. § 10.3 (
`
`).
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Regardless of the actual financial terms that have been redacted in Exhibit
`
`1022, the University’s monetary stake is clearly substantial. As discussed in further
`
`detail below, given Dr. Kahook’s principal role in designing, developing, and
`
`promoting the KDB as well as the University’s public admission that the KDB is
`
`one of its own best success stories, crediting Petitioner’s license of one of
`
`University’s “highest-impact patents from 2019” as instrumental in elevating
`
`University into a “Top 20” research university. See Ex. 2008 at 1-2. There can be
`
`little doubt that the University recognizes that the direct consequence of any action
`
`having the effect of clearing Patent Owner’s patents from the competitive landscape
`
`will inure to the financial benefit of the University.
`
`Thus, the University will benefit from any redress this tribunal may provide
`
`just as much as it will benefit from any redress the Washington Litigation may
`
`provide. This is the very essence of the RPI inquiry and compels that the University
`
`should be an RPI here. Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., 897 F.3d
`
`1336, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“AIT”) (holding that “the focus of the real-party-in-
`
`interest inquiry is on the patentability of the claims challenged in the IPR petition,
`
`bearing in mind who will benefit from having those claims canceled or invalidated”
`
`and that the determination of who is an RPI should consider “who, from a ‘practical
`
`and equitable’ standpoint, will benefit from the redress that the chosen tribunal might
`
`provide”).
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioner’s sole attempt to justify its failure to list the University as an RPI in
`
`this proceeding, while effectively doing the opposite in the Washington Litigation,
`
`is that “the patent asserted in [the Washington Litigation] is not at issue in this or
`
`any other IPR proceeding filed by [Petitioner].” Paper 9, p. 5. That misses the mark.
`
`The point is that the Parties’ technologies and ophthalmic surgical devices in all
`
`proceedings are not only similar but also directly competing with one another. All
`
`of the proceedings against Patent Owner in this forum and in the district court are
`
`aimed at bringing financial gain to Petitioner and the University alike. The
`
`University thus should be listed as an RPI here, just as it bound itself as a party in
`
`the Washington Litigation.
`
`Second, Petitioner and the University have publicly acknowledged their
`
`symbiotic partnership with respect to the technology at issue. Notably, Petitioner did
`
`not design or develop the KDB. Rather, Dr. Malik Kahook, after whom the KDB is
`
`named, not only allegedly came up with the idea for KDB device during his tenure
`
`as a professor at the University but also purports to have designed and developed the
`
`KDB device. Ex. 2007. Through Dr. Kahook, the University also promotes the KDB
`
`as “a cost effective way to treat glaucoma . . . with a short learning curve for
`
`surgeons.” Id., p. 2. Indeed, Dr. Kahook has released numerous videos promoting
`
`
`
`
`and instructing others to use the KDB.2 Petitioner, on the other hand, operates as the
`
`9
`
`commercialization partner.
`
`This relationship is unlike the usual University technology transfer
`
`relationship, where the University merely innovates and licenses its patents to a for-
`
`profit entity who then designs, develops, promotes, and commercializes the
`
`technology. Petitioner recognizes this distinction: “We are excited to partner with
`
`the University of Colorado and Dr. Kahook to collectively further this objective by
`
`empowering surgeons with state-of-the-art
`
`technology
`
`to enhance patient
`
`treatment.” Id. at 2. The University regards the KDB as one of its own best success
`
`stories, crediting Petitioner’s license of one of University’s “highest-impact patents
`
`from 2019” as instrumental in elevating University into a “Top 20” research
`
`university. Ex. 2008 at 1-2. Despite the difference between standing under the
`
`Federal Rules and the RPI guidelines here, the University should be a party to this
`
`IPR.
`
`The University’s interdependent alliance with Petitioner continues to this day.
`
`Recently, after MST introduced its TrabExTM and TrabEx+TM, NWM announced that
`
`it soon will launch a new Kahook product, the “KDB GlideTM,” in the U.S. The new
`
`
`2 See, e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0TyWYtnZi8&t=72s;
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5YgdWgRU44.
`
`
`
`
`KDG Glide is only vaguely described in the publicly-available press releases, but it
`
`10
`
`appears that Dr. Kahook, while continuing to be employed by the University,
`
`specifically designed the KDB GlideTM to compete against MST’s devices, including
`
`MST’s TrabExTM and TrabEx+TM. Indeed, NWM funded a study that was conducted
`
`by Dr. Kahook and another colleague who is also employed by the University. Ex.
`
`2014. This study squarely pits the KDB GlideTM against MST’s TrabExTM device
`
`and appears to be a joint marketing effort of the University and Petitioner to co-
`
`promote their competing product against that of Patent Owner.
`
`The University’s own patents, which are licensed to Petitioner, similarly
`
`compare the technology and devices developed by the University against that
`
`developed by Patent Owner’s predecessor. For example, the University’s U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,327,947, for which Dr. Kahook is the sole named inventor, compares the
`
`KDB against the Trabectome® over 36 times. Ex. 2006. The University’s U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,786,391, which Petitioner and the University are asserting against Patent
`
`Owner in the Washington Litigation, likewise includes drawings and disclosures that
`
`compare the KDB and Trabectome®. Ex. 2015.
`
`This evidence, taken together, shows that the University and Petitioner have
`
`a relationship deeper than the typical licensee/licensor relationship. Not only does
`
`the evidence directly establish the University’s beneficiary relationship in this IPR,
`
`
`
`
`it also reasonably demonstrates some opportunity for the University to control or
`
`11
`
`fund Petitioner’s actions.
`
`Third, the patents that purportedly cover the KDB and the KDB Glide are
`
`owned by the University and are exclusively licensed by Petitioner. Ex. 1022 at p.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`, thus provide the University with a strong financial motivation
`
`to invalidate the patent at issue in this IPR. In this two-supplier market, Patent
`
`Owner’s patents are a patent risk for the University as well as for Petitioner. Were
`
`Petitioner enjoined from selling its Kahook Dual Blade and KDB Glide on the
`
`market, the University would suffer financial and reputational harm.
`
`In sum, from the first announcement of the KDB to this day, Petitioner and
`
`the University have been acting as one operation with respect to the technology at
`
`issue here. The foregoing evidence thus supports that the University and Petitioner
`
`have a shared interest to support and grow Petitioner’s business, including by
`
`invalidating the patents of its foremost, if not only, competitor in this IPR. The
`
`extensive, ongoing collaboration between Petitioner and the University with respect
`
`to the technology at issue supports that the University is an RPI to this proceeding.
`
`Institution should therefore be denied or Petitioner should be ordered to amend its
`
`mandatory disclosures to name the University as an RPI. AIT, 897 F.3d at 1351
`
`(requiring “a flexible approach that takes into account both equitable and practical
`
`
`
`
`considerations, with an eye toward determining whether the non-party is a clear
`
`13
`
`beneficiary that has a preexisting, established relationship with the petitioner.”).
`
`IV. THE UNIVERSITY SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE STATUTORY
`ESTOPPEL PROVISIONS
`
`Proper RPI identification is necessary “to assure proper application of the
`
`statutory estoppel provisions” in order “to protect patent owners from harassment
`
`via successive petitions by the same or related parties” and “to prevent parties from
`
`having a ‘second bite at the apple.’” Trial Practice Guide at 48,759. The legislative
`
`history indicates that 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) was intended to ensure the inter partes
`
`review is not used as a “tool[] for harassment” by “repeated litigation and
`
`administrative attacks.” H.R. Rep. No. 112-98 at 48, as reprinted in 2011
`
`U.S.C.C.A.N. at 78. Allowing such attacks “would frustrate the purpose of the
`
`section as providing quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation.” Id.
`
`Further, the Federal Circuit and the Board have embraced that the legislative
`
`purpose for the statutory RPI requirement includes (1) to ensure that third parties
`
`sufficiently closely aligned with petitioners would be bound by IPR final decisions
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) estoppel, and (2) to safeguard patent owners from having
`
`to defend against serial IPRs from related parties. AIT, 897 F.3d at 1350; see
`
`generally, RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC, No. IPR2015-01750,
`
`Paper No. 128 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2020).
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`While it is true that there is no time bar issue to this proceeding regardless of
`
`whether the University is an RPI, this does not negate the need to properly name the
`
`University as an RPI so that it may be subject to the estoppel provisions. To that end,
`
`this case is not like SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corporation, No. IPR2020-
`
`00734, Paper No. 11, pp. 18-19 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 2020), where the Board determined
`
`it need not address whether an unnamed third party was an RPI because, even it if
`
`were, it would not create a time bar issue. In that case, as the Board noted, it also
`
`would not create an estoppel issue because the Petitioner in that case offered to
`
`update its mandatory notices to identify that third party as an RPI. Petitioner has not
`
`done so here.
`
`The estoppel concern is especially grave here, where University is not a
`
`defendant in the Delaware action, and where University and Petitioner maintain a
`
`common incentive to invalidate the ’729 Patent. Without the application of IPR
`
`estoppel, University remains armed with a “collective” second bite at the apple. In
`
`this regard, the absence of a time bar with respect to naming University as a RPI,
`
`upon which Petitioner’s counsel has focused, is too narrow a path of inquiry that
`
`ignores other important RPI considerations like estoppel.
`
`Although the Board has emphasized the absence of a time bar in deciding
`
`respective cases based on the particular facts of the case, the Board has not
`
`subordinated the estoppel considerations. There is a strong public policy toward a
`
`
`
`
`petitioner honestly disclosing the real parties in interest so that a patent owner would
`
`15
`
`not suffer repeated administrative attacks. Petitioner has failed to do so.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`The evidence of record “reasonably brings into question the accuracy” of
`
`Petitioner’s identification of real-parties-in-interest. Worlds Inc., 903 F.3d at 1242.
`
`Moreover, in light of Petitioner tying the University to the Washington Litigation—
`
`but not to this IPR—as well as other public statements evidencing the business
`
`relationship between Petitioner and the University, Petitioner knew or should have
`
`known that the University is an RPI. Coupled with the University’s financial and
`
`business motivations to invalidate the patent at issue and strengthen Petitioner’s
`
`position in the market in which it directly competes with Patent Owner, the evidence
`
`shows much more than a mere possibility that the University’s omission from the
`
`list of RPIs was a deliberate attempt to avoid estoppel. Petitioner and the University
`
`were clearly on notice and aware of all of the facts that required the University to be
`
`named as an RPI, but Petitioner chose not to do so.
`
`Especially at this stage of the proceedings, there also would be no prejudice
`
`to Petitioner and the University, as they are free to pursue their invalidity theories
`
`regardless of whether the Petition is amended to add the University as an RPI. On
`
`the other hand, Patent Owner, in the absence of the University being named as an
`
`
`
`
`RPI, would be subject to follow-on petitions from the University and the legal fees
`
`16
`
`in defending against them.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully asks that the Board
`
`decline to institute inter partes review of the ’729 Patent or order that Petitioner
`
`amend its mandatory disclosures to name the University as an RPI.
`
`
`
`Dated: December 17, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Lawrence M. Sung
`Lawrence M. Sung
`Reg. No. 38,330
`Mary Sylvia
`Reg. No. 37,156
`Teresa M. Summers
`(Pro hac vice forthcoming)
`WILEY REIN LLP
`1776 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel. 202.719.7000
`Fax 202.719.7049
`lsung@wiley.law
`msylvia@wiley.law
`tsummers@wiley.law
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`MicroSurgical Technology, Inc.
`
`
`
`17
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONIPLIANCE WITH TYPE VOLUNIE LINIITATION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), I hereby certify that this Petition complies with the
`
`type-volume limitation of 37 C .F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(ii) because, based upon the word count of the
`
`word—processing system used to prepare this petition, the number of words in this petition is
`
`3578. Pursuant to 37 CPR. § 42.24(a), this word count does not include “a table of contents, a
`
`table of authorities, mandatory notices under § 42.8, a certificate of service or word count, or
`
`appendix of exhibits or claim listing.”
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Lawrence M Sung
`
`Dated: December 17, 2020
`
`Lawrence M_ Sung
`Reg. No. 38,330
`Mary Sylvia
`Reg. No. 37,156
`Teresa M. Summers
`
`(Pro hac vice forthcoming)
`WILEY REIN LLP
`
`1776 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel. 202.719.7000
`
`Fax 202.719.7049
`
`lsung@wiley.law
`msylvia@wiley.law
`tsummers@wiley.law
`
`Counselfor Patent Owner
`MicroSurgical Technology, Inc.
`
`
`
`18
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that on December 17, 2020, a true
`
`and correct copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response and
`
`accompanying exhibits were served by email on the following counsel of record for
`
`New World Medical, Inc.:
`
`Todd R. Tucker (Lead Counsel)
`
`Reg. No. 40,850
`Kyle T- Deighan (Back-up Counsel)
`Reg. No. 75,525
`John Reulbach (Back-up Counsel)
`(pro hac vice to be requested)
`CALFEE, HALTER & GRISWOLD LLP
`
`The Calfee Building
`1405 East Sixth Street
`
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`P: 216—622—8551 / F: 216—214—0816
`
`ttucker@calfee-com
`kdeighan@calfee.com
`jreulbach@calfee.com
`
`/s/ Lawrence M. Sung
`
`Counselfor Patent Owner
`MicroSurgical Technology, Inc.
`
`
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
