U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Filed on behalf of Medtronic Vascular, Inc.
`
`By: David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476 (Lead Counsel)
` Alexis Cohen, Reg. No. 76,998 (First Back-up Counsel)
` Gregory Lantier (pro hac vice to be filed) (Back-up Counsel)
`Jennifer Graber, Reg. No. 80,059 (Back-up Counsel)
`Gilbert Smolenski, Reg. No. 78,549 (Back-up Counsel)
`
` Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
` 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
` Washington, DC 20006
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TMT SYSTEMS, INC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR Trial No. IPR2021-01533
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 26 OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,101,393
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`TMT 2174
`Medtronic v. TMT
`IPR2021-01533
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Table of Contents
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Mandatory Notices ........................................................................................... 3
`Real Parties in Interest ........................................................................... 3
`
`Related Matter ....................................................................................... 3
`
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 3
`
`Service Information ............................................................................... 4
`
`III. Certification of Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a) ................ 4
`IV. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ................................................. 5
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications Relied Upon ...................... 5
`
`Grounds of Challenge ............................................................................ 6
`
`Relief Requested .................................................................................... 6
`
`V. Overview of the State of the Art and the ’393 Patent ..................................... 7
`The State of the Art ............................................................................... 7
`
`The ’393 Patent ................................................................................... 12
`
`Summary of the ’393 Patent’s Prosecution ......................................... 16
`
`VI. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................ 17
`VII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 18
`“shape of a M”/“shape of multiple Ms”/“M configuration” (claims 1,
`
`2, 26) .................................................................................................... 19
`“telescoping arm”/“telescoping arms” (claims 1, 2, 26) ..................... 21
`
`Remaining Claim Terms ..................................................................... 26
`
`VIII. Stelter, Quiachon, and Hartley Each Disclose the Attachment Device
`Claimed in the ’393 Patent ............................................................................ 28
`IX. Ground I: Challenged Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 26 Are Anticipated by
`Stelter ............................................................................................................. 30
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................................... 30
`
`Dependent Claim 2 .............................................................................. 38
`
`Dependent Claim 4 .............................................................................. 41
`
`
`
`
`– ii –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
` Dependent Claim 10 ............................................................................ 42
`Dependent Claim 11 ............................................................................ 43
`
`Independent Claim 26 ......................................................................... 44
`
`X. Ground II: Challenged Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, and 26 Are Anticipated by
`Quiachon ........................................................................................................ 48
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................................... 48
`
`Dependent Claim 2 .............................................................................. 58
`
`Dependent Claim 4 .............................................................................. 60
`
` Dependent Claim 11 ............................................................................ 61
`Independent Claim 26 ......................................................................... 62
`
`XI. Ground III: Challenged Claim 10 Would Have Been Obvious over Quiachon
`in View of Lau ............................................................................................... 65
` Dependent Claim 10 ............................................................................ 65
`Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness Do Not Negate the
`
`Above Obviousness Grounds. ............................................................. 68
`XII. Ground IV: Challenged Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 26 Are Anticipated by
`Hartley ........................................................................................................... 69
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................................... 69
`
`Dependent Claim 2 .............................................................................. 78
`
`Dependent Claim 4 .............................................................................. 81
`
` Dependent Claim 10 ............................................................................ 82
`Dependent Claim 11 ............................................................................ 82
`
`Independent Claim 26 ......................................................................... 84
`
`XIII. Discretionary Denial Under §314(a) Is Not Warranted ................................ 87
`XIV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 89
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– iii –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`935 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 236 (2020) ................ 27
`Catalina Marketing Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 26
`Dish Network L.L.C. v. Broadband iTV, Inc.,
`No. IPR2020-01267, Paper 15 (Jan. 21, 2021) ................................................... 88
`Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`No. IPR2020-00441, Paper 13 (July 17, 2020) .................................................. 87
`Motorola Mobility LLC v. Ironworks Patents, LLC,
`No. IPR2021-00420, Paper 11 (July 22, 2021) .................................................. 88
`Nokia of America Corp. v. IPCom, Gmbh & Co. KG,
`No. IPR2021-00533, Paper 10 (Aug. 12, 2021) ................................................. 88
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC,
`735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 69
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`No. IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) .................................... 89
`Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enterprises, Inc.,
`632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 69
`Woods v. DeAngelo Marine Exhaust, Inc.,
`692 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 27
`Docketed Cases
`TMT Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. & Medtronic USA, Inc.,
`No. 6:20-cv-00973-ADA (W.D. Tex.) ................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`– iv –
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C.
`§102 ....................................................................................................................... 6
`§102(a) .............................................................................................................. 5, 6
`§102(b) .............................................................................................................. 5, 6
`§102(e) .............................................................................................................. 5, 6
`§102(g) ................................................................................................................ 89
`§103 ....................................................................................................................... 6
`§312(a)(2) ............................................................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– v –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`This is one (Petition B) of two concurrently filed petitions for inter partes
`
`review challenging claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 26 (“Challenged Claims”) of United
`
`States Patent No. 7,101,393 (“the ’393 patent,” Ex.1101). This petition challenges
`
`those claims applying Patent Owner (“PO”)’s litigation-inspired proposed
`
`construction of “telescoping arm” and “telescoping arms.”1 (E.g., Ex.1141;
`
`Ex.1153; Ex.1154).
`
`The ’393 patent, titled “Percutaneous Endovascular Apparatus for Repair of
`
`Aneurysms and Arterial Blockages,” issued from a patent application filed on July
`
`22, 2003, over a decade after percutaneously-delivered endovascular stent grafts for
`
`the repair of aneurysms were first used in the United States and after the field of art
`
`was already crowded. The ’393 patent claims an attachment device for securing an
`
`endovascular apparatus to an interior wall of a blood vessel that comprises “a
`
`plurality of telescoping arms” configured in the shape of an “M.” The apparatus is
`
`
`1 The concurrently filed petition challenges the same claims applying the proper
`
`claim construction of “telescoping arm” and “telescoping arms,” which is the
`
`construction that the Defendants have proposed in parallel district court litigation
`
`and the construction that the PTO has applied in evaluating the patentability of
`
`claims in continuations of the ’393 patent concerning “telescoping arms.”
`
`
`
`– 1 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`meant to treat different conditions, particularly abdominal aortic aneurysms
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`(“AAA”).
`
`As explained in this petition, under PO’s proposed claim construction
`
`advanced in parallel district court litigation (which reads out the claim requirement
`
`of “a plurality of telescoping arm” entirely), the ’393 patent claims are anticipated
`
`by many prior art sinusoidal stent references. By 2002, stents featuring “a plurality
`
`of telescoping arms” under the PO’s erroneous proposed claim construction and in
`
`which the arms are configured in an M-shape were the industry standard in AAA
`
`endovascular stent grafts, and were also well-known and in standard use in general
`
`cardiovascular technologies. This is illustrated, for example, in the two figures
`
`below—one from the ’393 patent (left) and one example from the prior art (right):
`
`(Ex.1101, Fig.13M (annotated))
`
`
`
`(Ex.1108, Fig.2 (annotated))
`
`
`
`This petition provides three examples of such anticipatory prior art (none of which
`
`were before the examiner during prosecution). Each of those prior art references
`
`discloses a radially expanding stent and meets all of the remaining limitations of the
`
`Challenged Claims. Had the Patent Office (“PTO”) interpreted “telescoping arm”
`
`
`
`– 2 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`and “telescoping arms” as PO now proposes and considered any of these prior art
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`references, the Challenged Claims of the ’393 patent would have never been granted.
`
`The Board should institute this petition and undertake an inter partes review
`
`of the Challenged Claims applying the claim constructions of “telescoping arm” and
`
`“telescoping arms” that PO is advancing in parallel district court litigation.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices
`
` Real Parties in Interest
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §312(a)(2), Petitioner identifies the following parties:
`
`Medtronic Vascular, Inc. (Petitioner), Medtronic Vascular Galway Unlimited
`
`Company, Medtronic Logistics LLC, Medtronic, Inc., and Medtronic USA, Inc.
`
`Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic USA, Inc. are the named defendants in the
`
`parallel district court litigation identified below. While Medtronic, Inc. has no
`
`involvement in any alleged acts of infringement, PO named it as a defendant and it
`
`is being identified as a real party in interest for that reason.
`
` Related Matter
`
`The ’393 patent has been asserted in TMT Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. and
`
`Medtronic USA, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00973-ADA (W.D. Tex.).
`
` Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel:
`
`David L. Cavanaugh (Reg. No. 36,476)
`
`First Back-up Counsel: Alexis Cohen (Reg. No. 76,998)
`
`
`
`– 3 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Back-up Counsel:
`
`Gregory Lantier (pro hac vice to be filed)
`
`Jennifer Graber (Reg. No. 80,059)
`
`Gilbert Smolenski (Reg. No. 78,549)
`
`
`
`Service Information
`
`Email:
`
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com;
`
`Alexis.Cohen@wilmerhale.com;
`
`Gregory.Lantier@wilmerhale.com;
`
`Jennifer.Graber@wilmerhale.com;
`
`Gilbert.Smolenski@wilmerhale.com.
`
`Post & Hand Delivery: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`Tel: (202) 663-6000, Facsimile: (202) 663-6363
`
`Petitioner agrees to accept service by email.
`
`III. Certification of Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’393 patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review on the
`
`grounds identified herein.
`
`
`
`– 4 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IV. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 26 (“Challenged Claims”) of the ’393 patent and requests
`
`each Challenged Claim be cancelled.
`
`
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following patents and printed publications:
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,695,875 to Stelter (“Stelter,” Ex.1108), issued on February
`
`24, 2004 and filed on March 14, 2001, is prior art to the ’393 patent under pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(e).2 Stelter was not before the PTO during prosecution
`
`of the ’393 patent.
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,824,044 to Quiachon (“Quiachon,” Ex.1104), issued on
`
`October 20, 1998, and filed on September 3, 1996, is prior art to the ’393
`
`patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§102(a), 102(b), and 102(e). Quiachon was
`
`not before the PTO during prosecution of the ’393 patent.
`
`3. WO 99/29262 to Hartley (“Hartley,” Ex.1105), published on June 17, 1999,
`
`and filed on December 9, 1998, is prior art to the ’393 patent under pre-AIA
`
`
`2 The ’393 patent was examined under pre-AIA rules. (E.g., Ex.1102). Although
`
`this petition applies pre-AIA rules, the relied-upon references also qualify as prior
`
`art post-AIA.
`
`
`
`– 5 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`35 U.S.C. §§102(a), 102(b), and 102(e). Hartley was not before the PTO
`
`during prosecution of the ’393 patent.
`
`4.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,919,225 to Lau (“Lau,” Ex.1107), issued on July 6, 1999,
`
`and filed on July 14, 1997, is prior art to the ’393 patent under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. §§102(a), 102(b), and 102(e). Lau was not before the PTO during
`
`prosecution of the ’393 patent.
`
` Grounds of Challenge
`
`Under Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner
`
`requests
`
`cancellation of claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 26 of the ’393 patent as unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103 based on the following grounds.
`
`Ground 35 U.S.C. §
`I
`102
`II
`102
`III
`103
`IV
`102
`
`Claims
`1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 26
`1, 2, 4, 11, 26
`10
`1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 26
`
`References
`Stelter
`Quiachon
`Quiachon in view of Lau
`Hartley
`
` Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests that the Board cancel the Challenged Claims because they
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103.
`
`
`
`– 6 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`V. Overview of the State of the Art and the ’393 Patent
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
` The State of the Art
`1.
`
`Traditional Treatment of Aneurysms
`
`An “aneurysm” occurs when there is a weakening in the walls of the blood
`
`vessels that carry blood from a person’s heart to their organs. (Declaration of Dr.
`
`Elliot Chaikof, Ex.1103, ¶¶29-30). This causes an abnormally large bulge in the
`
`blood vessel wall, shown below. (Id., ¶30). This bulge can rupture and cause
`
`internal bleeding, and sometimes lead to death. (Id.). Aneurysms are especially
`
`common in a patient’s abdominal aorta—the main blood vessel carrying blood to a
`
`patient’s legs. (Id., ¶¶29-30). An aneurysm in the abdominal aorta is called an
`
`abdominal aortic aneurysm (“AAA”). (Id., ¶30).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– 7 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Beginning in the 1970s, minimally invasive (also called “percutaneous”)
`
`techniques to repair aneurysms emerged as an alternative to open surgery, and the
`
`first percutaneous repair of AAA was reported in 1991. (Id., ¶¶31-34). To repair an
`
`aneurysm percutaneously, “endovascular stent grafts” were used. (Id., ¶32). Such
`
`devices include a metal ring or scaffold (i.e., the “stent”) that holds the graft open
`
`by pressing against the wall of the blood vessel. (Id.). An example of a prior art
`
`endovascular stent graft is shown below:
`
`(Ex.1137, S148; Ex.1103, ¶38).
`
`
`
`– 8 –
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`An endovascular stent graft can be compressed to a small profile such that it
`
`may be inserted through a patient’s blood vessels (e.g., the femoral artery) and
`
`directed to the aneurysm site. (Ex.1103, ¶32). During endovascular surgery, the
`
`compressed stent graft is held inside a hollow tube. (Id.). Once at the site of the
`
`aneurysm, the tube is removed, and the stent expands into place, either on its own or
`
`with the use of a balloon. (Id.). The stent secures the graft against the blood vessel
`
`walls, which allows blood to flow through the stent graft device and bypass the
`
`aneurysm. (Id.). This process is shown below:
`
`
`
`– 9 –
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`(Id.).
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`2.
`
`Endovascular Stent Grafts Were Well Described in the
`Prior Art and Used in Practice in the 1990s
`
`Throughout the 1990s, endovascular surgery for AAA spread globally, and
`
`devices were developed to treat more complex aneurysms. (Ex.1103, ¶¶35-43, 46).
`
`Medtronic entities were at the forefront of this innovation, developing and testing
`
`two endovascular stent grafts before the year 2000: AneuRx and Talent. (Id., ¶¶37-
`
`38).
`
`Attachment devices with arms in the shape of an M that radially expand
`
`(which PO contends are “telescoping arms” under its proposed claim construction),
`
`were well-known before the ’393 patent was filed. An operational endovascular
`
`stent graft must both successfully compress into a small enough profile for insertion
`
`through a patient’s blood vessel and be able to expand securely into place at the
`
`aneurysm site. (Id., ¶39). Designers developed a number of different zig-zagging
`
`sinusoidal stents in which the arms form an “M” shape. (Id., ¶¶39-43). These
`
`different shapes, shown below, were known to meet both compressibility and
`
`expandability requirements. (Id.).
`
`
`
`– 10 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hartley
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,086,611 (“Duffy,”
`Ex.1132)
`
`
`
`Quiachon
`
`
`
`
`
`– 11 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Stelter
`
`Lau
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,423,090 (“Hancock,” Ex.1135)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’393 Patent
`
`The ’393 patent describes an “attachment device,” e.g., a stent, “having an
`
`expandable attachment device for securing the endovascular apparatus to an interior
`
`wall of a lumen [i.e., blood vessel].” (Ex.1101, 1:9-11). The patent describes that
`
`“[t]he expandable attachment device may include a plurality of telescoping arms that
`
`are joined together to form an expandable ring.” (Id., 1:66-2:1). “Once positioned
`
`at the site of an aneurysm or arterial blockage, the telescoping attachment device can
`– 12 –
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`be expanded to hold the endovascular apparatus in place adjacent to the inner lumen
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`wall.” (Id., 2:11-14). The ’393 patent states that “[e]ach telescoping arm is similar
`
`to an expandable presentation pointer. Alternatively, each telescoping arm may
`
`function like an accordion.” (Id., 2:38-40).
`
`All of the figures in the ’393 patent depict “presentation pointer”
`
`embodiments of the telescoping arm. The majority of depictions of this expandable
`
`ring feature a plurality of telescoping arms that are joined together in a single plane.
`
`In these embodiments, the “telescoping arms” form a flat ring.
`
`
`
`
`
`– 13 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`– 14 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`(Id., Figs.4, 8, 12).
`
`Unlike Figures 4, 8, and 12 above, Figure 13 depicts a plurality of
`
`presentation-pointer telescoping arms that are “positioned in multiple planes.” In
`
`Figure 13, each set of four adjacent telescoping arms form the shape of an “M,” as
`
`depicted below.
`
`
`
`– 15 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig.13). The arms are operatively connected such that when one arm moves
`
`(e.g., arm 1), another arm (e.g., arm 2) moves. In other words, each arm is
`
`functionally connected to the adjacent arms. Notably, Figure 13 is never described
`
`as depicting a telescoping arm that functions like an accordion. (Ex.1103, ¶¶52-67).
`
`
`
`Summary of the ’393 Patent’s Prosecution
`
`The ’393 patent was filed as a patent application on July 22, 2003 as
`
`Application No. 10/624,864. (See Ex.1101). The ’393 patent claims priority to
`
`provisional application No. 60/397,745 filed on July 22, 2002. (Ex.1101, Feb. 28,
`
`2017 Certificate of Correction; Ex.1102, 39; Ex.1147; Ex.1103, ¶¶68-69).
`
`The examiner required the applicant to elect a single distinct species for
`
`prosecution on the merits, and the applicant elected the species represented by Figure
`
`
`
`– 16 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`13. (Ex.1102, 112-116, 126). The applicant noted that “the configuration of the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`telescoping arms, e.g., the ‘M configuration’ shown in Figure 13, serves to provide
`
`additional support and force against a lumen; thus, this configuration provides a
`
`fixation capability to the attachment device. The fixation component is in this
`
`combination of telescoping arms.” (Ex.1102, 126).
`
`The ’393 patent issued on September 5, 2006. (Ex.1101; Ex.1103, ¶¶70-78).
`
`VI. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention would be a medical practitioner, with experience using endovascular stent
`
`grafts and with training, experience, or familiarity applying principles of engineering
`
`to the design, development, or testing of endovascular devices; and/or an engineer,
`
`having at least a bachelor of science degree and with several years of experience in
`
`the design, development, or testing of endovascular devices and their clinical use; a
`
`higher level of education could reduce the number of years of experience required.
`
`(Ex.1103, ¶¶26-28). A POSA would be familiar with the design and operation of
`
`endovascular stent grafts and the equipment and tools required to treat a patient using
`
`an endovascular stent graft. (Id.).
`
`
`
`– 17 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`VII. Claim Construction
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The parties involved in parallel district court litigation have briefed their
`
`differing claim construction positions. The court has not yet construed the claims.3
`
`Petitioner reserves all rights with respect to claim construction. Petitioner proposes
`
`the following constructions, but notes that with the exception of “telescoping arm”
`
`and “telescoping arms,” this petition demonstrates that the prior art teaches each and
`
`every limitation under either Petitioner’s proposed claim construction or PO’s
`
`proposed claim construction advanced in the parallel district court litigation.4
`
`
`3 As of the date of this petition, no Markman hearing is scheduled, pending resolution
`
`of venue-related issues. If the court construes the claim language, Petitioner will
`
`inform the Board promptly.
`
`4 The prior art reference in Ground I teaches each and every limitation under
`
`Petitioner’s correct claim construction for the “M” shape terms, and the prior art
`
`references in Grounds II-IV teach each and every limitation under both PO’s
`
`proposed claim construction advanced in the parallel district court litigation and
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction for the “M” shape terms.
`
`
`
`– 18 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`“shape of a M”/“shape of multiple Ms”/“M configuration” (claims
`1, 2, 26)
`
`These terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, which is
`
`readily understandable. There was no specialized meaning of “M” in the field at the
`
`time of the alleged invention. (Ex.1149, 265 (testimony of named inventor);
`
`Ex.1103, ¶102). Nothing in the intrinsic evidence defines “M” more narrowly than
`
`its ordinary meaning. (Ex.1101, 5:36-46, 6:22-40). This can include “M” shapes in
`
`which the arms forming an M are equal in length as well as M shapes in which the
`
`arms differ in length. (Id., Figs.13H-13U, 5:31-46, 6:36-40; Ex.1103, ¶102;
`
`Ex.1102, 147 (“the telescoping arms ‘zigzag’ back and forth in forming the
`
`perimeter or appear as a series of Ms or Vs.”); Ex.1148, 115 (“In the specific
`
`illustrated embodiment, it appears that the right side of each leg is in the form of a
`
`tubular ‘V’ shaped structure, each leg of which telescopically receives a leg of a ‘V’
`
`wire shaped structure on the left side of the illustration.”)).
`
`PO seeks in parallel district court litigation to improperly narrow claim scope
`
`by limiting the claims to an “M” in which “the pair of inner arms of the M are a
`
`different length than the pair of outer arms.” (Ex.1141, 3). But there is nothing in
`
`the plain language of the term “M” that would limit it to only Ms with different-
`
`length arms. Moreover, the written description references telescoping arms in an
`
`“M configuration” in only two locations; neither shows, provides, explains, or
`
`
`
`– 19 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`discusses any specific shape of the “M configuration.” (Ex.1101, 5:36-46, 6:37-40).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`To the contrary, the written description refers to Figures 13 and 15 as depicting the
`
`“M configuration,” both of which show an “M” with arms of equal length. (See id.,
`
`Figs. 13A-13U, 15). 5
`
`Indeed, the Board has repeatedly rejected PO’s position on the “M”
`
`limitations. All seven times that PO has sought claims in continuation applications
`
`that require an “M” with different-length arms, the claims were rejected for lack of
`
`written description. (See, e.g., Ex.1148, 176, 213, 330-331, 602-603, 863-864;
`
`Ex.1152, 93, 166; Ex.1103, ¶¶79-89). As the Board has explained in affirming those
`
`rejections, there is no evidence “that mere reference to an ‘M’ would be recognized
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art as necessarily providing shorter middle struts or
`
`different angles between legs.” (Ex.1148, 330-331). PO’s repeated attempt to
`
`narrow the scope of the “M” limitations here should also be rejected and those terms
`
`instead given their plain and ordinary meaning. (Ex.1103, ¶¶102-103).
`
`
`5 In the parallel district court action, PO pointed to Medtronic marketing materials
`
`for the accused Endurant product to support its arguments regarding the meaning of
`
`an “M” shape. Those materials post-date the ’393 patent by many years and are not
`
`probative extrinsic evidence of the ’393 patent claims’ meaning.
`
`
`
`– 20 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`“telescoping arm”/“telescoping arms” (claims 1, 2, 26)
`
`The terms “telescoping arm” and “telescoping arms” should be construed in
`
`accordance with their plain and ordinary meaning in light of the intrinsic evidence.
`
`A “telescoping arm” means “an arm that telescopes.” “Telescoping arms” means
`
`“more than one telescoping arm.”
`
`“Telescoping” has a plain meaning and there was no specialized meaning of
`
`“telescoping” in the art when the patent was filed. (Ex.1103, ¶96). The primary
`
`dispute between the parties in parallel district court litigation is whether (as
`
`Petitioner contends) each arm must telescope or (as PO contends) individual arms
`
`need not telescope.
`
`The intrinsic record is clear that each arm must telescope. For example, the
`
`specification explains that “[e]ach telescoping arm is similar to an expandable
`
`presentation pointer. Alternatively, each telescoping arm may function like an
`
`accordion.” (Ex.1101, 2:38-40; see also id. 5:16-21 (telescoping arms are
`
`constructed from “nested tubes,” that are “sized so as to fit within one another”)).
`
`Moreover, every one of the ’393 patent’s figures depict that each arm
`
`telescopes. For example, Figure 4C shows six telescoping arms (40) each connected
`
`using a “fixation component” (36):
`
`
`
`– 21 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(Id., Fig.4C, 5:12-25; see also id., Fig.8). Similarly, Figure 12 shows arms
`
`“telescoping” like a presentation pointer and “positioned in a single plane”:
`
`
`
`
`
`– 22 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig.12B, 5:34-35).
`
`Figure 13, which is the species that PO elected following a restriction
`
`requirement, likewise depicts “presentation pointer”-type telescoping arms.
`
`However, unlike Figures 4 and 12, the telescoping arms are “positioned in multiple
`
`planes” in an “M configuration”:
`
`
`
`– 23 –
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig.13N, 5:36-46). Thus, the intrinsic record demonstrates that a “telescoping
`
`arm” is an “arm that telescopes” and that “telescoping arms” refers to “more than
`
`one telescoping arm.” (See also Ex.1103, ¶¶93-97).
`
`In parallel district court litigation, PO seeks to expand the scope of the claims
`
`by arguing that the term “telescoping arm” does not require an arm that telescopes;
`
`instead, PO posits that “telescoping arms” refers to a set of arms (none of which
`
`individually telescopes) arranged in a circle that expands radially. (Ex.1141, 1).
`
`
`
`– 24 –
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`(Ex.1101, Fig.13N, 2:39-40; Ex.1103, ¶¶98-99). In making this argument, PO solely
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,101,393
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`relies on two unrelated disclosures in the ’393 specification: (1) the statement that,
`
`“[a]lternatively, each telescoping may function like an accordion,” (Ex.1101, 2:39-
`
`40), and (2) Figure 13. Its argument does not withstand scrutiny.
`
`First, the sentence at column 2, lines 39-40 states the opposite of what PO
`
`contends. Rather than stating that a group of arms can telescope, it says “each”
`
`telescoping arm may function like an accordion. Second, Figure 13 provides no
`
`support for PO’s proposed construction, both because it is nowhere described as
`
`depicting an “accordion”-type telescoping arm and because, to the contrary, it
`
`depicts individually telescoping arms of the presentation pointer type, as shown
`
`above.
`
`Moreover, PO’s proposed construction is