• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Displaying 24-38 of 180 results

No. 26 NOTICE OF SERVICE of 1) Defendant Covidien LP's Initial Disclosures; and 2) Defendant Covidien ...

Document Rex Medical, L.P. v. Covidien, LP, 1:19-cv-01092, No. 26 (D.Del. Dec. 20, 2019)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 20, 2019, copies of 1) Defendant Covidien LP’s Initial Disclosures; and 2) Defendant Covidien LP’s Disclosures Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the Default Standard for Discovery, Including Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) were caused to be served on the following counsel of record in the manner indicated below:
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the undersigned hereby certifies that on December 20, 2019, a true and correct copy of this Notice of Service was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification that such filing is available for viewing and downloading to counsel of record and served via electronic mail upon
Of Counsel: Gregory H. Lantier (admitted pro hac vice) E. Ross.
Cohen (No. 6121)
cite Cite Document

27 Motion: 2021 01 06 Patent Owner Motion to Exclude Evidence

Document IPR2020-00152, No. 27 Motion - 2021 01 06 Patent Owner Motion to Exclude Evidence (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2021)
The Reply quotes a sentence from Ex. 1024, which states, “[c]onventional staplers were modified in the early 1990s to enable them to fit through available 12 mm and larger trocars.” Id.; Ex. 1024, 1884.
In ¶ 14 of his supplemental declaration, Dr. Knodel offers possible reasons why Green-209’s endoscopic stapler did not include the I-beam previously disclosed in Green-695, despite David Green being a named inventor on both references.
But Dr. Knodel does not explain the basis for his analysis nor cite to any facts in the record supporting these conclusions regarding David Green’s or his employer’s motivations.
In ¶¶ 17-18, Dr. Knodel addresses whether a POSITA would have been motivated to add an I-beam to an endoscopic stapler, given the safety issues identified by Patent Owner.
Putting aside for the moment the probative value of any testimony based on incomplete hypotheticals, as discussed above for ¶¶ 17-18 of Ex. 1025, the ’650 patent’s disclosures simply are not relevant to Petitioner’s motivation to combine analysis.
cite Cite Document

No. 24 NOTICE OF SERVICE of 1) Defendant Covidien LP's First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1 11) to ...

Document Rex Medical, L.P. v. Covidien, LP, 1:19-cv-01092, No. 24 (D.Del. Dec. 11, 2019)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 11, 2019, copies of 1) Defendant Covidien LP’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1 – 11) to Plaintiff Rex Medical, L.P.; and 2) Defendant Covidien LP’s First Set of Requests for Production (Nos. 1-67) to Plaintiff Rex Medical, L.P. were caused to be served on the following counsel of record in the manner indicated below:
Of Counsel: Gregory H. Lantier (admitted pro hac vice) Alexis Cohen (admitted pro hac vice) E. Ross.
Cohen (No. 6121)
cite Cite Document

25 Reply: 2020 12 16 Patent Owner Sur Reply

Document IPR2020-00152, No. 25 Reply - 2020 12 16 Patent Owner Sur Reply (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2020)
Petitioner cites patents assigned to USSC, including Young (Ex.1009), Viola (Ex.1008), Mastri1 (Ex.1015), and Milliman (Ex.1011) (collectively, “USSC patents”), as supposedly showing the prevalence of I-beams in endoscopic staplers allegedly “affirming” the obviousness of adding an I-beam to Green-209.
Even if considered, the Reply leaves the rest of PO’s analysis unchallenged, see POR, 41-44, and, perhaps more importantly, also fails to properly address Petitioner’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate why a POSA would have been motivated to add an I-beam to McGuckin to improve shell alignment and stability.
Petitioner also states that “a POSA knew that a distally actuated ramp-knife assembly would not necessarily be pulled by a cable,” Reply, 20, and proposes yet another modification, a “longitudinally rigid and laterally flexible drive bar[].” Ex.1025, ¶43.
Petitioner also glosses over situations in which, even if only diseased tissue is clamped within the curved portion of the jaw, the full cutting stroke sends staples into the body with no way to retrieve them, potentially causing serious injury to the patient.
Finally, Petitioner points to a single sentence in McGuckin stating that the invention “is not limited to any particular or specific direction [or] orientation” as apparently supporting its reimagining of the knife blade assembly.
cite Cite Document

23 Other Not for motions: JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY DUE DATE 3

Document IPR2020-00152, No. 23 Other Not for motions - JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY DUE DATE 3 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2020)
On Sept. 25, 2020, the parties jointly stipulated to the modification of Due Case No. IPR2020-00152 Patent No. 9,439,650
Dates 2 and 3.
Pursuant to the April 29, 2020 Scheduling Order entered in the above-captioned matter (Paper 10), Patent Owner Rex Medical L.P. (“Patent Owner”) and Petitioner Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (“Petitioner”) hereby jointly stipulate to the further modification of Due Date 3 as follows: Due Date No.
Previous Date Modified Date Dec. 9, 2020 Dec. 16, 2020
UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), 42.105(a) I, Erik B. Milch, hereby certify that on December 4, 2020, the foregoing
cite Cite Document

21 Reply: Petitioners Reply to Patent Owners Response

Document IPR2020-00152, No. 21 Reply - Petitioners Reply to Patent Owners Response (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2020)

cite Cite Document

20 Other Not for motions: Joint Stipulation to Modify Due Dates 2 and 3

Document IPR2020-00152, No. 20 Other Not for motions - Joint Stipulation to Modify Due Dates 2 and 3 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2020)

cite Cite Document

18 Opposition: Petitioners Opposition to Patent Owners Motion to Expunge

Document IPR2020-00152, No. 18 Opposition - Petitioners Opposition to Patent Owners Motion to Expunge (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2020)

cite Cite Document

17 Motion: 2020 09 10 IPR2020 00152 Patent Owner Motion to Expunge

Document IPR2020-00152, No. 17 Motion - 2020 09 10 IPR2020 00152 Patent Owner Motion to Expunge (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2020)

cite Cite Document

37 Notice of Appeal: Petitioners Notice of Appeal

Document IPR2020-00152, No. 37 Notice of Appeal - Petitioners Notice of Appeal (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2021)

cite Cite Document

11 Other Not for motions: IPR2020 00152 Joint Request for Oral Hearing Location ...

Document IPR2020-00152, No. 11 Other Not for motions - IPR2020 00152 Joint Request for Oral Hearing Location Preference (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2020)

cite Cite Document

32 Exhibit List: 2021 01 26 Patent Owner Updated Exhibit List

Document IPR2020-00152, No. 32 Exhibit List - 2021 01 26 Patent Owner Updated Exhibit List (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2021)

cite Cite Document

33 Objection: 2021 01 26 Patent Owner Objections to Petitioner Demonstratives

Document IPR2020-00152, No. 33 Objection - 2021 01 26 Patent Owner Objections to Petitioner Demonstratives (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2021)

cite Cite Document

31 Exhibit List: Petitioners Updated Exhibit List

Document IPR2020-00152, No. 31 Exhibit List - Petitioners Updated Exhibit List (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2021)

cite Cite Document

24 Oral Hearing Request: 2020 12 16 IPR2020 00152 Joint Request for Oral Hearin...

Document IPR2020-00152, No. 24 Oral Hearing Request - 2020 12 16 IPR2020 00152 Joint Request for Oral Hearing (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2020)

cite Cite Document
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11 12 13 >>