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

No. 26

Document Rex Medical, L.P. v. Covidien, LP, 1:19-cv-01092, No. 26 (D.Del. Dec. 20, 2019)

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)
PO’s various specific attacks—none of which have merit—each fail to grapple with the undeniable fact that those in the field actually included an I-beam in endoscopic stapler designs—and did so before the earliest priority date of the ’650 patent.
PO’s argument is inconsistent with the prior art, including USSC’s subsequent patents Proceeding No. IPR2020-00152 Attorney Docket No. 11030-0060IP1 (e.g., Young), which disclose I-beams in endoscopic staplers and indisputably work for their intended purpose.
PO fails to acknowledge “[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and art here, which confirms endoscopic staplers used I-beams before the claimed Proceeding No. IPR2020-00152 Attorney Docket No. 11030-0060IP1 invention, there was no evidence in Spine Solutions that anyone did what was allegedly obvious (use a single keel in a disc replacement).
Finally, POs intended purpose argument incorrectly assumes McGuckin is limited to performing “transmural surgical procedures endolumenally without requiring incisions in the skin.” POR, 39.
PO also restates its argument that the proposed modifications would either reduce interior space or make the jaws larger and therefore produce an instrument unsuitable for its intended purpose.
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)
Proceeding No. IPR2020-00152 Attorney Docket No. 11030-0060IP1 The parties to this proceeding have reached an agreement to extend Due
Dates 2 and 3 as set forth in the Scheduling Order entered on April 29, 2020 (Paper 10).
As permitted by the Scheduling Order, the parties hereby stipulate to, and jointly request entry of, the modification of Due Dates as follows: Due Date Current Deadline New Deadline 10/14/2020 11/25/2020 10/28/2020 12/9/2020 This stipulation does not affect any other Due Dates set in the Scheduling Order.
This paper is being filed by counsel for Petitioner with counsel for the Patent Owner’s approval.
Attorneys for Petitioner Proceeding No. IPR2020-00152 Attorney Docket No. 11030-0060IP1
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)
Proceeding No. IPR2020-00152 Attorney Docket No. 11030-0060IP1 Petitioner opposes Patent Owner’s Motion to Expunge.
Accordingly, Petitioner complied with the rule and filed objections within five business days of service of the supplemental evidence.
Patent Owner argues that it may not file a second round of supplemental evidence in response to our objections.
In fact, perhaps such a statement may be routinely placed in the scheduling order of future proceedings to eliminate the ambiguity left by the Rules.
The PTAB proceedings are intended to be public and Patent Owner has not alleged that the objections reveal any confidential information.
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)
expunge from the record the Objections to Supplemental Evidence (Paper 15) (“Objections”) improperly filed by Petitioner on August 19, 2020.
The party that submitted the objected-to evidence may respond to the objection “by serving supplemental evidence.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (emphasis added).
No party is authorized to file objections to the supplemental evidence that was served but not filed, as Petitioner has done here; and no party is authorized to serve additional supplemental evidence in response to those objections.
Supplemental evidence is distinct from evidence, and “is offered solely to support admissibility of the originally filed evidence.” Handi Quilter, Inc. v. Bernina Int’l AG, IPR2013-00364, Paper 30 at 2 (PTAB June 12, 2014) (emphasis added); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) and (b)(2) (referring to Case No. IPR2020-00152 Patent No. 9,439,650 “evidence” and “supplemental evidence” separately, thereby differentiating the two terms).
The Board should recognize and uphold these past decisions by acknowledging that Petitioner’s Objections are improper and expunging them from the record.
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)
Surgical, Inc. hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the adverse rulings contained within the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) Final Written Decision entered on March 26, 2021 (Paper 35), and from all other underlying orders, decisions, rulings and opinions that are adverse to Petitioner, including, without limitation, those within the Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review entered on April 29, 2020 (Paper 9).
In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a)(3)(ii), Petitioner indicates that the issues on appeal include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) whether Board erred in finding that Petitioner failed to meet its burden to establish that claims 6–8, 19, and 21 were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over US Pat. No. 4,605,001 to Rothfuss, US Pat. No. 5,645,209 to Green, and US Pat. No. 5,465,895 to Knodel; (2) whether Board erred in finding that Petitioner failed to meet its burden to establish that claims 6–8, 19, and 21 were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over US Pat. No. 5,868,760 to McGuckin and US Pat. No. 4,429,695 to Green; (3) the Board’s claim constructions or failure to construe any terms; and (4) any findings or determinations supporting or related to the aforementioned issues as well as other issues decided adversely to Petitioner in any orders, decisions, rulings, or opinions.
Proceeding No. IPR2020-00152 Attorney Docket No. 11030-0060IP1 Simultaneous with this submission, a copy of the Notice of Appeal is being
filed electronically with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
In addition, a copy of this Notice of Appeal, along with the required docketing fees, are being electronically filed with the Clerk’s Office for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
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 >>