`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES
`LLC, AND EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES AG
`Petitioners
`
`v .
`
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608
`____________
`
`Before the Honorable NEIL T. POWELL, JAMES A. TARTAL, and ROBERT L.
`KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ AMENDED OBJECTIONS TO AMENDED
`DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`After serving demonstratives on Petitioners on December 8, 2017, and on
`
`the Board on December 12, Patent Owner amended its demonstratives in the
`
`version filed as Exhibit 2100 on December 19, reordering its slides and removing
`
`titles. Petitioners had timely filed their objections to Patent Owner’s slides (Paper
`
`No. 52) on December 15, based on the version served on December 8. Pursuant to
`
`the Board’s February 9, 2018 Decision (Paper No. 56 at 14) that “Petitioner is
`
`authorized to file, no later than February 16, 2018, an amended set of objections to
`
`Patent Owner’s demonstratives that contain no substantive changes from the
`
`originally filed objections other than to amend the identification of the slide that is
`
`the subject of the objection,” Petitioners herein provide an amended set of
`
`objections that identify the changes made to the slide numbers in the December 19
`
`submission (Exhibit 2100) from the original slides.1
`
`Objections to Exhibit 2100
`
`Petitioners maintain their scope objections (Papers 45, 51) to the new
`
`arguments and evidence Patent Owner improperly raises in its motion to exclude
`
`papers.
`
`
`1
`Per the Board’s order, the only substantive changes Petitioners have made to
`
`their objections are to update the slide numbers. Due to Patent Owner’s removal of
`
`the objected-to titles from Slide 3 (original slide 15) and Slide 4 (original slide 16),
`
`however, if acceptable to the Board, Petitioners would withdraw these objections.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to all of Patent Owner’s slides for failing to identify
`
`where in the papers any of these arguments were made or exhibits were cited.
`
`Petitioners object to Patent Owner’s Slide 59 (original slide 8) as improper
`
`new evidence and argument that does not appear in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`Petitioners object to Patent Owner’s Slide 3 (original slide 15) for
`
`misstating the record because Dr. Buller testified that he has experience in surgical
`
`valve operations.
`
`Petitioners object to Patent Owner’s Slide 4 (original slide 16) to the extent
`
`that it states Dr. Buller has no experience with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA),
`
`which is contrary to Dr. Buller’s testimony.
`
`Petitioners object to Patent Owner’s Slide 13 (original slide 20) for
`
`misstating the record to the extent it suggests Elliot, Thornton, and Cook are
`
`limited to AAA stent grafts by omitting key portions of the quoted disclosures.
`
`Petitioners object to Patent Owner’s Slide 116 (original slide 108) as
`
`improper new evidence and argument in the form of dictionary definitions never
`
`before cited in Patent Owner’s Response and never entered into evidence.
`
`Petitioners object to Patent Owner’s Slide 52 (original slide 109) as
`
`improper new evidence and argument that does not appear in Patent Owner’s
`
`Response.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to Patent Owner’s Slide 53 (original slide 110) as
`
`improper new evidence and argument that does not appear in Patent Owner’s
`
`Response.
`
`Petitioners object to Patent Owner’s Slide 54 (original slide 111) as
`
`improper new evidence and argument that does not appear in Patent Owner’s
`
`Response.
`
`Petitioners object to Patent Owner’s Slide 55 (original slide 112) as
`
`improper new evidence and argument in the form of dictionary definitions never
`
`before cited in Patent Owner’s Response and never entered into evidence.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 12, 2018
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Gregory S. Cordrey
`Gregory S. Cordrey, Esq. (Reg. No. 44,089)
`Brian P. Egan, Esq. (Reg. No. 54,866)
`Catherine Nyarady, Esq. (Reg. No. 42,042)
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`Edwards Lifesciences Corporation,
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC, and
`Edwards Lifesciences AG
`
`11532187
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on February
`
`12, 2018, a complete and entire copy of PETITIONERS’ AMENDED
`
`OBJECTIONS TO AMENDED DEMONSTRATIVES has been served in its
`
`entirety by e-mail on the following addresses of record for Patent Owner:
`
`jennifer.sklenar@apks.com
`
`wallace.wu@apks.com
`
`marc.cohn@apks.com
`
`matthew.wolf@apks.com
`
`edward.han@apks.com
`
`Dated: February 12, 2018
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Greogry S. Cordrey
`Gregory S. Cordrey, Esq. (Reg. No. 44,089)
`Brian P. Egan, Esq. (Reg. No. 54,866)
`Catherine Nyarady, Esq. (Reg. No. 42,042)
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`Edwards Lifesciences Corporation,
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC, and
`Edwards Lifesciences AG
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
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
