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.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`______________
`
`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.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, Patent Owner Boston Scientific
`
`Scimed, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) hereby respectfully moves for consideration of the
`
`following observations on cross-examination.
`
`I.
`
`Observations On Cross-Examination Of Petitioner’s Declarant
`Larry Wood
`
`Observation #1. In Exhibit 2096, on page 8 line 25 through page 9 line 23,
`
`Mr. Wood testified that he does not have a medical degree or an engineering
`
`degree and that he is not an interventional cardiologist or a cardiac or vascular
`
`surgeon. This testimony is relevant to establish that Mr. Wood is not a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) under either party’s proposed definition of
`
`ordinary skill. (See Paper 1 at 45-46; Paper 6 at 7.)
`
`Observation #2. In Exhibit 2096, on page 10 lines 3 through 8, Mr. Wood
`
`testified that he is not offering an opinion as to Patent Owner’s efforts to match up
`
`the claim elements of the ‘608 patent to the SAPIEN 3 device. This testimony is
`
`relevant to whether there is a nexus between the claimed invention and the
`
`commercial success of the SAPIEN 3. (See Paper 22 at 50-58; Paper 34 at 19-23;
`
`Ex. 1046 at ¶¶ 38-45.)
`
`Observation #3. In Exhibit 2096, on page 10 line 12 through page 11 line 6,
`
`Mr. Wood testified that a number of papers, including the PARTNER II S3i study
`
`sponsored by Petitioner, have determined an association between paravalvular
`
`leakage (“PVL”) and mortality. This testimony is relevant to whether there was a
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`long-felt need for a solution to PVL, such as that disclosed in the ‘608 patent. (See
`
`Paper 22 at 63-64; Paper 34 at 26; Ex. 1046 at ¶¶ 29-33.)
`
`Observation #4. In Exhibit 2096, on page 12 line 10 through page 13 line 6,
`
`Mr. Wood testified that he was aware of findings by clinicians that moderate to
`
`severe PVL was an independent predictor of mortality at one year and two years.
`
`This testimony is relevant to whether there was a long-felt need for a solution to
`
`PVL, such as that disclosed in the ‘608 patent. (See Paper 22 at 63-64; Paper 34 at
`
`26; Ex. 1046 at ¶¶ 29-33.)
`
`Observation #5. In Exhibit 2096, on page 54 line 7 through page 56 line 9,
`
`Mr. Wood testified that the finding that “the presence of paravalvular or total aortic
`
`regurgitation, mild, moderate or severe versus none or trace, after TAVR was
`
`associated with increased late mortality” in Exhibit 2097—an article discussing
`
`results of the PARTNER trial sponsored by Petitioner—was statistically
`
`significant. This testimony is relevant to whether there was a long-felt need for a
`
`solution to PVL, such as that disclosed in the ‘608 patent. (See Paper 22 at 63-64;
`
`Paper 34 at 26; Ex. 1046 at ¶¶ 29-33.)
`
`Observation #6. In Exhibit 2096, on page 16 lines 14 through 19, Mr. Wood
`
`testified that he does not think anybody believes that PVL is good for you and that
`
`“[e]veryone would rather have less of it than more of it.” This testimony is
`
`relevant to whether there was a long-felt need for a solution to PVL, such as that
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`disclosed in the ‘608 patent. (See Paper 22 at 63-64; Paper 34 at 26; Ex. 1046 at
`
`¶¶ 29-33.)
`
`Observation #7. In Exhibit 2096, on page 18 lines 9 through 15, Mr. Wood
`
`testified that the SAPIEN XT and the SAPIEN 3 were offered in the same sizes
`
`and, on page 30 lines 14 through 15, Mr. Wood testified that the “SAPIEN 3 has
`
`less paravalvular leakage than XT at some level.” This testimony is relevant to
`
`whether the problem of PVL had been solved before the ‘608 patent and, in
`
`particular, whether proper valve sizing was a complete solution to PVL. (See
`
`Ex. 1046 ¶ 29.)
`
`Observation #8. In Exhibit 2096, on page 22 line 25 through page 23
`
`line 10, Mr. Wood testified that “[t]here are certain risks to oversizing” and that
`
`“[i]f you oversize too much, you can actually tear the tissue or rupture the
`
`annulus.” This testimony is relevant to whether the problem of PVL had been
`
`solved before the ‘608 patent and, in particular, whether oversizing was a complete
`
`solution to PVL. (See Ex. 1046 ¶ 30.)
`
`Observation #9. In Exhibit 2096, on page 24 line 13 through page 25
`
`line 22, Mr. Wood testified that the author of Exhibit 2059, which Mr. Wood cites
`
`in his declaration (Ex. 1046 ¶ 30), believes that “you don’t have to oversize as
`
`aggressively with the Sapien 3 to achieve paravalvular leak reduction” and “if you
`
`do less oversizing, could reduce your risk of annular rupture.” This testimony is
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`relevant to whether the problem of PVL had been solved before the ‘608 patent
`
`and, in particular, whether oversizing was a complete solution to PVL.
`
`(See Ex. 1046 ¶ 30.)
`
`Observation #10. In Exhibit 2096, on page 33 line 14 through page 36
`
`line 15, Mr. Wood testified that, in the 2006 time frame, “the most challenging
`
`thing about paravalvular leak was we were still trying to solve something we didn’t
`
`fully understand” and “we had this PV leak problem, but we didn’t really
`
`understand the source of the problem because we didn’t understand the
`
`fundamental environment we were working in.” This testimony is relevant to
`
`whether the problem of PVL had been solved before the ‘608 patent.
`
`(See Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 18-28.)
`
`Observation #11. In Exhibit 2096, on page 36 lines 16 through 24,
`
`Mr. Wood testified that “a primary consideration” in Petitioner’s decision not to
`
`add an outer skirt to the first two generations of its TAVR valve, the SAPIEN and
`
`SAPIEN XT, was “concern about vascular complications due to an increase in
`
`crimp profile” and that, in the SAPIEN 3, Petitioner was able to add a skirt without
`
`compromising crimp profile. This testimony is relevant to whether Petitioner had
`
`independently conceived of the invention of the ‘608 patent, which shows how the
`
`fabric seal has a greater impact on profile in the deployed configuration than it
`
`does in the delivery configuration. (See Ex. 1046 ¶ 25; Ex. 1001 FIGS. 32, 33.)
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Observation #12. In Exhibit 2096, on page 38 lines 2 through 15, Mr. Wood
`
`testified that Petitioner never conducted live human studies with the valves from its
`
`Patriot project, never filed for approval to start a clinical trial of the valves from
`
`the Patriot project, and never submitted data in support of commercial approval for
`
`such valves. This testimony is relevant to whether Petitioner had independently
`
`conceived of the invention of the ‘608 patent. (See Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 22, 23.)
`
`Observation #13. In Exhibit 2096, on page 38 line 25 through page 39
`
`line 6, Mr. Wood testified that the cloth on the crown valve from Petitioner’s
`
`Patriot project was “not puffy” and was “pretty much sewn everywhere.” This
`
`testimony is relevant to whether Petitioner had independently conceived of the
`
`invention of the ‘608 patent and, in particular, whether the crown valve would
`
`form “flaps” and “pockets” as claimed in the ‘608 patent. (See Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 22, 23;
`
`Ex. 1001 col. 22:21-46.)
`
`Observation #14. In Exhibit 2096, on page 39 line 7 through page 40
`
`line 24, Mr. Wood testified that he did not have any reason to believe that
`
`Exhibit 2063 was not created in connection with Petitioner’s business or
`
`maintained in Petitioner’s files. This testimony is relevant to whether
`
`Exhibit 2063, in which the designers of the SAPIEN 3 state that
`
`invention of the ‘608 patent yielded unexpected results. (See Ex. 1046 ¶ 37.)
`
`is evidence that the
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Observation #15. In Exhibit 2096, on page 40 line 25 through page 42
`
`line 22, Mr. Wood testified that “TAVR doctors are well aware of the outer skirt
`
`on Sapien 3,” “some doctors certainly attribute some of the improved PVL data for
`
`Sapien 3 to the skirt,” and that there is “a common belief that the skirt contributes
`
`to the reduction of paravalvular leak.” This testimony is relevant to whether the
`
`SAPIEN 3 received industry praise directed specifically to its fabric seal.
`
`(See Ex. 1046 ¶ 36.)
`
`Observation #16. In Exhibit 2096, on page 48 lines 18 through 25,
`
`Mr. Wood testified that some of the success and popularity of Petitioner’s
`
`SAPIEN 3 valve is due to reductions in PVL. This testimony is relevant to
`
`whether the SAPIEN 3 enjoyed commercial success as a result of its fabric seal.
`
`(See Ex. 1046 at ¶¶ 38-45.)
`
`Observation #17. In Exhibit 2096, on page 49 lines 10 through 18,
`
`Mr. Wood testified that all of the features of Petitioner’s SAPIEN 3 product,
`
`including the outer skirt, contributed to its success. This testimony is relevant to
`
`whether the SAPIEN 3 enjoyed commercial success as a result of its fabric seal.
`
`(See Ex. 1046 at ¶¶ 38-45.)
`
`Observation #18. In Exhibit 2096, on page 49 line 24 through page 52
`
`line 23, Mr. Wood testified that Exhibit 2099 showed
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`(Ex. 2099 at 26.) This testimony is relevant to whether the SAPIEN 3 enjoyed
`
`commercial success. (See Ex. 1046 at ¶¶ 38-45.)
`
`Observation #19. In Exhibit 2096, on page 52 line 24 through page 53
`
`line 25, Mr. Wood explained the statement in Exhibit 2099 that
`
`relevant to whether the SAPIEN 3 enjoyed commercial success. (See Ex. 1046 at
`
`This testimony is
`
`¶¶ 38-45.)
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`II. Observations On Cross-Examination Of Petitioner’s Declarant
`Nigel Buller, M.D.
`
`Observation #20. In Exhibit 2094, on page 52 lines 1 through 5, Dr. Buller
`
`testified that he did not consider any secondary considerations of non-obviousness
`
`regarding the ‘608 patent other than copying. This testimony is relevant to
`
`determining the probative value of Dr. Buller’s opinions regarding obviousness of
`
`the ‘608 patent. (See generally Exs. 1007, 1045.)
`
`Observation #21. In Exhibit 2094, on page 11 lines 6 through 18, Dr. Buller
`
`testified that he has only implanted two stent grafts in the aorta during his entire
`
`career, neither of which was an abdominal aortic aneurysm (“AAA”) stent graft as
`
`found in the prior art at issue here. This testimony is relevant to determining the
`
`probative value of Dr. Buller’s opinions regarding obviousness of the ‘608 patent
`
`relative to those of Drs. Manganaro and Brecker. (See generally Exs. 1007, 1045.)
`
`Observation #22. In Exhibit 2094, on page 16 lines 12 through 20,
`
`Dr. Buller testified that he has never performed a surgical cut down of the aorta,
`
`which results in direct observation of the aorta’s anatomy. (Id.) This testimony is
`
`relevant to determining the probative value of Dr. Buller’s opinions regarding
`
`obviousness of the ‘608 patent. (See generally Exs. 1007, 1045.)
`
`Observation #23. In Exhibit 2094, on page 19 line 16 through page 21
`
`line 21, Dr. Buller testified that the term “stability” in WO 03/047468 (Ex. 1004,
`
`“Spenser”) refers to reducing migration and that this term means different things in
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`different contexts of Spenser. This testimony is relevant to whether a POSITA
`
`would have combined Spenser’s valve with the AAA stent grafts’ skirts and, in
`
`particular, to disprove Petitioner’s contention (Paper 34 at 4) and Dr. Buller’s
`
`opinion (Ex. 1045 ¶ 28) that Spenser’s reference to “stability” refers to the valve’s
`
`construction rather than valve migration.
`
`Observation #24. In Exhibit 2094, on page 22 lines 10 through 24,
`
`Dr. Buller testified that the seal in WO 05/102015 (Ex. 1059, “Bergheim”) is
`
`tightly wrapped around the stent—i.e., it does not include excess material. This
`
`testimony is relevant to whether a POSITA would have combined Spenser’s valve
`
`with the AAA stent grafts’ skirts and, in particular, to disprove Petitioner’s
`
`contention (Paper 34 at 4-5) and Dr. Buller’s opinion (Ex. 1045 ¶ 30) that
`
`Bergheim demonstrates that excess material around a valve may improve stability
`
`of the device and prevent migration.
`
`Observation #25. In Exhibit 2094, on page 35 lines 1 through page 36
`
`line 6, Dr. Buller testified that the ‘608 patent solved the problem of PVL
`
`generally, not PVL in calcified diseased valves specifically. This testimony is
`
`relevant to whether a POSITA would have combined Spenser’s valve with the
`
`AAA stent grafts’ skirts and, in particular, to demonstrate Petitioner’s and Dr.
`
`Buller’s misunderstanding of the ‘608 patent, which specifically teaches that it
`
`solves the problem of PVL in “diseased aortic valve[s]” with “irregular” surfaces,
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`such as those afflicted with calcification. (Ex. 1001 col. 12:19-27, col. 14:21-29,
`
`FIGS. 13, 32-34.)
`
`Observation #26. In Exhibit 2094, on page 38 line 10 through page 39
`
`line 8, Dr. Buller testified that a POSITA would want to design a transcatheter
`
`aortic valve replacement (“TAVR”) device that worked in a calcified environment.
`
`This testimony is relevant to whether a POSITA would have combined Spenser’s
`
`valve with the AAA stent grafts’ skirts and, in particular, to disprove Petitioner’s
`
`contention (Paper 34 at 6-7) and Dr. Buller’s opinion (Ex. 1045 ¶ 40) that a
`
`POSITA would not have considered aortic calcification when designing a PVL
`
`solution.
`
`Observation #27. In Exhibit 2094, on page 43 line 15 through page 44
`
`line 24 and on page 45 line 24 through page 46 line 4, Dr. Buller did not dispute
`
`Dr. Manganaro’s opinion (Ex. 2079 ¶¶ 68-72) that the nature of diseased aortic
`
`annulus calcifications (where TAVR devices are implanted) is fundamentally
`
`different than the nature of aortic calcifications (where stent grafts are implanted),
`
`and admitted that he did not opine on this matter in his declarations. This
`
`testimony is relevant to whether a POSITA would have combined Spenser’s valve
`
`with the AAA stent grafts’ skirts and, in particular, to disprove Petitioner’s
`
`contention (Paper 34 at 6-7, 13-17) and Dr. Buller’s opinion (Ex. 1045 ¶¶ 40-47)
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`that AAA stent grafts were designed to seal leaks caused by calcifications like
`
`those found in the aortic annulus.
`
`Observation #28. In Exhibit 2094, on page 42 lines 6 through 11, Dr. Buller
`
`testified that the article published in 2005 by R.W. Jayalath et al. titled “Aortic
`
`Calcification (Ex. 1060, “Jayalath Article”) does not indicate whether aortic
`
`calcification is relevant to treating aortic aneurysms with stent grafts. This
`
`testimony is relevant to whether a POSITA would have combined Spenser’s valve
`
`with the AAA stent grafts’ skirts and, in particular, to disprove Petitioner’s
`
`contention (Paper 34 at 6-7) and Dr. Buller’s opinion (Ex. 1045 ¶¶ 46-47) that the
`
`Jayalath Article is evidence that AAA stent grafts were designed to seal leaks
`
`caused by calcifications like those found in the aortic annulus.
`
`Observation #29. In Exhibit 2094, on page 41 line 23 through page 42
`
`line 5, Dr. Buller testified that the Jayalath Article does not correlate aortic
`
`calcification with diseased aortic annulus calcification. This testimony is relevant
`
`to whether a POSITA would have combined Spenser’s valve with the AAA stent
`
`grafts’ skirts and, in particular, to disprove Petitioner’s contention (Paper 34 at 6-7)
`
`and Dr. Buller’s opinion (Ex. 1045 ¶¶ 46-47) that the Jayalath Article is evidence
`
`that AAA stent grafts were designed to seal leaks caused by calcifications like
`
`those found in the aortic annulus.
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Observation #30. In Exhibit 2094, on page 52 lines 1 through 5, Dr. Buller
`
`testified that participation in the Reaven and Sacks study cited in the Jayalath
`
`Article (cited as evidence of the prominence of aortic calcifications) was limited to
`
`Hispanics with type 2 diabetes, which Dr. Buller admitted are not representative of
`
`all patients. This testimony is relevant to whether a POSITA would have
`
`combined Spenser’s valve with the AAA stent grafts’ skirts and, in particular, to
`
`disprove Petitioner’s contention (Paper 34 at 6-7) and Dr. Buller’s opinion
`
`(Ex. 1045 ¶¶ 46-47) that the Jayalath Article and Reaven and Sacks study are
`
`evidence that AAA stent grafts were designed to seal leaks caused by calcifications
`
`like those found in the aortic annulus.
`
`Observation #31. In Exhibit 2094, on page 62 line 17 through page 63
`
`line 7, Dr. Buller testified that he could not state that a TAVR device featuring an
`
`inner and outer skirt made of two pieces of the same material (Ex. 2095, Ex. A to
`
`Dr. Buller’s deposition) would not infringe the ‘608 patent. This testimony is
`
`relevant to whether there is a nexus between the claimed invention and the
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness regarding the SAPIEN 3 and, in
`
`particular, to disprove Petitioner’s contention (Paper 34 at 19-22) and Dr. Buller’s
`
`opinion (Ex. 1045 ¶¶ 11-14) that the SAPIEN 3 does not include a fabric seal as
`
`claimed in the ‘608 patent.
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Observation #32. In Exhibit 2094, on page 68 lines 3 through 14, Dr. Buller
`
`testified that he could not state that Figure 32 of the ‘608 patent would infringe the
`
`‘608 patent if the skirt were made of two pieces of material, rather than a single
`
`piece of material as shown. This testimony is relevant to whether there is a nexus
`
`between the claimed invention and the secondary considerations of non-
`
`obviousness regarding the SAPIEN 3 and, in particular, to demonstrate that Dr.
`
`Buller is confused by his own interpretation of “fabric seal,” as explained in
`
`Observation # 31.
`
`Observation #33. In Exhibit 2094, on page 68 line 15 through page 69
`
`line 17, Dr. Buller testified that the combination of the SAPIEN 3’s inner and outer
`
`skirts meets the claim elements of the ‘608 patent. This testimony is relevant to
`
`whether there is a nexus between the claimed invention and the secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness regarding the SAPIEN 3 and, in particular, to
`
`disprove Petitioner’s contention (Paper 34 at 17-22) and Dr. Buller’s opinion
`
`(Ex. 1045 ¶¶ 11-14) that the SAPIEN 3 does not include a fabric seal as claimed in
`
`the ‘608 patent.
`
`Observation #34. In Exhibit 2094, on page 71 line 22 through page 72
`
`line 3, Dr. Buller testified that the SAPIEN 3’s commissure windows do not move
`
`independently of the frame. This testimony is relevant to whether there is a nexus
`
`between the claimed invention and the secondary considerations of
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`non-obviousness regarding the SAPIEN 3 and, in particular, to demonstrate that
`
`Petitioner’s and Dr. Buller’s interpretation of the term “attached” is not the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation. (See Reply at 19-23.)
`
`Observation #35. In Exhibit 2094, on page 76 line 7 through page 78 line 5,
`
`Dr. Buller testified that two pieces welded together are not “attached,” but two
`
`pieces sutured together are “attached.” This testimony is relevant to whether there
`
`is a nexus between the claimed invention and the secondary considerations of
`
`non-obviousness regarding the SAPIEN 3 and, in particular, to demonstrate that
`
`Petitioner’s and Dr. Buller’s interpretation of the term “attached” is not the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation. (See Paper 34 at 19-23.)
`
`Observation #36. In Exhibit 2094, on page 78 line 6 through page 79 line 1,
`
`Dr. Buller testified that he could not determine whether two pieces glued together
`
`would be “attached.” This testimony is relevant to whether there is a nexus
`
`between the claimed invention and the secondary considerations of
`
`non-obviousness regarding the SAPIEN 3 and, in particular, to demonstrate that
`
`Petitioner’s and Dr. Buller’s interpretation of the term “attached” is not the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation. (See Paper 34 at 19-23.)
`
`Observation #37. In Exhibit 2094, on page 79 line 15 through page 82
`
`line 18, Dr. Buller testified that the SAPIEN 3 includes a piece of fabric that is
`
`sutured around the frame and supports the commissures of the leaflets. This
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`testimony is relevant to whether there is a nexus between the claimed invention
`
`and the secondary considerations of non-obviousness regarding the SAPIEN 3 and,
`
`in particular, to disprove Petitioner’s contention (Paper 34 at 17-22) and
`
`Dr. Buller’s opinion (Ex. 1045 ¶ 16) that the SAPIEN 3 does not include “a
`
`replacement valve commissure support element attached to the expandable
`
`anchor.”
`
`Dated: November 3, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Jennifer A. Sklenar/
`Jennifer A. Sklenar (Reg. No. 40,205)
`Wallace Wu (Reg. No. 45,380)
`ARNOLD & PORTER
`KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
`Tel:
`(213) 243-4000
`Fax:
`(213) 243-4199
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner Boston
`Scientific Scimed, Inc.
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION was served on
`November 3, 2017 to the following Counsel for Petitioner via e-mail:
`
`Gregory S. Cordrey (Reg. No. 44,089)
`Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP
`3 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`Irvine, CA 926214
`Email: gcordrey@jmbm.com
`Telephone: 949-623-7200
`Facsimile: 949-623-7201
`
`Brian Egan (Reg. No. 54,866)
`Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`Email: began@MNAT.com
`Telephone: 302-351-9454
`Facsimile: 302-498-6216
`
`Catherine Nyarardy (Reg. No. 42,042)
`Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
`Garrison, LLP
`1285 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10019
`Email: cnyarardy@paulweiss.com
`Telephone: 212-373-3532
`Facsimile: 212-492-0532
`
`Attorneys for Petitioners Edwards LifeSciences Corporation, Edwards Lifesciences
`LLC, and Edwards Lifesciences AG
`
`/Jennifer A. Sklenar/
`Jennifer A. Sklenar (Reg. No. 40,205)
`ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
`777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
`Tel:
`(213) 243-4000
`Fax: (213) 243-4199
`
`-i-
`
`
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
