throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 15
`Entered: May 4, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01281
`Patent 7,828,767 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before NEIL T. POWELL, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
`STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Conduct Of Proceeding
`Modifying Institution Decision to Institute Inter Partes Review on
`All Challenged Claims and Grounds Presented in the Petition
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01281
`Patent 7,828,767 B2
`Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`(Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting institution of inter partes review of claims 1–12,
`14, 16, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 7,828,767 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
`’767 patent”). On November 3, 2017, we instituted an inter partes review of
`claims 5, 6, 8–12, 14, 16, and 17. Paper 9 (“Institution Decision” or
`“Dec.”), 31. Patent Owner Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., did not file a
`Patent Owner Response or Motion to Amend following the institution of
`inter partes review. During a conference call with the parties on
`February 21, 2018, we confirmed that Patent Owner had waived any
`arguments for patentability on the instituted grounds by not filing a Patent
`Owner Response or Motion to Amend the Patent. See Paper 10, 6 (stating
`that “[t]he patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not
`raised in the response will be deemed waived”).
`On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held in SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu
`that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less
`than all claims challenged in the petition. 2018 WL 1914661, at *10 (U.S.
`Apr. 24, 2018). In our Institution Decision, we determined that Petitioner
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would establish that at least one
`of the challenged claims of the ’767 patent is unpatentable. Dec. at 2. We
`modify our Institution Decision to institute on all of the claims and all of the
`grounds presented in the Petition.
`Although Patent Owner elected not to file a Response or Motion to
`Amend following institution, this Order introduces challenged claims and
`grounds from the Petition into this proceeding that were not previously
`instituted. The parties are to meet and confer to discuss their positions with
`respect to the impact of SAS on this proceeding. The parties should discuss
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01281
`Patent 7,828,767 B2
`their proposals to accommodate the addition of claims and grounds into this
`proceeding and shall endeavor to reach agreement and develop a joint
`proposal, including any requested additional briefing and the length of such
`briefing. Furthermore, the parties should discuss a proposed revision to the
`Scheduling Order if needed to achieve the parties’ proposals with the aim of
`concluding this proceeding within the twelve-month timeframe established
`by statute.
`After conferring, the parties must, within seven (7) days of the date of
`this Order, submit a proposal (or, if the parties do not agree on a joint
`proposal, the parties must submit their respective proposals) in an email to
`the Board, in which the parties also request a conference call to discuss any
`additional briefing and modification of the schedule. The parties’ email
`must include proposed times for such a call when both parties are available.
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that our Institution Decision is modified to include review
`of all challenged claims of the ’767 patent on all grounds presented in the
`Petition, as follows:
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01281
`Patent 7,828,767 B2
`
`Basis
`References
`§ 103
`Dlugos1 and Hijlkema2
`§ 103
`Dlugos, Hijlkema, and Konstantino
`§ 103
`Dlugos, Hijlkema, and Forman3
`§ 102
`Dlugos
`§ 103
`Dlugos
`§ 103
`Dlugos and Eskaros4
`§ 103
`Dlugos, Eskaros, and Konstantino5
`§ 103
`Dlugos, Eskaros, and Hijlkema
`§ 103
`Dlugos, Eskaros, and Forman
`§ 103
`Dlugos, Eskaros, and Traxler6
`Dlugos, Eskaros, Traxler, and Forman § 103
`Dlugos, Eskaros, Forman, and Becker7 § 103
`Dlugos and Bampos8
`§ 103
`and,
`
`Claims challenged
`1, 2, 4, 5, and 8
`3
`6, 14, and 16
`5
`5
`5
`7
`8
`6, 14, and 16
`9, 10, and 12
`11
`17
`1
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner and Patent Owner shall confer
`to determine any desired additional briefing and modification of the
`schedule and shall provide their proposals and request a conference call with
`the Board within seven (7) days of the date of this Order.
`
`
`1 WO 2007/020087 A1, published February 22, 2007 (Ex. 1008, “Dlugos”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,853,389, issued Dec. 29, 1998 (Ex. 1009, “Hijlkema”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,501,759, issued March 26, 1996 (Ex. 1012, “Forman”).
`4 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0097300 A1, published April 24, 2008
`(Ex. 1011, “Eskaros”).
`5 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0177130 A1, published August 11, 2005
`(Ex. 1010, “Konstantino”).
`6 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2001/0047149 A1, published November 29,
`2001 (Ex. 1013, “Traxler”).
`7 U.S. Patent No. 4,251,305, issued February 17, 1981 (Ex. 1014, “Becker”).
`8 U.S. Patent No. 6,013,055, issued January 11, 2000 (Ex. 1015, “Bampos”).
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01281
`Patent 7,828,767 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`James Isbester
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`jisbester@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Craig Summers
`Cheryl Burgess
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2css@knobbe.com
`2ctb@knobbe.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Wallace Wu
`Jennifer Sklenar
`Nicholas Nyemah
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`wallace.wu@apks.com
`jennifer.sklenar@apks.com
`nicholas.nyemah@aporter.com
`
`5
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket