Wallace Wu (State Bar No. 220110)
`wallace.wu@apks.com
`Marty Koresawa (State Bar No. 291967)
`marty.koresawa@apks.com
`Allen Secretov (State Bar No. 301655)
`allen.secretov@apks.com
`Scott D. Dubois (State Bar No. 307110)
`scott.dubois@apks.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street, Forty-Fourth Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`Tel.: (213) 243-4000; Fax: (213) 243-4199
`Matthew Wolf (pro hac vice)
`matthew.wolf@apks.com
`Edward Han (pro hac vice)
`ed.han@apks.com
`John Nilsson (pro hac vice)
`john.nilsson@apks.com
`Marc Cohn (pro hac vice)
`marc.cohn@apks.com
`601 Massachusetts Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel.: (202) 942-5000; Fax: (202) 942-5999
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
`Case No. 8:16-cv-0730-CJC-GJS
`and
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.
`
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC
`CORPORATION’S AND BOSTON
`SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.’S
`SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO
`EDWARDS’S
`INTERROGATORIES NOS. 8, 10,
`14
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES
`CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES NOS. 8, 10, 14
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 1 of 14
`
`Edwards Lifesciences v. Boston Scientific Scimed
`IPR2017-01294, U.S. Patent 6,371,962
`Exhibit 2002
`
`

`

`Wallace Wu (State Bar No. 220110)
`wallace.wu@apks.com
`Marty Koresawa (State Bar No. 291967)
`marty.koresawa@apks.com
`Allen Secretov (State Bar No. 301655)
`allen.secretov@apks.com
`Scott D. Dubois (State Bar No. 307110)
`scott.dubois@apks.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street, Forty-Fourth Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`Tel.: (213) 243-4000; Fax: (213) 243-4199
`Matthew Wolf (pro hac vice)
`matthew.wolf@apks.com
`Edward Han (pro hac vice)
`ed.han@apks.com
`John Nilsson (pro hac vice)
`john.nilsson@apks.com
`Marc Cohn (pro hac vice)
`marc.cohn@apks.com
`601 Massachusetts Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel.: (202) 942-5000; Fax: (202) 942-5999
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
`Case No. 8:16-cv-0730-CJC-GJS
`and
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.
`
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC
`CORPORATION’S AND BOSTON
`SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.’S
`SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO
`EDWARDS’S
`INTERROGATORIES NOS. 8, 10,
`14
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES
`CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES NOS. 8, 10, 14
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 2 of 14
`
`

`

`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs
`Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. (collectively,
`“Boston Scientific”) hereby serves its first supplemental objections and responses to
`the Interrogatories Nos. 8, 10, and 14 served by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
`(“Edwards”).
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Boston Scientific’s investigation, discovery, and analysis are ongoing, and
`Boston Scientific’s response to each of these interrogatories is based on information
`and documents presently available to Boston Scientific after a reasonable
`investigation. Boston Scientific reserves the right to supplement or amend these
`responses in the event that further information and/or documents are disclosed or
`discovered.
`Specific objections to Interrogatories Nos. 8, 10, and 14 are made on an
`individual basis in the response below. In addition to these specific objections,
`Boston Scientific makes certain continuing objections (“General Objections”) to
`Edwards’s “Definitions” and “General Instructions” for interrogatories. These
`General Objections are hereby incorporated by reference into the responses made to
`each separate interrogatory. For particular emphasis, Boston Scientific has, from
`time to time, expressly included one or more of the General Objections in certain of
`its responses below. Boston Scientific’s response to each individual interrogatory is
`submitted without prejudice to, and without in any respect waiving, any General
`Objections not expressly set forth in that specific response. Accordingly, the
`inclusion of any specific objection in a response to an interrogatory below is neither
`intended as, nor shall in any way be deemed to be, a waiver of any General
`Objections or of any other specific objection made herein or that may be asserted at a
`later date. In addition, the failure to include at this time any continuing or specific
`objection to an interrogatory is neither intended as, nor shall in any way be deemed to
`
`- 1 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES NOS. 8, 10, 14
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 3 of 14
`
`

`

`be, a waiver of Boston Scientific’s right to assert that or any other objection at a later
`date.
`
`No incidental or implied admissions are intended by the responses herein. Any
`response and/or objections to a particular interrogatory shall not be taken as an
`admission that Boston Scientific accepts or admits the existence of any “fact” set
`forth in or assumed by that request.
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`Boston Scientific makes the following General Objections to Edwards’s
`Interrogatories Nos. 8, 10, and 14, including without limitation the instructions and
`definitions set forth therein, whether or not separately set forth in each response to
`each individual interrogatory:
`1.
`Boston Scientific objects to the interrogatories to the extent they seek
`information protected by any relevant privilege or legal protection, including, without
`limitation, the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the joint defense
`privilege, the settlement or settlement negotiation privilege, settlement materials, or
`trial preparation materials. Any statement herein to the effect that Boston Scientific
`will provide information in response to an interrogatory is limited to information that
`does not fall within the scope of any relevant privilege.
`2.
`Boston Scientific objects to the interrogatories to the extent they are
`overly broad, unduly burdensome, or seek information that is not relevant to any
`party’s claim or defense or not proportional to the needs of the case.
`3.
`Boston Scientific objects to the interrogatories to the extent they are
`vague, ambiguous, and use unlimited, undefined, subjective, or open-ended terms or
`phrases.
`Boston Scientific objects to the interrogatories to the extent they seek
`4.
`purely legal conclusions.
`5.
`Boston Scientific objects to the interrogatories to the extent that the
`purported benefit of the discovery sought by the interrogatories is outweighed by the
`- 2 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES NOS. 8, 10, 14
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 4 of 14
`
`

`

`burden and expense of responding to the interrogatories pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1) and
`26(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Boston Scientific objects to the
`interrogatories to the extent they attempt to impose burdens on Boston Scientific
`inconsistent with, or in excess of, the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Central
`District of California.
`6.
`Boston Scientific objects to the interrogatories to the extent they seek
`confidential, proprietary, trade secret, private or financial information that is
`protected from disclosure by any applicable trade secret or privacy statute or law.
`Boston Scientific will provide such information pursuant to an appropriate protective
`order and, to the extent applicable, with the consent of any third party that may claim
`confidentiality rights with respect to information responsive to the interrogatory.
`7.
`Boston Scientific objects to the interrogatories to the extent they seek
`information unknown to Boston Scientific, that refers to persons, entities, or events
`not known to Boston Scientific, or that relates to documents not within Boston
`Scientific’s possession, custody, or control. Such a requirement would exceed
`Boston Scientific’s obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the
`Local Rules of the Central District of California and would subject Boston Scientific
`to unreasonable and undue oppression, burden, and expense. In responding to these
`interrogatories, Boston Scientific shall respond only on behalf of itself and shall not
`undertake the burden and expense of attempting to provide information presently
`unknown to Boston Scientific or relating to documents outside Boston Scientific’s
`possession, custody, or control.
`8.
`Boston Scientific objects to the interrogatories to the extent they fail
`to specify a relevant time period, or to the extent any part of any specified time period
`is irrelevant to any claim or defense at issue in this case, on the grounds that the
`interrogatories are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seek information that is
`neither relevant to any party’s claims or defenses nor proportional to the needs of the
`- 3 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES NOS. 8, 10, 14
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 5 of 14
`
`

`

`case. Boston Scientific will conduct a reasonable investigation of the documents and
`things in its possession, custody, or control.
`9.
`Boston Scientific objects to each interrogatory to the extent it
`contains multiple discrete subparts that constitute more than one interrogatory.
`10.
`Boston Scientific objects to the terms “Plaintiffs,” “Boston
`Scientific,” “Boston,” “You,” and “Your” as defined in the interrogatories, as overly
`broad and unduly burdensome, to the extent the interrogatories purport to seek
`information relating to persons or entities that are separate and distinct from Boston
`Scientific and over whom Boston Scientific exercises no control. In responding to
`these interrogatories, Boston Scientific shall interpret the terms “Plaintiffs,” “Boston
`Scientific,” “Boston,” “You,” and “Your” to refer only to Boston Scientific
`Corporation, Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., and Sadra Medical, Inc.
`11.
`Discovery is ongoing in this action, and Boston Scientific has not
`completed its discovery or investigation into the parties’ claims and defenses. Boston
`Scientific therefore objects and responds to these interrogatories based upon
`information in its possession after reasonable inquiry at the time of preparation of
`these interrogatories. Boston Scientific reserves the right at any time to revise,
`correct, supplement, and/or clarify any of the responses.
`SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
`INTERROGATORY NO. 8: For each of the Patents-In-Suit, identify all products,
`current or past, that fall within the scope of any claim of the Patents-In-Suit, and for
`each such product, identify each person or entity that makes, has made, offers for
`sale, has offered for sale, sells, or has sold the product; identify the asserted claim(s)
`that the product practices, identify the first and last dates the product was made,
`offered for sale, and sold, and identify the persons most knowledgeable about the
`design and operation of the product.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`
`- 4 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES NOS. 8, 10, 14
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 6 of 14
`
`

`

`Boston Scientific objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
`protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or any other
`applicable privilege or immunity. Boston Scientific further objects to this request to
`the extent that it seeks to impose upon Boston Scientific the obligation to investigate
`or discover information from third parties. Boston Scientific further objects to this
`interrogatory as containing multiple subparts. Boston Scientific further objects to this
`interrogatory as premature because Edwards have not yet produced discovery
`requested by Boston Scientific in this case to which this interrogatory pertains.
`Boston Scientific further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks “each
`person or entity.”
`Subject to and without waiver of its general and specific objections, Boston
`Scientific responds as follows.
`Edwards at least makes, has made, offers for sale, has offered for sale, sells,
`and has sold the accused products identified in Table II above, which fall within the
`scope of the asserted claims of the ’543, ’558, ’962, ’827, ’560, ’234, and ’062
`patents. Boston Scientific further incorporates its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1-
`5.
`
`Boston Scientific continues to investigate the information sought by this
`interrogatory and reserves the right to supplement its response in accordance with the
`Federal Rules as additional information becomes available.
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`Boston Scientific incorporates its previous objections and responses to this
`interrogatory as if fully set forth herein. Subject to its general and specific objections,
`Boston Scientific supplement and amends its responses as follows:
`The following Boston Scientific products fall within the scope of at least one of
`the identified asserted claims of the ’543, ’558, ’962, ’827, ’234, and ’062 patents:
`
`- 5 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES NOS. 8, 10, 14
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 7 of 14
`
`

`

`NIR Activa
`
`NIR Elite
`
`NIR On Ranger
`
`’962 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 29, 30
`’827 Patent - Claim 16
`’962 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 29, 30
`’827 Patent - Claim 16
`NIR Elite OTW ’962 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 29, 30
`’827 Patent - Claim 16
`’543 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 19, 20, 24, 25, 28, 29
`’558 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 9, 14, 20, 21, 22
`’962 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26,
`29, 30, 35, 36
`’827 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16,
`17, 18, 19, 20
`’234 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20
`’062 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
`16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
`’962 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 29, 30
`’827 Patent - Claim 16
`’543 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 19, 20, 24, 25, 28, 29
`’558 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 9, 14, 20, 21, 22
`’962 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26,
`29, 30, 35, 36
`’827 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16,
`17, 18, 19, 20
`’234 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20
`’062 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
`16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
`
`NIR On Ranger
`w/SOX
`NIR Primo
`
`- 6 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES NOS. 8, 10, 14
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 8 of 14
`
`

`

`NIR SOX
`
`NIRoyal
`Advance
`NIRoyal
`Premounted
`
`’962 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 29, 30
`’827 Patent - Claim 16
`’962 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 29, 30
`’827 Patent - Claim 16
`’543 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 19, 20, 24, 25, 28, 29
`’558 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 9, 14, 20, 21, 22
`’962 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26,
`29, 30, 35, 36
`’827 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16,
`17, 18, 19, 20
`’234 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20
`’062 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
`16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
`’962 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 29, 30
`’827 Patent - Claim 16
`’962 Patent - Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 29, 30
`NIRoyal Elite
`’827 Patent - Claim 16
`OTW
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Boston Scientific identifies
`the following documents in response to this interrogatory:
`NIR Activa
`BSC-EDW0516039, BSC-EDW0516013, BSC-EDW0516000,
`BSC-EDW0515690
`
`NIRoyal Elite
`
`NIR Elite OTW BSC-EDW0526107, BSC-EDW0526348, BSC-EDW0525942
`NIR On Ranger BSC-EDW0522325, BSC-EDW0522648, BSC-EDW0523247,
`BSC-EDW0523455, BSC-EDW0524547, BSC-EDW0522883,
`BSC-EDW0523640, BSC-EDW0522455, BSC-EDW0518130,
`BSC-EDW0518043, BSC-EDW0527217, BSC-EDW0526949
`BSC-EDW0521061, BSC-EDW0521052, BSC-EDW0517067,
`BSC-EDW0516657, BSC-EDW0516511, BSC-EDW0516901
`
`NIR On Ranger
`w/SOX
`
`NIR Primo
`
`BSC-EDW0519861, BSC-EDW0519883, BSC-EDW0520847,
`- 7 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES NOS. 8, 10, 14
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 9 of 14
`
`

`

`BSC-EDW0520335, BSC-EDW0520246, BSC-EDW0519977,
`BSC-EDW0520896, BSC-EDW0520154, BSC-EDW0520177
`BSC-EDW0523856, BSC-EDW0524225, BSC-EDW0528447,
`BSC-EDW0528554, BSC-EDW0525457, BSC-EDW0521084,
`BSC-EDW0521906, BSC-EDW0521584
`BSC-EDW0525519, BSC-EDW0517430, BSC-EDW0518269
`
`BSC-EDW0103093
`
`BSC-EDW0102306, BSC-EDW0519107, BSC-EDW0518717,
`BSC-EDW0518286, BSC-EDW0527361, BSC-EDW0527539,
`BSC-EDW0527740, BSC-EDW0525462, BSC-EDW0526008
`BSC-EDW0524576, BSC-EDW0524945, BSC-EDW0519389
`
`NIR SOX
`
`NIRoyal
`Advance
`NIRoyal
`Premounted
`NIRoyal Elite
`
`NIRoyal Elite
`OTW
`
`Additionally, Boston Scientific identifies the following documents in response
`to this interrogatory: BSC-EDW0103437, BSC-EDW0103475, BSC-EDW0103528,
`BSC-EDW0103581, BSC-EDW0103639, BSC-EDW0103692, BSC-EDW0103693,
`BSC-EDW0103694, BSC-EDW0103712, BSC-EDW0103728, BSC-EDW0103734,
`BSC-EDW0103776, BSC-EDW0103824, BSC-EDW0103825.
`Boston Scientific further incorporates by reference the deposition testimony of
`Fernando DiCaprio, Andy Dusbabek, Linda Cornelius, Rich Mattison, and Dave
`Blaeser regarding the above NIR products.
`Boston Scientific has not sold or offered for sell any product falling under any
`asserted claim of the ’767 or ’560 patent.
`Discovery is ongoing. Boston Scientific reserves the right to supplement its
`response.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify each Boston Scientific product that practices
`a claim of the Patents-In-Suit or that You contend competes with the Accused
`Products, and for each product, state, on a monthly basis the sales volume, revenue,
`costs and profit associated with that product, by customer and geographic area, and
`
`- 8 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES NOS. 8, 10, 14
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 10 of 14
`
`

`

`identify the persons most knowledgeable regarding Your response to this
`interrogatory.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
`Boston Scientific objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
`protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or any other
`applicable privilege or immunity. Boston Scientific further objects to this
`interrogatory as containing multiple subparts. Boston Scientific further objects to the
`term “compete” as vague and ambiguous.
`Subject to and without waiver of its general and specific objections, Boston
`Scientific responds as follows. Boston Scientific is investigating the information
`sought by this interrogatory and reserves the right to supplement its response in
`accordance with the Federal Rules as additional information becomes available.
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
`Boston Scientific incorporates its previous objections and responses to this
`interrogatory as if fully set forth herein. Subject to its general and specific objections,
`Boston Scientific supplement and amends its responses as follows:
`The Lotus Valve System and the Lotus Edge Valve System compete with the
`Accused Products. Furthermore, the Boston Scientific products identified in Boston
`Scientific’s First Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 8 practice at least one
`of the asserted claims of the ’543, ’558, ’962, ’827, ’234, and ’062 patents. Boston
`Scientific incorporates by reference the documents identified pursuant to Federal
`Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d) in Boston Scientific’s First Supplemental Response to
`Interrogatory No. 8. Boston Scientific further incorporates by reference the
`deposition testimony of Fernando DiCaprio, Andy Dusbabek, Linda Cornelius, Rich
`Mattison, and Dave Blaeser regarding the NIR products.
`Discovery is ongoing. Boston Scientific reserves the right to supplement its
`response.
`
`- 9 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES NOS. 8, 10, 14
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 11 of 14
`
`

`

`INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
`For each of the products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 13, identify
`documents sufficient to describe the product’s structure and method of manufacture
`and identify which of the following features the product includes (as the terms are
`used in Your response to Edwards’s Interrogatory No. 1): “mounting body,” “outer
`tube forming [an] intermediate layer”, “distal stop,” “at least one fold extending from
`the first end to the second end of [a] balloon cylinder,” or manufacture by “weld[ing]
`the folded balloon cylinder to at least one shaft of the catheter.”
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
`Boston Scientific incorporates by reference its objections and responses to
`Interrogatory No. 13. Boston Scientific further objects that Edwards has not defined
`the terms “mounting body,” “outer tube forming [an] intermediate layer”, “distal
`stop,” “at least one fold extending from the first end to the second end of [a] balloon
`cylinder,” or “weld[ing] the folded balloon cylinder to at least one shaft of the
`catheter.” Boston Scientific further objects to this request to the extent that it calls for
`a legal conclusion or an expert opinion. Boston Scientific further objects to this
`interrogatory as containing multiple subparts.
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Boston Scientific will
`identify documents from which answers may be derived or ascertained pursuant to
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d).
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
`Boston Scientific incorporates its previous objections and responses to this
`interrogatory as if fully set forth herein. Subject to its general and specific objections,
`Boston Scientific supplement and amends its responses as follows:
`Boston Scientific incorporates by reference the documents identified pursuant
`to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d) in Boston Scientific’s First Supplemental
`Response to Interrogatory No. 8. Boston Scientific further incorporates by reference
`
`- 10 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES NOS. 8, 10, 14
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 12 of 14
`
`

`

`the deposition testimony of Fernando DiCaprio, Andy Dusbabek, Linda Cornelius,
`Rich Mattison, and Dave Blaeser regarding the NIR products.
`Discovery is ongoing. Boston Scientific reserves the right to supplement its
`response.
`
`Dated: June 2, 2017
`
`By: /s/ Wallace Wu
`Wallace Wu (State Bar No. 220110)
`wallace.wu@apks.com
`Marty Koresawa (State Bar No. 291967)
`marty.koresawa@apks.com
`Allen Secretov (State Bar No. 301655)
`allen.secretov@apks.com
`Scott D. Dubois (State Bar No. 307110)
`scott.dubois@apks.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street, Forty-Fourth Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`Tel.: (213) 243-4000
`Fax: (213) 243-4199
`
`Matthew Wolf (pro hac vice)
`matthew.wolf@apks.com
`Edward Han (pro hac vice)
`ed.han@apks.com
`John Nilsson (pro hac vice)
`john.nilsson@apks.com
`Marc Cohn (pro hac vice)
`marc.cohn@apks.com
`601 Massachusetts Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel.: (202) 942-5000
`Fax: (202) 942-5999
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`- 11 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES NOS. 8, 10, 14
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 13 of 14
`
`

`

`PROOF OF SERVICE
`I, Vicky Apodaca, declare:
`I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years and
`not a party to the within-entitled action; my business address is 777 S. Figueroa
`Street, 44th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90017. On June 2, 2017, I served the following
`document(s) described as: BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION’S AND
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO EDWARDS’S INTERROGATORIES NOS. 8, 10, 14 by
`transmitting via email the document(s) listed above to the email address(es) set forth
`below:
`
`John B. Sganga, Jr.
`Craig S. Summers
`Christy G. Lea
`Joshua Stowell
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON &
`BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`(949) 760-0404
`Email: john.sganga@knobbe.com
`Email: craig.summers@knobbe.com
`Email: christy.lea@knobbe.com
`Email: joshua.stowell@knobbe.com
`
`Brian C. Horne
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON &
`BEAR, LLP
`1925 Century Park East, Suite 600
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: 310-551-3450
`Email: brian.horne@knobbe.com
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
`the foregoing is true and correct.
`Executed at Los Angeles, California on June 2, 2017.
`
`/s/ Vicky Apodaca
`Vicky Apodaca
`
`- 12 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPP. RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES NOS. 8, 10, 14
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 14 of 14
`
`