throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`Filed: October 25, 2017
`
`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 IPR2017-01304
`Patent 6,203,558 B1
`_______________
`
`
`Before JAMES A. TARTAL, ROBERT L. KINDER,
`and AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01304
`Patent 6,203,558 B1
`
`
`A. Background
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 9, 14, and 20–22 (“the
`challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,203,558 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’558
`patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet”). Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. (“Patent Owner”)
`filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an
`inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in
`the Petition shows that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`petition.” See also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (delegating authority to the Board).
`After considering the Petition and Preliminary Response, for the reasons
`discussed below, we do not institute an inter partes review.
`
`B. Related Proceeding
`
`The parties represent that the ’558 patent is at issue in Boston
`Scientific Corp. & Boston Scientific SciMed Inc. v. Edwards Lifesciences
`Corp., No. 16-cv-730 (C.D. Cal.). Pet. 64; Paper 4, 2.
`
`C. The ’558 Patent
`
`The ’558 patent, titled “Stent Delivery System Having Stent
`Securement Apparatus,” issued March 20, 2001, from U.S. Patent
`Application No. 09/418,277, which was filed October 14, 1999. Ex. 1001,
`[45], [54], [21], [22].
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01304
`Patent 6,203,558 B1
`
`
`Figure 1 of the ’558 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts an isometric view of a balloon catheter. Ex. 1001, 5:59–61.
`As shown in Figure 1, catheter 12 includes balloon 14 at distal end 16, to
`which stent 18 is fixed. Id. at 8:21–24, 8:32–33. In use, catheter 12 is
`advanced through a patient’s vasculature to a desired location and, once
`reached, balloon 14 and stent 18 are expanded. Id. at 8:58–64. After
`expansion, the balloon is deflated and the catheter and balloon are
`withdrawn, while the stent remains in place to maintain the vessel in an
`expanded state. Id. at 8:64–66.
`Figure 4 of the ’558 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 4 depicts an enlarged cross-sectional view of the distal end of
`catheter 12, with balloon 14 and stent 18 in expanded states. Id. at 6:1–4.
`As shown in Figure 4, “mounting body 30 . . . is included inside balloon 14
`to provide a cushion and/or substrate of enlarged diameter relative to the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01304
`Patent 6,203,558 B1
`
`stent to support and hold the stent and secure it during crimping and the
`delivery procedure.” Id. at 9:36–40. In Figure 4, mounting body 30 is a
`cylindrical sleeve carried on inner lumen 26 of the catheter. Id. at 9:43–47.
`However, the ’558 patent also discloses alternate mounting bodies including,
`for example, a spiral cut mounting body (id. at Fig. 5), a cylindrical body
`comprising separate, adjacent rings 30a (id. at Fig. 6), a two-piece
`interlocked body 30a, 30b (id. at Fig. 7), a body comprising a plurality of
`separate, spaced bodies 30a, 30b, 30c (id. at Fig. 9), a rigid coil mounting
`body (id. at Fig. 10), or an enlargeable and collapsible mounting body (id. at
`Figs. 11–12, 17–21). See id. at 10:8–11:50.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claim 1 is the sole independent claim and is
`reproduced below:
`1.
`A system/assembly for delivery and deployment of
`an inflation expandable stent within a vessel, comprising:
`a catheter having proximal and distal ends;
`a stent, inflation expandable from a delivery
`diameter to a deployment diameter, such that the delivery
`diameter is reduced from the deployment diameter for
`conforming the stent to the catheter, such that the stent, in
`its delivery diameter, is coaxially mounted on the catheter
`near the catheter distal end;
`an expandable inflation means coaxially mounted
`on the catheter within the stent, for expansion of the stent
`from the delivery diameter to the deployment diameter
`upon application of deployment pressure
`to
`the
`expandable inflation means; and
`a mounting and retaining means coaxially mounted
`on the catheter within the expandable inflation means, the
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01304
`Patent 6,203,558 B1
`
`
`mounting and retaining means designed and adapted to
`provide a securement for the stent in the delivery diameter
`to maintain the stent in position on the catheter during
`delivery to the deployment site,
`the catheter having a shaft and the expandable
`inflation means being positioned at a distal part of the
`shaft, the mounting and retaining means being positioned
`for receiving the stent on the expandable inflation means
`for radial expansion of the stent upon expansion of the
`expandable inflation means, the mounting and retaining
`means including at least one mounting body carried by the
`shaft inside the expandable inflation means whereby the
`diameter of the shaft and expandable inflation means are
`increased at the distal part for facilitating the mounting and
`retaining of the sent, the mounting body including at least
`one separation, whereby the flexibility of the body and
`catheter is increased.
`Ex. 1001, 25:63–26:28 (emphasis added).
`
`E. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Fischell ’507
`
`US 4,768,507
`
`Fischell ’274
`
`US 5,639,274
`
`Exhibit No.
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references, as well as the
`Declaration of Thomas Trotta (Ex. 1003). Pet. 23.
`Reference
`Patent No.
`Relevant Dates
`Sugiyama ’032 US 4,994,032
`Filed Nov. 29, 1988
`Issued Feb. 19, 1991
`Filed Aug. 31, 1987
`Issued Sept. 6, 1988
`Filed June 2, 1995
`Issued June 17, 1997
`Filed Aug. 17, 1990
`Issued June 25, 1991
`
`Burton
`
`US 5,026,377
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01304
`Patent 6,203,558 B1
`
`
`Reference
`Olympus
`
`Relevant Dates
`Patent No.
`JP 1992-64367 Filed July 3, 1990
`Published Feb. 28, 1992
`Filed June 7, 1995
`Issued Nov. 17, 1998
`Filed Sept. 12, 1995
`Issued Dec. 30, 1997
`
`Exhibit No.
`Ex. 10151
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`US 5,836,965
`
`US 5,702,418
`
`Jendersee
`
`Ravenscroft
`
`
`
`F. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1, 2, 9, 14, and 20–22
`of the ’558 patent based on the following grounds. Pet. 22–62.2
`References
`Basis
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`§ 103(a) 1, 2, 9, 14, 20, and 21
`
`[1] Olympus in View of the
`Knowledge of a POSITA and/or
`Burton, Fischell ’274, and/or
`Fischell ’507
`
`
`1 Exhibit 1015 includes a Japanese-language version of the reference, at
`exhibit pages 1–15, an English translation of the reference, at exhibit pages
`16–35, and a notarized Certificate of Translation, at exhibit pages 36–37.
`2 Although we need not address in depth the asserted grounds of
`unpatentability in this case, see infra, the Petition appears to lack the
`particularity and specificity required by 35 U.S.C § 312(a)(3) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(2). Petitioner’s allegation that the challenged claims are
`unpatentable over “the references identified below, alone or in combination
`with each other” (see Pet. 23), and Petitioner’s identification of the grounds
`as outlined above, amounts to many distinct combinations of references.
`The function of the Board is not to comb through Petitioner’s arguments in
`order to decipher the strongest argument or to determine the strongest
`combination of references to challenge the claims. See generally LG Elecs.,
`Inc. v. Rosetta-Wireless Corp., Case IPR2016-01516 (PTAB Apr. 3, 2017)
`(Paper 25).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01304
`Patent 6,203,558 B1
`
`
`References
`
`[2] Sugiyama ’032 in View of
`Fischell ’507
`[3] Ravenscroft
`[4] The References in Ground 1 and
`2, in Further View of Jendersee
`[5] The References in Ground 4, in
`Further View of the Knowledge of a
`POSITA or Fischell ’274
`
`Basis
`
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`§ 103(a) 1, 2, 9, 20, and 21
`
`§ 102(b) 1
`§ 103(a) 14
`
`§ 103(a) 22
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`The parties agree that the ’558 patent has expired. Pet. 20; Prelim.
`Resp. 7. “[T]he Board’s review of the claims of an expired patent is similar
`to that of a district court’s review.” In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46
`(Fed. Cir. 2012). Therefore, we apply the principles set forth by the Court of
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Accordingly, the “words of a claim ‘are
`generally given their ordinary and customary meaning’” as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. at 1312.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01304
`Patent 6,203,558 B1
`
`
`1. The Parties’ Positions
`For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner adopts Patent Owner’s
`proposed constructions from co-pending district court litigation. Pet. 21.
`Accordingly, Petitioner adopts the following positions:
`
`Construction
`
`Applicability of
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6
`Not subject to § 112 ¶ 6 “a structure capable
`of being expanded
`and inflated”
`
`Claim
`Limitation
`“expandable inflation
`means . . . for expansion
`of the stent” (see claim
`1)
`“mounting and retaining
`means . . . to provide a
`securement for the stent”
`(see claim 1)
`
`Not subject to § 112 ¶ 6 “a structure on
`which another
`structure can be
`mounted and
`retained”
`See id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1007). Patent Owner “agrees . . . that Patent
`Owner’s proposed constructions . . . in the district court litigation are the
`proper constructions.” Prelim. Resp. 7.3
`2. Means-Plus-Function Claiming
`Means-plus-function claiming is allowed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`¶ 6, which provides that:
`
`
`3 After the Petition was filed, the parties filed a Joint Claim Construction
`Statement in district court, in which Patent Owner’s positions differed
`somewhat from those identified in the Petition. Compare Ex. 2003, D1–3
`(stating that limitations are not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 but not
`proposing additional constructions), with Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1007, which
`states that limitations are not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 but does propose
`additional constructions); see also Prelim. Resp. 7 (citing Pet. 21–22).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01304
`Patent 6,203,558 B1
`
`
`An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed
`as a means or step for performing a specified function without
`the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and
`such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding
`structure, material, or acts described in the specification and
`equivalents thereof.4
`Claim limitations that include the term “means” or “means for” are
`presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. See Williamson v. Citrix Online,
`LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part)
`(“The converse presumption remains unaffected: ‘use of the word ‘means’
`creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies.’”); see also Personalized
`Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703 (Fed. Cir.
`1998); Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo–Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1584 (Fed.
`Cir. 1996) (“[Use] of the term ‘means’ has come to be so closely associated
`with ‘means-plus-function’ claiming that it is fair to say that the use of the
`term ‘means’ (particularly as used in the phrase ‘means for’) generally
`invokes [§ 112 ¶ 6].”).
`This presumption may be rebutted, however, “if the evidence intrinsic
`to the patent and any relevant extrinsic evidence so warrant.” Personalized
`Media Commc’ns, 161 F.3d at 704. For example, the presumption may be
`overcome where the claim specifically identifies structure sufficient to
`perform the recited function. See TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d
`1256, 1259–60 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Sufficient structure exists when the claim
`
`
`4 Section 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29,
`125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”) re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, as
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f). However, because the ’558 Patent has a filing date
`before September 16, 2012, the effective date of § 4(c) of the AIA, we will
`refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01304
`Patent 6,203,558 B1
`
`language specifies the exact structure that performs the functions in question
`without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic
`evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure.”); see also Sage
`Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1427–28 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`3. Means-Plus-Function Limitations in the ’558 Patent
`In this case, as emphasized in claim 1 above, the challenged claims
`recite the term “means.” See Ex. 1001, 26:5–6, 26:10–13 (“expandable
`inflation means . . . for expansion of the stent”; “mounting and retaining
`means . . . to provide a securement for the stent”).
`With respect to these limitations, Petitioner contends that these
`limitations do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Pet. 22. Petitioner, however,
`does not discuss the presumption associated with use of the word “means” in
`these limitations, and does not provide a single citation to intrinsic or
`competent extrinsic evidence to suggest that the presumption is unwarranted
`in this case. Instead, Petitioner simply incorporates by reference a letter
`between counsel in the co-pending district court litigation. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1007). Even if Petitioner’s incorporation by reference were proper, but
`cf. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3), the cited letter also fails to explain how or why
`applicable intrinsic or extrinsic evidence warrants deviating from the
`presumption that use of the term “means” invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
`Although this letter suggests that the parties may agree that § 112 ¶ 6 should
`not apply to these limitations, a non-binding agreement between parties does
`not constitute persuasive evidence and does not suspend our Rules. See
`infra Section II.A.3.a. Further, claim construction, and whether § 112 ¶ 6
`applies, is a legal determination made based on a hierarchy of evidence––
`intrinsic evidence being the most persuasive.
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01304
`Patent 6,203,558 B1
`
`
`In addition to stating that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply, the
`Petition also provides constructions for these limitations. Pet. 22. However,
`the proposed constructions simply reiterate the functions recited by the
`claims. For example, Petitioner construes “expandable inflation means . . .
`for expansion of the stent” as “a structure capable of being expanded and
`inflated.” Id. Petitioner’s contentions in this regard fail to explain how or
`why Petitioner believes any applicable evidence overcomes the presumption
`that use of the term “means” invokes § 112 ¶ 6. It is not this panel’s charge
`to divine the reasoning or justification for Petitioner’s position, without any
`guiding explanation from Petitioner.
`Accordingly, absent any persuasive rebuttal, we presume that
`“expandable inflation means . . . for expansion of the stent” and “mounting
`and retaining means . . . to provide a securement for the stent” invoke
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
`(a) Identification of Corresponding Structure
`In proceedings before this Board, our Rules require that if a
`challenged claim contains a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112 ¶ 6, Petitioner is required to construe the limitation and to “identify
`the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material,
`or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).
`Here, the Petition fails to identify any portion of the ’558 patent
`Specification that describes the structure, material, or acts that correspond to
`the functions recited in the above-referenced limitations. See Pet. 22; see
`also 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). It is not this panel’s responsibility to identify
`the portions of the Specification upon which it believes Petitioner may rely
`to support its positions with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Our Rules place
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01304
`Patent 6,203,558 B1
`
`this burden on Petitioner, so that the panel may evaluate effectively the
`challenged claims vis-à-vis the asserted prior art, as discussed below.
`
`B. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`To show that a challenged claim containing a means-plus-function
`limitation is unpatentable over the asserted prior art, Petitioner must show
`that the structure that corresponds to a claimed function, or its equivalent, is
`found in, or obvious over, the applied prior art. See Fresenius USA, Inc. v.
`Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1299–1300 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“It is firmly
`established in our precedent that a structural analysis is required when
`means-plus-function limitations are at issue; a functional analysis alone will
`not suffice.”) (emphases added). In this case, Petitioner’s failure to construe
`the claims in accordance with our Rules is determinative. By failing to
`identify the structure, material, or acts in the ’558 patent Specification that
`correspond to the claimed functions, Petitioner necessarily has not shown
`where that structure, material, acts, or their equivalents are disclosed in the
`applied prior art. Compare Pet. 22, with id. at 33–34 (discussing
`“expandable inflation means . . . for expansion of the stent”), 34–35
`(discussing “mounting and retaining means . . . to provide a securement for
`the stent”), 47–49, 55–57.
`For these reasons, Petitioner has not established a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of
`independent claim 1 based on any of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.
`Petitioner’s challenges to dependent claims 2, 9, 14, and 20–22 similarly fail
`for the same reasons.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01304
`Patent 6,203,558 B1
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine Petitioner has not
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in establishing the
`unpatentability of the challenged claims of the ’558 patent.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Upon consideration of the record before us, it is:
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and
`no trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01304
`Patent 6,203,558 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`James Isbester
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`jisbester@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Craig S. Summers
`Joshua Stowell
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2css@knobbe.com
`joshua.stowell@knobbe.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Wallace Wu
`Jennifer A. Sklenar
`Nicholas M. Nyemah
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`Wallace.Wu@apks.com
`Jennifer.Sklenar@apks.com
`Nicholas.Nyemah@apks.com
`xEDW_BSC_IPR01304@apks.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

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