`
`IPR2020-00680 and IPR2020-00712
`
`U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`8,457,758, and 8,738,148
`
`Oral Hearing: February 8, 2024
`
`1
`
`Page 1 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`MEDTRONIC EXHIBIT 2012
`Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.
`IPR2020-00712
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00680 (’758 Patent) – Grounds on Remand
`
`• Ground 1: Claims 1, 5, and 9 are anticipated by Schulman
`
`• Ground 2: Claims 1, 5, and 9 are anticipated by Fischell
`
`• Ground 3: Claims 1, 5, and 9 are anticipated by Baumann
`
`680 Remand Proc. Order (Paper 67) at 2-3
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00712 (’148 Patent) – Grounds on Remand
`
`• Ground 1: Claims 3-6, 9-12, and 15-18 are anticipated by
`Schulman
`
`• Ground 2: Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, and 16 are anticipated by
`Fischell
`
`• Ground 3: Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, and 18 are obvious over
`Fischell in view of Fischell ’260
`
`712 Remand Proc. Order (Paper 64) at 3-5
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`The Federal Circuit’s Narrow Mandate
`
`Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 75 F.4th 1374, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2023)
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Axonics’ Arguments Under the Two-Input Claim Construction
`
`680 Reply (Paper 19) at 10-14; 712 Reply (Paper 19) at 12-20
`
`5
`
`680 Ex. 1013 (Pet. Demonstratives) at 80
`712 Ex. 1014 (Pet. Demonstratives) at 80
`
`Page 5 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`No Anticipation by Fischell
`
`• Axonics’ argument for Fischell does not rise to the level of
`anticipation
`
`680 Ex. 1012 (Panescu Suppl. Decl.) at ¶ 26
`712 Ex. 1012 (Panescu Suppl. Decl.) at ¶ 27
`
`680 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 68) at 13-15
`712 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 65) at 16-18
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Fischell Does Not Vary Power Output
`Based on Battery Voltage
`
`• Dr. Mihran’s uncontested testimony that Fischell does not
`disclose varying power output based on battery voltage
`
`680 Ex. 2010 (Mihran Rebuttal Decl.) at ¶ 11
`712 Ex. 2010 (Mihran Rebuttal Decl.) at ¶ 11
`
`680 Ex. 2010 (Mihran Rebuttal Decl.) at ¶ 12
`712 Ex. 2010 (Mihran Rebuttal Decl.) at ¶ 12
`
`680 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 68) at 13-15; 680 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 80) at 1
`712 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 65) at 16-18; 712 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 77) at 1
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`No Anticipation by Baumann
`
`• Baumann does not disclose varying power output at the
`external charger
`
`680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 15
`
`680 Sur-Reply (Paper 68) at 15, 20-22
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`No Anticipation by Baumann
`
`• Dr. Mihran’s uncontested testimony that Baumann does not
`disclose varying power output at the external charger
`
`680 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶ 65
`See also 680 Ex. 2002 Mihran Decl.) at ¶¶ 61-68
`
`680 Amend. Sur-Reply (Paper 68) at 15, 20-22
`680 PO Resp. (Paper 15) at 36-40
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Axonics’ Anticipation Position for Baumann is
`Premised on Obviousness
`
`• Dr. Mihran’s uncontested testimony regarding suggestion of
`Schulman’s teachings being incorporated into Baumann
`
`680 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶ 67
`See also 680 Ex. 2002 Mihran Decl.) at ¶¶ 61-68
`
`680 Amend. Sur-Reply (Paper 68) at 15, 20-22
`680 PO Resp. (Paper 15) at 36-40
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Axonics’ Insufficient Showing under
`Fischell-Fischell ’260 Ground
`
`• Axonics’ fails to make the requisite analysis to establish a
`prima facie case of obviousness
`
`• Axonics’ simply points to an input in Fischell and allegedly
`another input in Fischell ’260, and provides the following
`conclusory statement:
`
`712 Reply (Paper 19) at 19
`
`712 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 65) at 22-23
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Schulman Does Not Disclose Two Separate Inputs
`
`• Axonics’ unclear two-input mapping in Reply
`
`No evidence that
`Schulman provides this
`battery voltage as an input
`
`680 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 80) at 2-5
`712 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 77) at 2-5
`
`The single measurement
`through R9 cannot satisfy
`two separate inputs. Such
`mapping renders the two-
`input limitation
`meaningless.
`
`680 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 80) at 2-5
`712 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 77) at 2-5
`
`680 Ex. 1013 (Pet. Demonstratives) at 80
`
`680 Ex. 1013 (Pet. Demonstratives) at 81
`
`680 Reply (Paper 19) at 10-12; 712 Reply (Paper 19) at 12-14
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Schulman Does Not Disclose Two Separate Inputs
`
`• Voltage across leads 51 and 52 is not a separate input
`
`680 Ex. 2010 (Mihran Rebuttal Decl.) at ¶ 5
`712 Ex. 2010 (Mihran Rebuttal Decl.) at ¶ 5
`
`680 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 68) at 11-13; 680 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 80) at 2-5
`712 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 65) at 14-16; 712 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 77) at 2-5
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Axonics Recognized In Its Reply That
`It Needed to Show Two Separate Inputs
`
`680 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 68) at 11-13; 680 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 80) at 2-5
`712 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 65) at 14-16; 712 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 77) at 2-5
`
`14
`
`680 Reply (Paper 19) at 11-12
`712 Reply (Paper 19) at 13-14
`
`Page 14 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Schulman Discloses a Single Input (Current Through R9)
`For Varying Power
`
`680 Ex. 1019 (Mihran Dep. Tr.) at 25:11-26:5
`712 Ex. 1020 (Mihran Dep. Tr.) at 25:11-26:5
`
`680 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 68) at 11-13; 680 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 80) at 2-5
`712 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 65) at 14-16; 712 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 77) at 2-5
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Axonics’ Positions Are Unsupported
`
`• Dr. Panescu provides no citation to Schulman or explanation
`for his conclusory opinions
`
`680 Ex. 1012 (Panescu Suppl. Dec.) at ¶ 17
`712 Ex. 1012 (Panescu Suppl. Dec.) at ¶ 16
`
`680 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 68) at 11-13; 680 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 80) at 2-5
`712 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 65) at 14-16; 712 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 77) at 2-5
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Schulman Does Not Disclose Two Separate Inputs
`
`• Axonics’ mapping renders the “two separate inputs to the
`external charger” construction meaningless
`
`680 Ex. 2010 (Mihran Rebuttal Decl.) at ¶ 7
`712 Ex. 2010 (Mihran Rebuttal Decl.) at ¶ 7
`
`680 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 68) at 11-13; 680 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 80) at 2-5
`712 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 65) at 14-16; 712 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 77) at 2-5
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Schulman Does Not Disclose Two Separate Inputs
`
`• Current through R9 impacted by many factors
`
`0
`
`0
`
`680 Ex. 1019 (Mihran Dep. Tr.) at 28:4-23
`712 Ex. 1020 (Mihran Dep. Tr.) at 28:4-23
`
`680 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 68) at 11-13; 680 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 80) at 2-5
`712 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 65) at 14-16; 712 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 77) at 2-5
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Axonics’ Position Is Based On a
`Flawed Technical Premise
`
`• Dr. Panescu’s conclusory opinion is unsupported
`
`680 Ex. 1012 (Panescu Suppl. Dec.) at ¶ 15
`712 Ex. 1012 (Panescu Suppl. Dec.) at ¶ 14
`
`680 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 68) at 11-13; 680 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 80) at 2-5
`712 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 65) at 14-16; 712 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 77) at 2-5
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Axonics’ Position Is Based On a
`Flawed Technical Premise
`
`• Current through R9 does not increase when the battery
`current exceeds a predetermined threshold
`
`680 Ex. 2010 (Mihran Rebuttal Decl.) at ¶ 6 n.2
`712 Ex. 2010 (Mihran Rebuttal Decl.) at ¶ 6 n.3
`
`680 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 68) at 11-13; 680 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 80) at 2-5
`712 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 65) at 14-16; 712 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 77) at 2-5
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Axonics’ Position Is Based On a
`Flawed Technical Premise
`
`• Current through R9 does not increase when the battery
`current exceeds a predetermined threshold
`
`680 Ex. 1019 (Mihran Dep. Tr.) at 36:23-37:4
`712 Ex. 1020 (Mihran Dep. Tr.) at 36:23-37:4
`
`680 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 68) at 11-13; 680 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 80) at 2-5
`712 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 65) at 14-16; 712 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 77) at 2-5
`
`21
`
`Page 21 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`IPR Nos. 2020-00680 and -00712
`
`APPENDIX
`
`22
`
`Page 22 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Representative Claim 1 of the ’758 Patent
`
`680 Ex. 1001 (’758 Patent) at Claim 1
`
`23
`
`Page 23 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Representative Claim 3 of the ’148 Patent
`
`712 Ex. 1001 (’148 Patent) at Claim 3
`
`24
`
`Page 24 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`The Board’s Two-Input Construction
`
`680 FWD (Paper 45) at 26
`See also 712 FWD (Paper 42) at 26
`
`25
`
`Page 25 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert Refused to Acknowledge
`Two-Input Embodiment
`
`680 FWD (Paper 45) at 23-24
`See also 712 FWD (Paper 42) at 37
`
`26
`
`Page 26 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Schulman Does Not Disclose Two Separate Inputs
`
`• Schulman discloses a single input (representing current
`through R9) for varying power
`
`680 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 68) at 11-13; 680 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 80) at 2-5
`712 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 65) at 14-16; 712 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 77) at 2-5
`
`27
`
`680 Ex. 1019 (Mihran Dep. Tr.) at 32:22-33:15
`712 Ex. 1020 (Mihran Dep. Tr.) at 32:22-33:15
`
`Page 27 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Schulman
`
`680 Ex. 1005 (Schulman) at FIG. 2
`712 Ex. 1005 (Schulman) at FIG. 2
`
`680 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 68) at 11-13; 680 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 80) at 2-5
`712 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 65) at 14-16; 712 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 77) at 2-5
`
`28
`
`Page 28 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Axonics’ Schulman Position Is Based On a
`Flawed Technical Premise
`
`• Current through R9 does not increase when the battery
`current exceeds a predetermined threshold
`
`680 Ex. 1019 (Mihran Dep. Tr.) at 49:5-24
`712 Ex. 1020 (Mihran Dep. Tr.) at 49:5-24
`
`680 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 68) at 11-13; 680 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 80) at 2-5
`712 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 65) at 14-16; 712 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 77) at 2-5
`
`29
`
`Page 29 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Schulman Does Not Disclose Two Separate Inputs
`
`• “Separate” inputs need to be distinguishable by the charger
`
`680 Ex. 1019 (Mihran Dep. Tr.) at 83:15-84:5
`712 Ex. 1020 (Mihran Dep. Tr.) at 83:15-84:5
`
`680 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 68) at 11-13; 680 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 80) at 2-5
`712 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 65) at 14-16; 712 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 77) at 2-5
`
`30
`
`Page 30 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Schulman Does Not Disclose Two Separate Inputs
`
`• “Separate” inputs need to be distinguishable by the charger
`
`680 Ex. 1019 (Mihran Dep. Tr.) at 85:18-23
`712 Ex. 1020 (Mihran Dep. Tr.) at 85:18-23
`
`680 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 68) at 11-13; 680 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 80) at 2-5
`712 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 65) at 14-16; 712 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 77) at 2-5
`
`31
`
`Page 31 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Schulman Does Not Disclose Two Separate Inputs
`
`• “Separate” inputs need to be distinguishable by the charger
`
`680 Ex. 1019 (Mihran Dep. Tr.) at 86:15-24
`712 Ex. 1020 (Mihran Dep. Tr.) at 86:15-24
`
`680 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 68) at 11-13; 680 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 80) at 2-5
`712 Amended Sur-Reply (Paper 65) at 14-16; 712 PO Post-Rem. Br. (Paper 77) at 2-5
`
`32
`
`Page 32 of 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`