Demonstratives of Patent Owner Medtronic, Inc.
`
`IPR2020-00678, IPR2020-00680, and
`
`IPR2020-00712
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,774,069,
`
`8,457,758, and 8,738,148
`
`Oral Hearing: June 17, 2021
`
`1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`MEDTRONIC EXHIBIT 2009
`Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.
`IPR2020-00712
`
`Page 1 of 89
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00678, IPR2020-00680, and
`
`IPR2020-00712
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,774,069,
`
`8,457,758, and 8,738,148
`
`Oral Hearing: June 17, 2021
`
`1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`MEDTRONIC EXHIBIT 2009
`Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.
`IPR2020-00712
`
`Page 1 of 89
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00678 (’069 Patent) – Instituted Grounds
`
`• Ground 1: Claim 5 is anticipated by Schulman
`
`• Ground 2: Claim 5 is anticipated by Fischell
`
`• Ground 3: Claims 6, 7, and 9 are obvious over
`Schulman in view of Baumann
`
`• Ground 4: Claims 6, 7, and 9 are obvious over
`Fischell in view of Baumann
`
`678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 4-5, 19; 678 Pet. (Paper 1) at 14-16
`
`2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 2 of 89
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00678 (’069 Patent): Agenda
`
`• Claim construction: Measuring said current
`
`• Ground 1: Schulman does not disclose measuring the current through
`the internal power source as in claim 5
`
`• Ground 2: Fischell does not disclose measuring the current through
`the internal power source as in claim 5
`
`• Grounds 3-4: Baumann fails to teach the current-voltage relationship
`as in claim 7
`
`3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 3 of 89
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00678 (’069 Patent): Agenda
`
`• Claim construction: Measuring said current
`
`• Ground 1: Schulman does not disclose measuring the current through
`the internal power source as in claim 5
`
`• Ground 2: Fischell does not disclose measuring the current through
`the internal power source as in claim 5
`
`• Grounds 3-4: Baumann fails to teach the current-voltage relationship
`as in claim 7
`
`4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 4 of 89
`
`
`
`Claim 5 of the ’069 Patent
`
`678 Ex. 1001 (’069 patent) at 23:22-42
`
`5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 5 of 89
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Measuring Said Current”
`
`• Axonics’ Petition stressed that a measurement of the “actual
`current through the internal power source” is required.
`
`678 Petition (Paper 1) at 10
`
`678 Petition (Paper 1) at 10-13
`
`6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 6 of 89
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Measuring Said Current”
`
`• Medtronic’s Expert, Dr. Mihran:
`
`678 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶ 29
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 5-6; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 5-6
`
`7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 7 of 89
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00678 (’069 Patent): Agenda
`
`• Claim construction: Measuring said current
`
`• Ground 1: Schulman does not disclose measuring the current through
`the internal power source as in claim 5
`
`• Ground 2: Fischell does not disclose measuring the current through
`the internal power source as in claim 5
`
`• Grounds 3-4: Baumann fails to teach the current-voltage relationship
`as in claim 7
`
`8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 8 of 89
`
`
`
`Schulman Does Not Disclose Measuring the Current
`Through the Internal Power Source as in Claim 5
`
`• Claim 5 requires measuring the current through the internal
`power source.
`
`• It is undisputed that the current through R9 is not the current
`through the internal power source.
`
`• No other measured current is identified by Petitioner.
`
`• Petitioner’s new arguments should not be considered and, even if
`considered, are meritless.
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 9-21; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-12; Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 6-10
`
`9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 9 of 89
`
`
`
`Ground 1: It Is Undisputed That the Current Through
`Resistor R9 Is Not the Current Through Battery 15
`
`• Schulman includes many current paths.
`
`678 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶38
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 9-21; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-12; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 6-10
`
`10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 10 of 89
`
`
`
`Ground 1: It Is Undisputed That the Current Through
`Resistor R9 Is Not the Current Through Battery 15
`
`• Schulman includes many current paths.
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 9-21; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-12; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 6-10
`
`11
`
`678 Sur-Reply (Paper 36) at 8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 11 of 89
`
`
`
`Ground 1: It Is Undisputed That the Current Through
`Resistor R9 Is Not the Current Through Battery 15
`
`• Schulman discloses current through R9 that does not go
`through the battery 15.
`
`678 Ex. 1005 (Schulman) at 9:44-10:4
`
`678 Ex. 1005 (Schulman) at 5:15-40
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 9-21; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-12; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 6-10
`
`12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 12 of 89
`
`
`
`Ground 1: It Is Undisputed That the Current Through
`Resistor R9 Is Not the Current Through Battery 15
`
`• Medtronic’s Expert, Dr. Mihran, confirms that the current
`through R9 is not the same as the current through battery 15.
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 9-21; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-12; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 6-10
`
`13
`
`Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶37
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 13 of 89
`
`
`
`Ground 1: It Is Undisputed That the Current Through
`Resistor R9 Is Not the Current Through Battery 15
`
`• Medtronic’s Expert, Dr. Mihran, confirmed that the current
`through R9 is not the same as the current through battery 15.
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 9-21; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-12; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 6-10
`
`14
`
`678 Ex. 2008 (Mihran Tr.) at 55:8-21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 14 of 89
`
`
`
`Ground 1: It Is Undisputed That the Current Through
`Resistor R9 Is Not the Current Through Battery 15
`
`• Medtronic’s Expert, Dr. Mihran, testified that only some of
`the current through R9 goes through the battery 15.
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 9-21; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-12; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 6-10
`
`15
`
`678 Ex. 2008 (Mihran Tr.) at 56:1-24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 15 of 89
`
`
`
`Ground 1: It Is Undisputed That the Current Through
`Resistor R9 Is Not the Current Through Battery 15
`
`• Axonics’ Petition did not address the shunt current regulation in
`mapping the current R9 to the current through the battery 15.
`
`Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶39
`
`678 Petition (Paper 1) at 26-27; 678 Reply (Paper 19) at 2-11
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 9-21; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-12; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 6-10
`
`16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 16 of 89
`
`
`
`Ground 1: It Is Undisputed That the Current Through
`Resistor R9 Is Not the Current Through Battery 15
`
`• Medtronic’s Expert, Dr. Mihran, explained how current
`through R9 is not the current through the battery 15.
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 9-21; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-12; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 6-10
`
`17
`
`Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶42
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 17 of 89
`
`
`
`Ground 1: It Is Undisputed That the Current Through
`Resistor R9 Is Not the Current Through Battery 15
`
`• Axonics’ declarant admitted that some current through R9
`can flow through the shunt regulator and not the battery 15.
`
`678 Ex. 2004 (Panescu Tr.) at 66:19-67:2
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 9-21; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-12; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 6-10
`
`18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 18 of 89
`
`
`
`Ground 1: It Is Undisputed That the Current Through
`Resistor R9 Is Not the Current Through Battery 15
`
`• Axonics’ declarant testified that excess current through R9
`is not applied to the battery 15.
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 9-21; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-12; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 6-10
`
`19
`
`678 Ex. 2004 (Panescu Tr.) at 70:10-25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 19 of 89
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00678 (’069 Patent): Agenda
`
`• Claim construction: Measuring said current
`
`• Ground 1: Schulman does not disclose measuring the current through
`the internal power source as in claim 5
`
`• Ground 2: Fischell does not disclose measuring the current through
`the internal power source as in claim 5
`
`• Grounds 3-4: Baumann fails to teach the current-voltage relationship
`as in claim 7
`
`20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 20 of 89
`
`
`
`Fischell Does Not Disclose Measuring the Current
`Through the Internal Power Source as in Claim 5
`
`• Claim 5 requires measuring the current through the internal power
`source.
`
`• Like Schulman, Fischell’s “charge current” is not the current through
`the battery (“internal power source”).
`
`• Petitioner fails to address the evidence that Fischell does not measure
`the current through the battery.
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 21-29; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 13-22; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 10-13
`
`21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 21 of 89
`
`
`
`Ground 2: Fischell Does Not Disclose
`Measuring The Current Through the Battery
`
`• “Charge Current” in Schulman and Fischell
`
`Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶52
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 21-29; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 13-22; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 10-13
`
`22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 22 of 89
`
`
`
`Ground 2: Fischell Does Not Disclose
`Measuring The Current Through the Battery
`
`• Medtronic’s Expert, Dr. Mihran, explained that Fischell does not
`show what current is actually measured.
`
`Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶50
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 21-29; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 13-22; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 10-13
`
`23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 23 of 89
`
`
`
`Ground 2: Fischell Does Not Disclose
`Measuring The Current Through the Battery
`
`• As demonstrated with respect to Schulman, “charge current” is
`not the same as the current passing through the battery.
`
`Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶52
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 21-29; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 13-22; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 10-13
`
`24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 24 of 89
`
`
`
`Ground 2: Fischell Does Not Disclose
`Measuring The Current Through the Battery
`
`• Axonics’ declarant agrees that there is more than one way to
`implement the “telemetry sensing of charge current” block in Fischell.
`
`678 Ex. 2004 (Panescu Tr.) at 93:3-94:15
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 21-29; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 13-22; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 10-13
`
`25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 25 of 89
`
`
`
`Ground 2: Fischell Does Not Disclose
`Measuring The Current Through the Battery
`
`• When asked during cross-examination, Dr. Mihran explained that
`“charge current” is not necessarily the current through the battery.
`
`678 Ex. 2008 (Mihran Tr.) at 83:16-84:13
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 21-29; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 13-22; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 10-13
`
`26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 26 of 89
`
`
`
`Ground 2: Fischell Does Not Disclose
`Measuring The Current Through the Battery
`
`•
`
`In responding to the question, Dr. Mihran explained that “charge
`current” in the Fischell ’260 patent is not the current through the
`battery, thereby corroborating his previously expressed opinion.
`
`678 Ex. 2008 (Mihran Tr.) at 84:14-85:1
`
`678 Ex. 2008 (Mihran Tr.) at 85:2-16
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 21-29; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 13-22; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 10-13
`
`27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 27 of 89
`
`
`
`Ground 2: Fischell Does Not Disclose Limitation 5.3(b)
`
`• Axonics’ Expert, Dr. Panescu, relied on Fischell ’260 as a
`“design roadmap” for the Fischell Article.
`
`Ex. 2005 at ¶100
`
`Ex. 2005 at ¶101
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 21-29; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 13-22; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 10-13
`
`28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 28 of 89
`
`
`
`Ground 2: Fischell Does Not Disclose
`Measuring The Current Through the Battery
`
`• The Fischell ’260 patent corroborates Dr. Mihran’s
`opinions regarding Fischell’s “charge current.”
`
`678 Ex. 2008 (Mihran Tr.) at 130:23-131:3
`678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 19 n.4
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 21-29; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 13-22; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 10-13
`
`29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 29 of 89
`
`
`
`Ground 2: The Fischell ’260 Patent Corroborates Dr. Mihran’s
`Opinions Regarding Fischell’s “Charge Current”
`
`678 Ex. 2008 (Mihran Tr.) at 130:23-134:8
`678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 19 n.4
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 21-29; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 13-22; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 10-13
`
`30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 30 of 89
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00678 (’069 Patent): Agenda
`
`• Claim construction: Measuring said current
`
`• Ground 1: Schulman does not disclose measuring the current through
`the internal power source as in claim 5
`
`• Ground 2: Fischell does not disclose measuring the current through
`the internal power source as in claim 5
`
`• Grounds 3-4: Baumann fails to teach the current-voltage relationship
`as in claim 7
`
`31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 31 of 89
`
`
`
`Grounds 3-4: Baumann Fails to Teach the Current-Voltage
`Relationship as in Claim 7
`
`•
`
`In addition to the reasons discussed above for Shulman and Fischell,
`the Schulman/Fischell-Bauman combinations fail because Baumann
`does not disclose the features of claim 7.
`
`• Claim 7 requires the current through the internal power source to
`decline as the voltage of the internal power source increases.
`
`• Axonics’ failure to apply the ordinary meaning of the claim is
`unjustified.
`
`• Baumann does not disclose the relationship between the current and
`the voltage for the internal power source required by claim 7.
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 30-40; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 22-24; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 14-19
`
`32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 32 of 89
`
`
`
`Grounds 3-4: Baumann Fails to Teach the Current-Voltage
`Relationship as in Claim 7
`
`• Axonics and Axonics’ declarant acknowledge that claim 7
`suggests a continuous inverse relationship between the battery
`voltage and current through the battery.
`
`678 Ex. 1001 (’069 patent) at Claim 7
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 30-40; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 22-24; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 14-19
`
`33
`
`678 Pet. (Paper 1) at 46-47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 33 of 89
`
`
`
`Grounds 3-4: Baumann Fails to Teach the Current-Voltage
`Relationship as in Claim 7
`
`• But Axonics’ petition ignored the ordinary meaning in order to
`map the claim to Baumann.
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 30-40; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 22-24; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 14-19
`
`34
`
`678 Pet. (Paper 1) at 46-47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 34 of 89
`
`
`
`Grounds 3-4: Baumann Fails to Teach the Current-Voltage
`Relationship as in Claim 7
`
`• Axonics’ re-interpretation of the claim language is not
`consistent with the disclosure of the ’069 patent.
`
`678 Ex. 1001 (’069 Patent) at 21:38-43
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 30-40; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 22-24; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 14-19
`
`35
`
`678 Ex. 1001 (’069 Patent) at FIG. 19 (excerpt)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 35 of 89
`
`
`
`Grounds 3-4: Baumann Fails to Teach the Current-Voltage
`Relationship as in Claim 7
`
`• The specification and file history do not support Axonics’
`departure from the ordinary meaning.
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 30-40; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 22-24; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 14-19
`
`36
`
`678 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶63
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 36 of 89
`
`
`
`Grounds 3-4: Baumann Fails to Teach the Current-Voltage
`Relationship as in Claim 7
`
`• Baumann does not disclose the battery current declining as the
`battery voltage increases.
`
`678 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶61
`
`678 Ex. 1007 (Baumann) at 5:14-22
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 30-40; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 22-24; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 14-19
`
`37
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 37 of 89
`
`
`
`Grounds 3-4: Baumann Fails to Teach the Current-Voltage
`Relationship as in Claim 7
`
`• Baumann does not disclose the battery current declining as the
`battery voltage increases.
`
`678 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶61
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 30-40; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 22-24; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 14-19
`
`38
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 38 of 89
`
`
`
`Grounds 3-4: Baumann Fails to Teach the Current-Voltage
`Relationship as in Claim 7
`
`• Baumann does not disclose the battery current declining as the
`battery voltage increases.
`
`678 POR (Paper 15) at 30-40; 678 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 22-24; 678 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 14-19
`
`39
`
`678 Ex. 2008 (Mihran Tr.) at 106:15-107:2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 39 of 89
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00680 (’758 Patent) – Instituted Grounds
`
`• 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 1-12 are anticipated by Baumann
`
`• Ground 4: Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-12 are obvious over
`Schulman in view of Baumann
`
`• Ground 5: Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-12 are obvious over Fischell
`in view of Baumann
`
`Claims 3, 7, and 11 were disclaimed
`
`680 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 9, 33; 680 Pet. (Paper 1) at 8-10
`680 POR at 1, 14-15; 680 Ex. 2007
`
`40
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 40 of 89
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00712 (’148 Patent) – Instituted Grounds
`
`• Ground 1: Claims 1-18 are anticipated by Schulman
`
`• Ground 2: Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 13-16 are anticipated by
`Fischell
`
`• Ground 3: Claims 5-6, 11-12, and 17-18 are obvious over
`Fischell in view of Fischell ’260
`
`Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 13-14 were disclaimed
`
`712 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 9, 32; 712 Pet. (Paper 1) at 8-11
`712 POR at 1, 15-16; 712 Ex. 2007
`
`41
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 41 of 89
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00680 (’758 Patent) and
`IPR2020-00712 (’148 Patent): Agenda
`
`• Multiple input claims: ’758 and ’148 Patents
`
`• Certain independent claims require multiple inputs for
`automatically varying power output
`
`• Petitioner does not show multiple inputs in the prior art
`
`• Ground 3 (’758 Patent): Baumann fails to disclose the current-
`voltage relationship as in claims 2, 6, and 10
`
`• Ground 3 (’758 Patent): Baumann fails to disclose termination of
`power output based on a current amount as in claims 4, 8, and 12
`
`• Ground 3 (’758 Patent): Baumann does not disclose external power
`source automatically varying power output (all remaining challenged
`claims)
`
`42
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 42 of 89
`
`
`
`Multiple Input Claims: ’758 and ’148 Patents
`
`• The following independent claims require multiple inputs for
`automatically varying power output
`
`• Claims 1, 5, and 9 of the ’758 Patent
`
`• Claims 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 of the ’148 Patent
`
`• Axonics incorrectly limited the claims to one input based on an
`admitted misreading of the specification.
`
`• Axonics failed to show automatic power variation based on two
`inputs as required by the claims.
`
`• Axonics new arguments should not be considered.
`
`680 POR (’758 Patent) (Paper 15) at 6-13; 680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-9
`712 POR (’148 Patent) (Paper 15) at 6-15; 712 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-11
`
`43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 43 of 89
`
`
`
`Representative Claim 1 of the ’758 Patent
`
`680 Ex. 1001 (’758 Patent) at Claim 1
`
`44
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 44 of 89
`
`
`
`Representative Claim 3 of the ’148 Patent
`
`712 Ex. 1001 (’148 Patent) at Claim 3
`
`45
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 45 of 89
`
`
`
`Axonics Failed to Show Two Inputs
`
`• The Board acknowledged Axonics’ reliance on a single input to
`satisfy both wherein clauses.
`
`680 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 24
`
`680 POR (’758 Patent) (Paper 15) at 6-13; 680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-9
`712 POR (’148 Patent) (Paper 15) at 6-15; 712 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-11
`
`46
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 46 of 89
`
`
`
`Multiple Input Claims: ’758 and ’148 Patents
`
`• The plain language of the claims requires two inputs.
`
`680 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) (’758 Patent) at ¶32
`See also 712 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) (’148 Patent) at ¶34
`
`680 POR (’758 Patent) (Paper 15) at 6-13; 680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-9
`712 POR (’148 Patent) (Paper 15) at 6-15; 712 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-11
`
`47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 47 of 89
`
`
`
`Axonics’ Claim Interpretation Was Based on
`Misreading of the Specification
`
`Petitioner’s Contradicting Positions
`
`At petition stage, Petitioner justified its failure to address automatic
`power variation based on two inputs by asserting that the specification
`does not disclose two separate inputs. Petitioner now admits that such a
`reading of the specification was incorrect.
`
`Petition
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`680 Pet. (Paper 1) at 19-20
`See also 712 Ex. 1003 (Panescu Decl.) at 88
`
`680 Reply (Paper 19) at 8
`
`680 POR (’758 Patent) (Paper 15) at 6-13; 680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-9
`712 POR (’148 Patent) (Paper 15) at 6-15; 712 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-11
`
`48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 48 of 89
`
`
`
`It Is Undisputed That the Specification Supports Two Inputs
`
`• The ’758 Patent (and ’148 Patent) supports power variation based on two inputs
`
`Ex. 1001 (’758 Patent) at 21:55-67
`Ex. 1001 (’148 Patent) at 21:58-22:3
`
`680 POR (’758 Patent) (Paper 15) at 6-13; 680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-9
`712 POR (’148 Patent) (Paper 15) at 6-15; 712 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-11
`
`49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 49 of 89
`
`
`
`It Is Undisputed That the Specification Supports Two Inputs
`
`• Medtronic’s Expert, Dr. Mihran, explained how the specification
`supports power variation based on two inputs.
`
`680 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶33
`See also 712 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶35
`
`680 POR (’758 Patent) (Paper 15) at 6-13; 680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-9
`712 POR (’148 Patent) (Paper 15) at 6-15; 712 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-11
`
`50
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 50 of 89
`
`
`
`The Prosecution History Does Not Support Axonics’ Reading of
`the Claim Language
`
`680 Ex. 1002 (’758 File History) at 156
`
`680 POR (’758 Patent) (Paper 15) at 6-13; 680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-9
`712 POR (’148 Patent) (Paper 15) at 6-15; 712 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-11
`
`51
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 51 of 89
`
`
`
`The Prosecution History Does Not Support Axonics’ Reading of
`the Claim Language
`
`• Medtronic’s Expert, Dr. Mihran
`
`680 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶34
`
`680 POR (’758 Patent) (Paper 15) at 6-13; 680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-9
`712 POR (’148 Patent) (Paper 15) at 6-15; 712 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-11
`
`52
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 52 of 89
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00680 (’758 Patent) and
`IPR2020-00712 (’148 Patent): Agenda
`
`• Multiple input claims: ’758 and ’148 Patents
`
`• Certain independent claims require multiple inputs for
`automatically varying power output
`
`• Petitioner does not show multiple inputs in the prior art
`
`• Ground 3 (’758 Patent): Baumann fails to disclose the current-
`voltage relationship as in claims 2, 6, and 10
`
`• Ground 3 (’758 Patent): Baumann fails to disclose termination of
`power output based on a current amount as in claims 4, 8, and 12
`
`• Ground 3 (’758 Patent): Baumann does not disclose external power
`source automatically varying power output (all remaining challenged
`claims)
`
`53
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 53 of 89
`
`
`
`Axonics Failed to Show Two Inputs
`
`• Medtronic’s Expert, Dr. Mihran
`
`680 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶38
`
`680 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶42
`
`680 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶46
`
`680 POR (Paper 15) at 18-26; 680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 9-11
`
`54
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 54 of 89
`
`
`
`Ground 1 (’148 Patent): Petitioner Does Not Show
`Multiple Inputs in Schulman
`
`• Medtronic’s Expert, Dr. Mihran
`
`712 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶44
`
`712 POR (Paper 15) at 19-28; 712 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 11-12
`
`55
`
`712 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 55 of 89
`
`
`
`Ground 2 (’148 Patent): Petitioner Does Not Show
`Multiple Inputs in Fischell
`
`• Medtronic’s Expert, Dr. Mihran
`
`712 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶55
`
`712 POR (Paper 15) at 29-31; 712 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 11-12
`
`56
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 56 of 89
`
`
`
`Ground 3 (’148 Patent): Petitioner Does Not Show
`Multiple Inputs in the Fischell-Fischell ’260 Combination
`
`• Medtronic’s Expert, Dr. Mihran
`
`712 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶62
`
`712 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶61
`
`712 POR (Paper 15) at 32-34; 712 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 11-12
`
`57
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 57 of 89
`
`
`
`A Single Input Cannot Satisfy the Two Inputs Recited In the Claims
`
`• Axonics contention that one value that is the measurement of the
`current can satisfy both wherein clauses would render the first
`“value” wherein clause superfluous.
`
`680 Reply (Paper 19) at 5
`
`680 POR (’758 Patent) (Paper 15) at 6-13; 680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-9
`712 POR (’148 Patent) (Paper 15) at 6-15; 712 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-11
`
`58
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 58 of 89
`
`
`
`A Single Input Cannot Satisfy the Two Inputs Recited In the Claims
`
`• Axonics attempts to construe the terms in a way that renders the
`first wherein clause superfluous, which is “highly disfavored.”
`
`680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 8
`
`680 POR (’758 Patent) (Paper 15) at 6-13; 680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-9
`712 POR (’148 Patent) (Paper 15) at 6-15; 712 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 2-11
`
`59
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 59 of 89
`
`
`
`Axonics’ Late Attempt to Show Two Inputs
`Should Not Be Considered
`
`•
`
`It is undisputed that Petitioner did not argue or provide
`evidence in the Petitions that each of Schulman, Fischell,
`and Baumann disclose two inputs as required by the claims.
`
`• Petitioner should not be allowed to raise new arguments and
`present new evidence for the first time in reply.
`
`• Allowing and considering such untimely new arguments is
`highly prejudicial
`to Medtronic as Medtronic has no
`opportunity to rebut such new allegations with its own
`evidence.
`
`680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 10-11; 680 Reply (Paper 19) at 9-10
`
`60
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 60 of 89
`
`
`
`Even If Considered Axonics’ New Arguments Fail to Show
`the Claimed Two Inputs
`
`• Axonics contends Schulman’s voltage across the output
`leads 51 and 52 constitutes a second input.
`
`• But Axonics does not demonstrate that the voltage across
`leads 51 and 52 is ever sent to the external power source in
`order to allow the external power source to vary its power
`output based on that voltage.
`
`• The current through R9 is the only measurement provided to
`the external charger.
`
`680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 11-13; 680 Reply (Paper 19) at 10-12
`
`61
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 61 of 89
`
`
`
`Even If Considered Axonics’ New Arguments Fail to Show
`the Claimed Two Inputs
`
`• Axonics appears to contend that the pulse rate of the
`telemetry in Fischell varies with the current and because
`“the values of charging current and of charging voltage are
`strongly correlated” the telemetry “can be understood to be
`capable of controlling the charging energy of the external
`charger based on the charging voltage.”
`
`• This new argument fails to demonstrate that Fischell relays
`two inputs via the telemetry where power output
`is
`automatically varied based on those inputs.
`
`680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 13-15; 680 Reply (Paper 19) at 12-13
`
`62
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 62 of 89
`
`
`
`Even If Considered Axonics’ New Arguments Fail to Show
`the Claimed Two Inputs
`
`• Axonics’ new argument for Fischell does not rise to the
`level of anticipation and is an unsupported obviousness
`contention.
`
`680 Ex. 1012 (Panescu Suppl. Decl.) at ¶ 26
`
`680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 13-15; 680 Reply (Paper 19) at 12-13
`
`63
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 63 of 89
`
`
`
`Even If Considered Axonics’ New Arguments Fail to Show
`the Claimed Two Inputs
`
`• Baumann does not vary its power output based on even one
`input, let alone two inputs as required by the claim.
`
`• Axonics’ arguments are directed at varying the current IL
`applied to the battery.
`
`• But varying the current IL applied to the battery is not the
`same as varying the power output of the external power
`source, and Axonics does not provide any connection
`between these two actions that would address the claim
`language.
`
`680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 15; 680 Reply (Paper 19) at 13-14
`
`64
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 64 of 89
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00680 (’758 Patent) and
`IPR2020-00712 (’148 Patent): Agenda
`
`• Multiple input claims: ’758 and ’148 Patents
`
`• Certain independent claims require multiple inputs for
`automatically varying power output
`
`• Petitioner does not show multiple inputs in the prior art
`
`• Ground 3 (’758 Patent): Baumann fails to disclose the current-
`voltage relationship as in claims 2, 6, and 10
`
`• Ground 3 (’758 Patent): Baumann fails to disclose termination of
`power output based on a current amount as in claims 4, 8, and 12
`
`• Ground 3 (’758 Patent): Baumann does not disclose external power
`source automatically varying power output (all remaining challenged
`claims)
`
`65
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 65 of 89
`
`
`
`Grounds 3 (’758 Patent): Baumann Fails to Disclose the
`Current-Voltage Relationship as in Claims 2, 6, and 10
`
`• Claims 2, 6, and 10 require the current through the internal
`power source to decline as the voltage of the internal power
`source increases.
`
`• Axonics’ failure to apply the ordinary meaning of the claim is
`unjustified.
`
`• Baumann does not disclose the relationship between the current
`and the voltage for the internal power source required by claims
`2, 6, and 10.
`
`680 POR (Paper 15) at 26-31; 680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 16-17
`
`66
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 66 of 89
`
`
`
`Grounds 3 (’758 Patent): Baumann Fails to Disclose the
`Current-Voltage Relationship as in Claims 2, 6, and 10
`
`• Representative Claim 2:
`
`680 Ex. 1001 (’758 Patent) at Claim 2
`
`680 POR (Paper 15) at 26-31; 680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 16-17
`
`67
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 67 of 89
`
`
`
`Grounds 3 (’758 Patent): Baumann Fails to Disclose the
`Current-Voltage Relationship as in Claims 2, 6, and 10
`
`• Axonics and Axonics’ declarant acknowledge that
`claims 2, 6, and 10 suggest a continuous inverse
`relationship between the battery voltage and current
`through the battery.
`
`680 Pet. (Paper 1) at 57
`
`680 POR (Paper 15) at 26-31; 680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 16-17
`
`68
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 68 of 89
`
`
`
`Grounds 3 (’758 Patent): Baumann Fails to Disclose the
`Current-Voltage Relationship as in Claims 2, 6, and 10
`
`• But Axonics’ petition ignored the ordinary meaning in
`order to map the claim to Baumann.
`
`680 Pet. (Paper 1) at 57-58
`
`680 POR (Paper 15) at 26-31; 680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 16-17
`
`69
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 69 of 89
`
`
`
`Grounds 3 (’758 Patent): Baumann Fails to Disclose the
`Current-Voltage Relationship as in Claims 2, 6, and 10
`
`• Axonics’ re-interpretation of the claim language is not
`consistent with the disclosure of the ’758 patent.
`
`680 Ex. 1001 (’758 Patent) at 21:55-60
`
`680 POR (Paper 15) at 26-31; 680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 16-17
`
`70
`
`680 Ex. 1001 (’758 Patent) at FIG. 19 (excerpt)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 70 of 89
`
`
`
`Grounds 3 (’758 Patent): Baumann Fails to Disclose the
`Current-Voltage Relationship as in Claims 2, 6, and 10
`
`• The specification and file history do not support Axonics’
`departure from the ordinary meaning.
`
`680 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶ 51
`
`680 POR (Paper 15) at 26-31; 680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 16-17
`
`71
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 71 of 89
`
`
`
`Grounds 3 (’758 Patent): Baumann Fails to Disclose the
`Current-Voltage Relationship as in Claims 2, 6, and 10
`
`• Baumann does not disclose the battery current declining as the
`battery voltage increases.
`
`680 Ex. 1007 (Baumann) at 5:14-22
`
`680 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶49
`
`680 POR (Paper 15) at 26-31; 680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 16-17
`
`72
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 72 of 89
`
`
`
`Grounds 3 (’758 Patent): Baumann Fails to Disclose the
`Current-Voltage Relationship as in Claims 2, 6, and 10
`
`• Baumann does not disclose the battery current declining as
`the battery voltage increases.
`
`680 Ex. 2002 (Mihran Decl.) at ¶ 49
`
`680 POR (Paper 15) at 26-31; 680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 16-17
`
`73
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 73 of 89
`
`
`
`Grounds 3 (’758 Patent): Baumann Fails to Disclose the
`Current-Voltage Relationship as in Claims 2, 6, and 10
`
`• Baumann does not disclose the battery current declining as
`the battery voltage increases.
`
`680 POR (Paper 15) at 30-40; 680 Sur-Reply (Paper 34) at 22-24; 680 Inst. Dec. (Paper 8) at 14-19
`
`74
`
`680 Ex. 2008 (Mihran Tr.) at 106:15-107:2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 74 of 89
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00680 (’758 Patent) and
`IPR2020-00712 (’148 Patent): Agenda
`
`• Multiple input claims: ’758 and ’148 Patents
`
`• Certain independent claims require multiple inputs for
`automatically varying power output
`
`• Petitioner does not show multiple inputs in the prior art
`
`• Ground 3 (’758 Patent): Baumann fails to disclose the current-
`voltage relationship as in claims 2, 6, and 10
`
`• Ground 3 (’758 Patent): Baumann fails to disclose termination of
`power output based on a current amount as in claims 4, 8, and 12
`
`• Ground 3 (’758 Patent
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
