Case 8:19-cv-02115-DOC-JDE Document 122 Filed 07/01/22 Page 1 of 27 Page ID #:5722
`
`
`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
`
`Nimalka Wickramasekera (SBN: 268518)
`NWickramasekera@winston.com
`Joe S. Netikosol (SBN: 302026)
`JNetikosol@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 S. Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
`Telephone: (213) 615-1700
`Facsimile:
`(213) 615-1750
`
`George C. Lombardi (pro hac vice)
`GLombard@winston.com
`J.R. McNair (pro hac vice)
`JMcNair@winston.com
`Vivek V. Krishnan (pro hac vice)
`VKrishnan@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 W. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601-9703
`Telephone: (312) 558-5600
`Facsimile:
`(312) 558-5700
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`MEDTRONIC, INC.; MEDTRONIC PUERTO RICO OPERATIONS CO.;
`MEDTRONIC LOGISTICS, LLC; MEDTRONIC USA, INC.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02115-DOC-JDE
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC.; MEDTRONIC
`PUERTO RICO OPERATIONS
`CO.; MEDTRONIC LOGISTICS,
`LLC; MEDTRONIC USA, INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`AXONICS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-02115-DOC-JDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Axonics Exhibit 1026
`Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.
`IPR2020-00712
`
`Page 1 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02115-DOC-JDE Document 122 Filed 07/01/22 Page 2 of 27 Page ID #:5723
`
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
`RELEVANT BACKGROUND ............................................................................ 1
`A.
`The Asserted Patents .................................................................................. 1
`B.
`Overview of the Tined Lead Patents .......................................................... 2
`C. Overview of the Temperature Sensitive Recharge Patents ........................ 3
`D. Overview of the Charge Control Patents ................................................... 4
`III. LEGAL STANDARD .......................................................................................... 4
`IV. ARGUMENT........................................................................................................ 5
`A.
`“Plurality of Tine Elements” ...................................................................... 5
`B.
`“Indicative of” ............................................................................................ 7
`C.
`“adjustable assembly adapted to adjust efficiency of energy
`transfer between the primary coil and the secondary coil” ........................ 9
`D.
`“Programmable Limit” ............................................................................. 11
`E.
`“Associated With” .................................................................................... 15
`F.
`“Current … declines as said voltage … increases” ................................. 20
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 21
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-02115-DOC-JDE
`
`Page 2 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02115-DOC-JDE Document 122 Filed 07/01/22 Page 3 of 27 Page ID #:5724
`
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp.,
`350 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................... 11
`3rd Eye Surveillance, LLC v. City of Fort Worth & E-Watch Corp.,
`2016 WL 3951335 (E.D. Tex. June 8, 2016) .......................................................... 17
`Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc.,
`908 F.3d 765 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................. 11
`Agfa Corp. v. Creo Prods. Inc.,
`451 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................... 10
`Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`2007 WL 5734827 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2007) ........................................................ 18
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................... 19
`Audionics Sys., Inc. v. AAMP of Fla., Inc.,
`2013 WL 9602634 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2013) ........................................................ 15
`BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc.,
`875 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................... 17
`In re Bookstaff,
`606 F. App’x 996 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 8
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`873 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................... 14
`Fractus, S.A. v. TCL Corp.,
`2021 WL 2983195 (E.D. Tex. July 14, 2021) ......................................................... 18
`GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................. 6
`Gracenote, Inc. v. Musicmatch, Inc.,
`2004 WL 5645196 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2004) ........................................................... 18
`
`
`
`iii
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-02115-DOC-JDE
`
`Page 3 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02115-DOC-JDE Document 122 Filed 07/01/22 Page 4 of 27 Page ID #:5725
`
`
`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
`
`Info-Hold, Inc. v. Muzak Holdings LLC,
`2012 WL 3930376 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 10, 2012) ....................................................... 15
`Joao Control & Monitoring Sys., LLC v. Protect Am., Inc.,
`2015 WL 4937464 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2015) ...................................................... 17
`Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc.,
`177 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................. 13
`Markman v. Westview Instr., Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996)................................................................................................... 4
`NeoMagic Corp. v. Trident Microsystems, Inc.,
`287 F.3d 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................... 17
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ......................................................... 4, 5, 7
`SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am.,
`775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) ............................................................... 16
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 8, 12, 14
`Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp.,
`587 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................... 17
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................... 5, 6
`Xilinx, Inc. v. Altera Corp.,
`1998 WL 822956 (N.D. Cal., July 30, 1998) .......................................................... 15
`Other Authorities
`AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY (2001) ..................................................................... 6
`CAMBRIDGE LEARNER’S DICTIONARY (2004) ............................................................... 19
`CHAMBER’S DICTIONARY (2003) ................................................................................... 15
`MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY (2004) ..................................................................... 15
`MPEP § 2173.04 (9th ed., Rev. 10, June 2020) ..................................................... 16, 17
`
`
`
`iv
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-02115-DOC-JDE
`
`Page 4 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02115-DOC-JDE Document 122 Filed 07/01/22 Page 5 of 27 Page ID #:5726
`
`
`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
`
`NEW OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY (2001) ................................................................ 6
`NEW PENGUIN ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2001) .................................................................. 6
`OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY .............................................................................. 8, 15
`OXFORD COMPACT ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2003) ........................................................... 8
`OXFORD DICTIONARY OF CURRENT ENGLISH (3rd ed. 2001) .......................................... 6
`OXFORD ENGLISH REFERENCE DICTIONARY (2003) (Ex. M, MDT-
`00812890) ................................................................................................................ 11
`WEBSTER’S ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2003) ....................................................................... 8
`WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY (4th ed. 2003) ............................................. 8, 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-02115-DOC-JDE
`
`Page 5 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02115-DOC-JDE Document 122 Filed 07/01/22 Page 6 of 27 Page ID #:5727
`
`
`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
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Medtronic Inc. et al. (“Medtronic”) asserts seven patents (across three families)
`against Axonics, Inc. (“Axonics”) related to implantable medical leads, implantable
`medical devices, and external charging devices. The patented inventions are embodied
`by Medtronic’s innovative rechargeable, implantable sacral neuromodulation system
`known as InterStim Micro, which is used by patients across the country to help to
`control symptoms of overactive bladder, non-obstructive urinary retention, and chronic
`fecal incontinence through direct modulation of sacral nerve activity.
`The parties dispute the construction of six sets of claim terms across the seven
`patents. As discussed below, Medtronic’s proposed constructions reflect the plain and
`ordinary meanings of the disputed terms and are supported by the intrinsic and extrinsic
`record. By contrast, Axonics’ litigation-driven constructions attempt to add new
`requirements to the claims without any basis in the intrinsic or extrinsic record. Neither
`lexicography nor disavowal supports Axonics’ attempts to limit the claims, which are
`entitled to their full scope as a person of ordinary skill would understand them. Worse,
`Axonics routinely takes narrow positions in this proceeding that are diametrically at
`odds with positions it (and its experts) took in its ultimately unsuccessful bids to
`invalidate the claims in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings.
`Medtronic thus respectfully requests that the Court adopt its plain-meaning
`constructions and reject Axonics’ legally flawed proposals.
`II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
`A. The Asserted Patents
`Medtronic has asserted seven patents in this infringement action: U.S. Patent Nos.
`8,036,756 (“the ’756 patent”), 8,626,314 (“the ’314 patent”), 9,463,324 (“the ’324
`patent”), 9,821,112 (“the ’112 patent”), 8,738,148 (“the ’148 patent”), 8,457,758 (“the
`’758 patent”), and 7,774,069 (“the ’069 patent”). See Dkt. 28. On March 16, 2020,
`Axonics filed seven petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) with the Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that challenged all seven asserted patents. See Dkt. 49 at 1.
`1
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-02115-DOC-JDE
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02115-DOC-JDE Document 122 Filed 07/01/22 Page 7 of 27 Page ID #:5728
`
`
`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
`
`On September 15, 2020, the PTAB denied institution of Axonics’ IPR petition regarding
`all asserted claims of the ’324 patent. Dkt. 57 at 2. On September 13, 2021, and
`September 22, 2021, the PTAB issued its Final Written Decisions (“FWDs”)
`confirming the patentability of all asserted claims of the ’756 patent, ’314 patent, ’148
`patent, and ’758 patent. Dkt. 62 at 2–3. The FWDs also confirmed a dozen claims
`across the ’112 patent and ’069 patent. All told, the PTAB has confirmed the
`patentability of 73 asserted claims in this litigation.
`B. Overview of the Tined Lead Patents
`The ’756 and ’314 patents (collectively “the tined lead patents”1) relate to a
`method and apparatus for stimulation of the sacral nerves, specifically, “an implantable
`medical electrical lead having at least one stimulation electrode adapted to be implanted
`near the sacral nerves for stimulation” including “a fixation mechanism for providing
`chronic stability of the stimulation electrode and lead” by “anchoring” the “medical
`electrical lead electrodes in operative relation to a selected sacral nerve.” ’756 patent,
`1:18–28. “Once the optimal electrode position is attained, it is necessary to fix the lead
`body to retard lead migration and dislodgement of electrodes.” Id., 3:31–37. Before
`the tined lead patents, “complex fixation mechanisms that require[d] surgical exposure
`large enough to implant the fixation mechanism” were used. Id., 3:37–40. But as the
`patents explained, it was “desirable to minimize surgical trauma” resulting from
`“surgical exposure of the tissue and sacrum and use of sutures or fixation mechanisms
`to hold the electrodes in place.” Id., 3:48–51.
`The tined lead patents “provid[ed] a unique solution that allows minimally
`invasive, percutaneous, implantation near … the sacral nerves and fixation of the lead
`body in subcutaneous tissues.” Id., 5:38–44. The unique fixation mechanism
`“comprises a plurality M of tine elements arrayed in a tine element array along a
`segment of the lead proximal” to the electrodes, wherein “[e]ach tine element comprises
`
`
`1 Citations are to the ’756 patent, which shares a specification with the ’314 patent.
`2
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-02115-DOC-JDE
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02115-DOC-JDE Document 122 Filed 07/01/22 Page 8 of 27 Page ID #:5729
`
`
`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
`
`at least N flexible, pliant, tines…” Id., 5:58-61; see also id., 10:7-23, Figs. 2–4. The
`specification describes multiple embodiments of tine elements, including arranging
`them at a “distance between the common circumferences of the proximal and distal tine
`elements along the lead body length.” Id., 6:38-41. “In another embodiment, each of
`the M tine elements comprises a tine mounting band encircling the lead body.” Id.,
`6:44–45; see also id., 10:24–29. To facilitate the minimally invasive percutaneous
`introduction of the lead “[i]n accordance with methods of implantation of the present
`invention, the tines of the tine element array along the length of the lead body are folded
`against the lead body when the stimulation electrode array and the tine element array
`are inserted into the lumen of an introducer.” Id., 6:52–56; see also id., 10:41–46.
`The specification provides that “the tine elements 225, 230, 235, and 240” may
`be formed “as individual elements mounted in the tine element array 220 or integrally”
`as shown in Figure 9 (below), as well “as a single structure with a common tine
`mounting band extending the length of the tine element array 120 or as an integral
`section … extending through the length of the tine element array 120.” Id., 12:20–26,
`12:54–60. Thus, as relevant to the parties’ claim construction dispute, the specification
`is clear that each tine element need not be a separate structure.
`
`
`C. Overview of the Temperature Sensitive Recharge Patents
`The ’324 and ’112 patents (collectively “the temperature sensitive recharge
`patents”2) relate generally to a “medical system” including “an external device
`
`2 Citations are to the ’324 patent, which shares a specification with the ’112 patent.
`3
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-02115-DOC-JDE
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02115-DOC-JDE Document 122 Filed 07/01/22 Page 9 of 27 Page ID #:5730
`
`
`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
`
`configured for transcutaneously coupling energy into [an] implantable medical device”
`to recharge the implantable device. ’324 patent, 6:1-4; see also id., abstr. In particular,
`this external charging device may include “a sensor configured for measuring a
`temperature generated by the external device during coupling of the energy into the
`implantable medical device.” Id., 5:49–6:13. The specification identifies, “[f]or
`example, the sensor may measure temperature of a surface of an antenna of the external
`power source.” Id., abstr., 5:52–54. A control circuit may then be configured to
`“compare the measured temperature” to a programmable temperature limit to “control
`the temperature generated by the external device that is occurring during” energy
`transfer. Id., 6:4–13.
`D. Overview of the Charge Control Patents
`The’148, ’758, and ’069 patents (collectively “the charge control patents”3) relate
`to “a system for transcutaneous energy transfer” in which “[a]n external power source,
`having a primary coil, provides energy to [an] implantable medical device when the
`primary coil … is placed in proximity of [a] secondary coil of the implantable medical
`device and thereby generates a current in the internal power source” of the implantable
`medical device. ’148 patent, 4:1–11. To improve the efficiency of recharge, the patent
`describes, among other things, automatically varying the power output of this external
`charging device based on two or more values associated with the current through the
`internal battery of the implantable medical device (i.e., values such as, but not limited
`to, current and voltage). Id., 3:3–36, 21:27–22:18, cl. 3, 6, 9.
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`Claim construction is a question of law reserved for the Court. Markman v.
`Westview Instr., Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). “It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent
`law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the
`right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`3 Citations are to the ’148 patent, which shares a specification with the ’758 and ’069
`patents.
`
`
`
`4
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-02115-DOC-JDE
`
`Page 9 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02115-DOC-JDE Document 122 Filed 07/01/22 Page 10 of 27 Page ID
`
`#:5731
`
`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
`
`Claim Terms
`
`“plurality of tine elements”
`
`’756 patent claim 14
`
`banc). To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start by considering the intrinsic
`evidence. Id. at 1313. It is the “most significant source of the legally operative meaning
`of disputed claim language.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582
`(Fed. Cir. 1996). The words used in a claim “are generally given their ordinary and
`customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. The patent’s specification remains
`the “single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term” and, “[u]sually, it is
`dispositive” on claim construction. Id. at 1315. Though extrinsic evidence can be
`useful, it is “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative
`meaning of claim language.” Id. at 1317 (quotation omitted).
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A.
`“Plurality of Tine Elements”
`Medtronic’s Proposed
`Construction
`Two or more parts or
`portions that include tines
`along the length of the
`lead body and which may
`’314 patent claims 1, 11, 18
`form a single structure
`The tined lead patent claims require, inter alia, an “implantable medical lead”
`comprising “a plurality of tine elements [attached to or extending from] the lead body.”
`’756 patent cl. 14; ’314 patent cl. 1, 11, 18. As relevant here, the parties mainly dispute
`whether the “plurality of tine elements” may form a single structure or must be limited
`to two or more separate structures. Medtronic’s proposed construction is consistent
`with the claims and specifications, which expressly state that the tine elements in
`Figures 1 and 9 of the patents “are formed . . . as individual elements mounted in the
`tine element array 220 or integrally,” and that “[i]t is within the scope of the present
`invention to form the tine elements . . . as a single structure with a common tine
`mounting band extending the length of the tine element array 120 or as an integral
`section of the outer sheath of the lead body 15 extending through the length of the tine
`
`Axonics’ Proposed
`Construction
`Two or more structures
`to which one or more
`tines are attached
`
`
`
`5
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-02115-DOC-JDE
`
`Page 10 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02115-DOC-JDE Document 122 Filed 07/01/22 Page 11 of 27 Page ID
`
`#:5732
`
`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
`
`element array 120.” ’756 patent, 12:22–26; 12:54–60; ’314 patent, 12:40–44; 13:5–11.4
`As the Federal Circuit has noted, the specification “is the single best guide to the
`meaning of a disputed term.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. Here, “it is dispositive.” Id.
`Ignoring the specification, Axonics proposes to limit the claimed “plurality of
`tine elements” to only those that include “two or more structures” and expressly exclude
`the “single structure” embodiment in the specification. Axonics’ construction is wrong
`and is not supported by the intrinsic evidence or the law. Indeed, when Axonics pursued
`a similar construction as part of its IPR petitions, which the PTAB did not need to reach
`to reject Axonics’ invalidity arguments, see e.g., Ex. A, IPR2020-00715 FWD at 17–
`18, it admitted the patent specification “mentions alternative designs where 125, 130,
`135, and 140 elements form ‘a single structure with a common tine mounting band,’”
`see e.g., Ex. B, IPR2020-00715 Petition at 17. But Axonics contends that, even though
`disclosed, “[t]hese designs are not claimed.” See e.g., id. n.4. There is no support
`whatsoever for Axonics’ assertion. In fact, Axonics is attempting to limit the claims to
`only certain depicted embodiments. Id. at 19. This is improper. GE Lighting Sols.,
`LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“It is improper to read
`limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specification—even if it is the
`only embodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that
`the patentee intended the claims to be so limited.”).
`Moreover, the claim language itself confirms that the disputed term does not
`require separate structures.5 For example, unasserted claim 1 of the ’756 patent
`
`4 Unless noted, all emphasis is added and internal citations and quotations are omitted.
`5 Contemporaneous dictionaries define “element” as “a part of a whole,” which as used
`in the context of the tined lead patents is synonymous with “portion.” See element, THE
`NEW PENGUIN ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2001) (“any of the constituent parts that make up
`a whole”) (Ex. C, MDT-00812361); element, OXFORD DICTIONARY OF CURRENT
`ENGLISH (3rd ed. 2001) (“a basic part of something”) (Ex. D, MDT-00812355); see also
`portion, THE NEW OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY (2001) (“a part of a whole”) (Ex. E,
`MDT-00813003); portion, THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY (2001) (same) (Ex.
`
`
`
`
`6
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-02115-DOC-JDE
`
`Page 11 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02115-DOC-JDE Document 122 Filed 07/01/22 Page 12 of 27 Page ID
`
`#:5733
`
`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
`
`expressly requires “a plurality of M tine elements . . . wherein the plurality of M tine
`elements are separate from and axially displaced from each other….” ’756 patent cl.
`1 at 13:55, 13:67–14:2. In contrast, although asserted claim 14 of the ’756 patent
`similarly requires a “plurality of tine elements,” it omits the additional requirement that
`they be “separate” from each other. Accordingly, a “plurality of tine elements” is not
`limited to “two or more structures,” as Axonics proposes. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314
`(“Other claims of the patent in question, both asserted and unasserted, can also be
`valuable sources of enlightenment … [b]ecause claim terms are normally used
`consistently throughout the patent.”).
`Where the patentee intended to limit the claims to a “plurality of tine elements”
`including “two or more structures,” it expressly said so. The asserted claims of the ’756
`and ’314 patents contain no such language and are not so limited.
`B.
`“Indicative of”
`
`Medtronic’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning, which
`is
`synonymous
`with
`“serving as a sign of”
`
`Axonics’
`Proposed
`Construction
`“accurately
`measuring” the
`relevant
`temperature
`
`Claim Terms
`
`“indicative of” in the context of the
`following claim terms:
`
`“a temperature sensor adapted to provide an
`output indicative of a temperature of the
`side of the housing” (’324 patent claims 1
`and 20)
`
`
`
`“providing, via a temperature sensor of the
`external device, output indicative of a
`temperature of the side of the housing.”
`(’324 patent claim 12)
`Claims 1, 12, and 20 of the ’324 patent each require, inter alia, an external
`charging device including a temperature sensor that provides an “output indicative of a
`temperature of the side of the housing” of the external device. As the claim language
`
`
`F, MDT-00812422).
`
`
`
`
`7
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-02115-DOC-JDE
`
`Page 12 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02115-DOC-JDE Document 122 Filed 07/01/22 Page 13 of 27 Page ID
`
`#:5734
`
`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
`
`makes clear, the disputed term does not require the temperature sensor to provide an
`output that is the temperature of the side of the housing, nor does it require an output
`having a certain degree of accuracy, as Axonics proposes. Instead, according to its plain
`language, the disputed term requires the temperature sensor to provide an output
`indicating or “serving as a sign of” a temperature of the side of the housing.
`Medtronic’s proposal is consistent with the term’s plain meaning and the intrinsic
`record.6 Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`(“The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the
`specification and prosecution history.”). Axonics, on the other hand, rewrites the claims
`to require the sensor directly and “accurately measur[e]” a temperature of the side of
`the housing.7 Axonics’ proposed construction conflicts with the intrinsic record.
`According to the specification, the claimed system and method includes “a sensor
`configured for measuring a temperature generated by the external device during
`coupling of the energy into the implantable device.” ’324 patent, 6:2–9. The
`specification explains that different locales of temperature sensors in the external
`
`
`6 “‘Indicative’ is a common word with a well-known meaning. ‘Indicative’ means
`‘serving to indicate,’ and the PTO agrees that ‘indicate’ means ‘to be a sign, symptom,
`or index.’” In re Bookstaff, 606 F. App’x 996, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also indicative,
`OXFORD COMPACT ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2003) (“serving as a sign or indication”) (Ex.
`G, MDT-00812126); indicative, WEBSTER’S ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2003) (“serving as
`a sign of”) (Ex. H, MDT-00812135); indicative, OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY AND
`THESAURUS (2003) (“suggestive; serving as an indication”), see also indicate (“be a
`sign or symptom of”) (Ex. I, MDT-00812131); indicative, WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD
`DICTIONARY (4th ed. 2003) (“giving an indication”) (Ex. J, MDT-00812140), see also
`indicate (“to be a sign of; signify).
`7 Axonics first raised this construction in its IPR petition for the ’324 patent, which the
`PTAB did not need when denying institution. (Ex. K, IPR2020-00714 Institution
`Denial at 5.) In that petition, Axonics submitted that “the phrase ‘indicative of a
`temperature of the side of the housing’ should be interpreted as ‘accurately measuring
`a temperature of the external surface portion of housing that is placed against the patient
`during recharging.’” (Ex. L, IPR2020-00714 Petition at 6–7.)
`8
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-02115-DOC-JDE
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02115-DOC-JDE Document 122 Filed 07/01/22 Page 14 of 27 Page ID
`
`#:5735
`
`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
`
`charging device can vary in measurement accuracy. See, e.g., id., 6:17–20 (carried by
`antenna of external device); 6:47–55 (located near “AC coil”); 20:15–22 (positioned
`adjacent thermally conductive material); 20:20–22 (“Positioning temperature sensor 87
`in the proximity or touching thermally conductive material 62 enables an accurate
`measurement of the contact temperature.”). Discussing these various potential positions
`of the temperature sensor, the specification discusses obtaining “reasonably accurate
`information on the temperature” of the external surface contacting the patient. Id.,
`20:11–15. And further noting it is “generally difficult” “to produce a temperature which
`has a high degree of accuracy over a very broad temperature range,” the specification
`describes one “preferred embodiment” with a “dual range temperature sensor” having
`specific degrees of accuracy for specific temperature ranges. Id., 20:47–64.
`Thus, according to the specification, there is no requirement that the temperature
`sensor directly or to any particular degree of accuracy measure a temperature. In fact,
`according to the specification, the temperature sensor need only “measure a parameter
`that correlates to a temperature of the system during recharge.” Id., 5:51–52. For these
`reasons, Axonics’ attempt to include an additional requirement that the temperature
`sensor directly or “accurately” measure a “relevant temperature” should be rejected.
`C.
`“adjustable assembly adapted to adjust efficiency of energy transfer
`between the primary coil and the secondary coil”
`Medtronic’s Proposed
`Axonics’ Proposed
`Construction
`Construction
`
`Claim Terms
`
`[The external device of claim
`1 further comprises an]
`“adjustable assembly
`adapted to adjust efficiency
`of energy transfer between
`the primary coil and the
`secondary coil” (’324 patent
`claim 5)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`which is an assembly of the
`external device that allows
`for adapting the position of
`the primary coil of
`the
`external device relative to
`the secondary coil to adjust
`efficiency of charging
`
`“a component of the
`external device that is
`moveable relative to
`another component of
`the external device to
`adjust efficiency of
`charging”
`
`The parties’ dispute centers around the meaning of “adjustable assembly.”
`
`
`
`9
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-02115-DOC-JDE
`
`Page 14 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02115-DOC-JDE Document 122 Filed 07/01/22 Page 15 of 27 Page ID
`
`#:5736
`
`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
`
`Medtronic’s proposal captures the plain meaning of this term—i.e., an assembly whose
`position is adjustable. In contrast, Axonics rewrites the claim to (imprecisely) import
`an exemplary embodiment from the specification. Axonics’ construction is not
`supported by the intrinsic record or any extrinsic source, and it should be rejected.
`In its IPR petition, Axonics argued that the term “adjustable” is used only once
`outside the claims, in the last paragraph of the specification, and in the context of certain
`“embodiments of the external power source for an implantable