UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`IMPERATIVE CARE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INARI MEDICAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2025-01025
`Patent No. 11,974,910
`
`DECLARATION OF TROY L. THORNTON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 11,974,910
`
`Imperative Care v. Inari Medical
`U.S. Patent 11,974,910
`Imperative Care Ex. 1003
`
`
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`IMPERATIVE CARE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INARI MEDICAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2025-01025
`Patent No. 11,974,910
`
`DECLARATION OF TROY L. THORNTON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 11,974,910
`
`Imperative Care v. Inari Medical
`U.S. Patent 11,974,910
`Imperative Care Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Engagement .................................................................................... 1
`
`Experience and Qualifications ....................................................... 2
`
`Topics of Opinions ......................................................................... 5
`
`D. Materials Considered ...................................................................... 5
`
`II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................ 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Claim Construction......................................................................... 6
`
`Anticipation .................................................................................... 7
`
`Obviousness .................................................................................... 7
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .............................................. 11
`
`III. THE ’910 PATENT .................................................................................... 13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of the ’910 Patent ......................................................... 13
`
`The Challenged Claims ................................................................ 24
`
`Prosecution History ...................................................................... 26
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION........................................................................ 29
`
`V. SUMMARY OF IPR GROUNDS ............................................................... 34
`
`VI. GROUNDS 1-3: GARRISON COMBINED WITH LAUB AND/OR
`AKLOG RENDERS CLAIMS 1-6, 8, 11-15, 18-20
`UNPATENTABLE ................................................................................. 34
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................... 34
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Preamble ............................................................................. 35
`
`First Clot Assembly ........................................................... 52
`
`First Fluid Control Device ................................................. 54
`
`The First Pressure Source is Configured to Generate
`Vacuum Pressure................................................................ 56
`
`Second Clot Aspiration Assembly ..................................... 58
`
`Second Pressure Source ..................................................... 68
`
`Second Fluid Control Device ............................................. 69
`
`The Second Pressure Source is Configured to
`Generate Vacuum Pressure ................................................ 74
`
`The Vacuum Pressure is Applied ....................................... 76
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................... 78
`
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................... 79
`
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................... 82
`
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................... 86
`
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................... 88
`
`Claim 8 ......................................................................................... 91
`
`Independent Claim 11 .................................................................. 92
`
`Claim 12 ....................................................................................... 94
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`Claim 13 ....................................................................................... 94
`
`Claim 14 ....................................................................................... 95
`
`Claim 15 ....................................................................................... 95
`
`M. Claim 18 ....................................................................................... 95
`
`N.
`
`O.
`
`Claim 19 ....................................................................................... 96
`
`Claim 20 ....................................................................................... 96
`
`VII. GROUNDS 4-6: GARRISON COMBINED WITH LAUB,
`AKLOG, AND/OR HARTLEY RENDERS CLAIMS 6-7, 20
`UNPATENTABLE ................................................................................. 96
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................... 96
`
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................... 97
`
`Claim 20 ..................................................................................... 104
`
`VIII. GROUNDS 7-9: GARRISON COMBINED WITH LAUB
`AND/OR AKLOG AND PASHA ........................................................ 104
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claim 3 ....................................................................................... 104
`
`Claims 12 and 18 ........................................................................ 107
`
`IX. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................... 107
`
`X. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 108
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
` U.S. Patent No. 11,974,910 (“the ’910 patent”)
`
`’910 Patent Prosecution History
`
`Expert Declaration of Troy Thornton
`
`Resume of Troy Thornton
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,734,374 B2 to Aklog et al. (“Aklog”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0173782 A1 to Garrison et al.
`(“Garrison”)
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007 WIPO Publication No. WO 2006/124307 A2 to Goff et al. (“Goff”)
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0116731 A1 to Hartley (“Hartley”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,776,770 B2 to Trerotola (“Trerotola”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0042118 A1 to Garrison et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,535,283 B2 to Heaton et al. (“Heaton”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0043066 A1 to Laub (“Laub”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication US 2003/0225379 A1 to Schaffer et al.
`(“Schaffer”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,938,645 to Gordon (“Gordon”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0296868 A1 to Garrison et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,998,104 B2 to Chang (“Chang”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,157,760 B2 to Criado et al. (“Criado”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,481,439 B1 to Lewis et al.
`
`Table of Exhibits 1
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`1019
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,075,510 B2 to Aklog et al.
`
`1020 WIPO Publication No. WO 2018/019829 A1 to Brady et al.
`(“Brady”)
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 16/117,519 (the “519 application”)
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Aquilla S. Turk, III, DO
`
`Resume of Dr. Aquilla Turk, III, D.O.
`
`Shani, Jacob M.D., et al., Mechanical Manipulation of Thrombus:
`Coronary Thrombectomy, Intracoronary Clot Displacement, and
`Transcatheter Aspiration, 72 Am. J. Cardiol. 116G-118G (1993)
`
`Bose, A et al., The Penumbra System: A Mechanical Device for the
`Treatment of Acute Stroke due to Thromboembolism, 29 Am. J.
`Neuroradiol. 1409-1413 (Aug. 2008)
`
`Turk, Aquilla S. et al., Initial clinical experience with the ADAPT
`technique: A direct aspiration first pass technique for stroke
`thrombectomy, 6 J. NeuroIntervent. Surg. 231-237 (2014)
`
`Turk, Aquilla S. et al., ADAPT FAST study: a direct aspiration first
`pass technique for acute stroke thrombectomy, 6 J. NeuroIntervent.
`Surg. 260-264 (2014)
`
`April 24, 2024 Letter from Inari to Imperative Care
`
`Turk, Aquilla S. et al., Aspiration thrombectomy versus stent
`retriever thrombectomy as first-line approach for large vessel
`occlusion (COMPASS): a multicentre, randomized, open label,
`blinded outcome, non-inferiority trial, 393 Lancet 998-1008 (March
`2019)
`
`1030
`
`Save, Jeffrey L., Time is Brain – Quantified, American Heart
`Association Journals, available at http://www.stokeaha.org (2005).
`
`Table of Exhibits 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,980,813 B1 to Eller (“Eller”)
`
`US 2018/0064453 Al (“Garrison II”)
`
`US 2005/0054995 Al (“Barzell”)
`
`Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review for U.S. Patent
`No. 11,697,011 (Paper 7) in Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical,
`Inc., IPR2024-01157 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2025)
`
`Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review for U.S. Patent
`No. 11,697,012 (Paper 6) in Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical,
`Inc., IPR2025-00156 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2025)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,109,384 B2 to Merritt et al.
`
`Patent Owner’s Exhibit 2002 filed in Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari
`Medical, Inc., IPR2025-00289 (P.T.A.B.)
`
`Indigo Aspiration System-Penumbra Engine Pump and Canister,
`510(k) No. K180105 (Mar. 8, 2018) (“Indigo Aspiration System”)
`
`AXS Universal Aspiration Set Brochure (2017)
`
`VacLok Negative Pressure Syringe Brochure
`
`O. Nikoubashman et al., Under Pressure: Comparison of Aspiration
`Techniques for Endovascular Mechanical Thrombectomy, 39 Am. J.
`Neuroradiol. 905-909 (May 2018) (“Nikoubashman”)
`
`Inari’s Supplemental Infringement Contentions (without claim
`charts) from Inari Medical, Inc. v. Imperative Care, Inc., No. 24-cv-
`3117 (N.D. Cal.) (served February 7, 2025)
`
`Inari’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to File Third
`Amended Complaint (Dkt. #88) in Inari Medical, Inc. v. Imperative
`Care, Inc., 24-cv-03117-EKL (N.D. Cal.) (filed March 5, 2025)
`
`Table of Exhibits 3
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`Description
`
`Case Management & Scheduling Order (Dkt. #54) in Inari Medical,
`Inc. v. Imperative Care, Inc., 24-cv-03117-EKL (N.D. Cal.) (issued
`December 19, 2024)
`
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review for U.S. Patent
`No. 11,744,691 (Paper 10) in Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical,
`Inc., IPR2024-01257 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2025)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,984,730 B2 to Ziv et al.
`
`Imperative Care’s Opposition to Inari’s Motion for Leave to File
`Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. #98) in Inari Medical, Inc. v.
`Imperative Care, Inc., 24-cv-03117-EKL (N.D. Cal.) (filed March
`26, 2025)
`
`Imperative Care’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Stay Pending
`Inter Partes Review (Dkt. #100) in Inari Medical, Inc. v. Imperative
`Care, Inc., 24-cv-03117-EKL (N.D. Cal.) (filed April 2, 2025)
`
`Ahmed Pasha et al., Successful Management of Acute Massive
`Pulmonary Embolism Using Angiovac Suction Catheter Technique
`in a Hemodynamically Unstable Patient, 15 Cardiovasc. Revasc.
`Med. 240-243 (2014)
`
`1050
`
`Certified File History of U.S. Patent Application 10/371,190
`(Schaffer File History)
`
`1051 Maureen Kohi, Catheter Directed Interventions for Acute Deep Vein
`Thrombosis, 6 Cardiovasc. Diagn. Ther. 599-611 (2016)
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`Interview Summary from U.S. Patent Application No. 18/329,450
`dated January 31, 2024
`
`Claim Construction Expert Report of Troy Thornton in Inari
`Medical, Inc. v. Imperative Care, Inc., 24-cv-03117-EKL (N.D. Cal.)
`
`Table of Exhibits 4
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Troy L. Thornton, do hereby declare:
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Engagement
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Imperative Care, Inc. (“Imperative”
`
`or “Petitioner”) to provide my opinion regarding the patentability of Claims 1-8,
`
`11-15, and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,974,910 (“the ’910 patent”). For the
`
`reasons discussed herein, I have concluded that Claims 1-8, 11-15, and 18-20 of
`
`the ’910 patent are unpatentable because the prior art references render them
`
`obvious.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that this Declaration supports Imperative’s Petition for
`
`the above-captioned inter partes review (“IPR”) of the ’910 patent.
`
`3.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement, change, clarify, or modify my
`
`opinions should additional information and/or documentation become available to
`
`me. I also reserve the right to submit a rebuttal declaration in response to any
`
`expert declaration(s) submitted on behalf of the owner of the ’910 patent, Inari
`
`Medical, Inc. (“Inari” or “Patent Owner”).
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at my customary hourly rate for my work in
`
`this matter and I am being reimbursed at cost for my expenses. My compensation
`
`in no way depends upon the substance of my opinions or the outcome of this
`
`proceeding. I have no financial interest in any of the parties to this proceeding.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Experience and Qualifications
`
`5. My experience and qualifications are summarized in my curriculum
`
`vitae, a copy of which is included as Exhibit 1004.
`
`6.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering Science, with
`
`Biomedical Engineering emphasis, in 1985 from Iowa State University. Since
`
`then, I have worked as an engineer, executive, and consultant in the medical
`
`device industry, particularly in the cardiovascular field. My work has included
`
`designing and developing numerous medical devices in the cardiovascular field,
`
`including catheters, percutaneous heart valve repair systems, stent grafts, and
`
`blood pumps.
`
`7.
`
`Since 2015 I have worked as a consultant for various medical device
`
`companies, assisting the companies with early design, development, problem-
`
`solving, and intellectual property related matters.
`
`8.
`
`Before my current consulting business, I was a Program Director for
`
`Abbott Ventures from June 2012 through December 2014. My work at Abbott
`
`Ventures focused on technical assessment and analysis of potential investments in
`
`both cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular medical device technologies.
`
`9.
`
`In June 2000, I assumed the position of Director of Research and
`
`Development at Evalve, Inc., and in 2001 was promoted to Vice President of
`
`Research & Development. I served in that position until June 2012. While at
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Evalve, I was responsible for managing all aspects of research and development
`
`for a percutaneous mitral valve repair system known as the MitraClip. The
`
`MitraClip system included three complex catheters and a permanent mechanical
`
`implant, and I led the research and development for all aspects of the product.
`
`The MitraClip product received FDA approval in 2013 and is currently available
`
`in over 30 countries.
`
`10. From June 1995 through May 2000, I was a Project Manager at
`
`Prograft Medical Inc. While at Prograft, I was responsible for the development
`
`and commercial launch of a bifurcated, modular stent-graft used in the treatment
`
`of abdominal aortic aneurysms known as Excluder. I managed the overall project
`
`from its inception through initial commercialization, which involved designing
`
`and building initial protypes, developing physician training materials, assisting
`
`with regulatory filings, providing physician training, and supporting physicians
`
`during five live case transmissions endovascular symposia.
`
`11. From August 1989 through May 1995, I worked as a Project Group
`
`Leader and Senior Engineer for Advanced Cardiovascular Systems at Guidant.
`
`My work at Guidant focused on the design and development of percutaneous
`
`transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and perfusion catheters. I was
`
`responsible for catheter design, material selection, process development,
`
`performance testing, physician evaluation, and animal studies for an elliptical
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`coronary PTCA catheter that ultimately became the top-selling PTCA catheter in
`
`the United States.
`
`12.
`
` From 1987 to 1989, I worked as a Manufacturing Engineer at
`
`Symbion, Inc. My work at Symbion included developing and improving
`
`manufacturing processes for class III medical devices, including a centrifugal
`
`blood pump.
`
`13. From 1985 to 1987 I worked as a Process Engineer at Becton-
`
`Dickenson, Inc. My work at Becton-Dickenson included validating and
`
`implementing manufacturing processes for a
`
`thermodilution catheter and
`
`conducting cost saving and process improvements for central venous catheter
`
`products.
`
`14.
`
`In summary, I have more than 35 years of experience in the
`
`cardiovascular medical device field, including significant experience designing,
`
`developing, testing, and manufacturing catheters and catheter systems for
`
`minimally invasive cardiovascular procedures. I am therefore very familiar with
`
`the concepts of catheters, catheter systems, and hemostasis valves, and I believe I
`
`am well placed to comment on the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art in the context of the ’910 patent.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Topics of Opinions
`
`15.
`
`I offer opinions in this Declaration on the following general topics:
`
`• The subject matter described and claimed in the ’910 patent;
`
`• The level of ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’910 patent;
`
`• The teachings of the prior art; and
`
`• Whether claims 1-8, 11-15, and 18-20 of the ’910 patent would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention, in view of the prior art.
`
`D. Materials Considered
`
`16.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have considered the materials
`
`referenced in this Declaration and identified in the attached list of exhibits.
`
`17.
`
`I have also relied on my education, training, and experience, and my
`
`knowledge of pertinent literature in the field of the ’910 patent.
`
`II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`I am a biomedical engineer by training and profession. The opinions
`
`18.
`
`I am expressing in this Declaration involve the application of my education,
`
`training, and technical knowledge and experience to the evaluation of certain prior
`
`art with respect to the ’910 patent.
`
`19. Although I have had some prior exposure to patent matters, I am not
`
`an expert in patent law. Therefore, I have been advised of certain principles of
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`patent law applicable in this matter, which I have used in arriving at my
`
`determinations and opinions. The paragraphs below express my understanding of
`
`how I must apply these principles in forming my opinions.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the first step in assessing the patentability of a
`
`patent claim is to understand the meaning of the words used in the claims. I
`
`understand this process of defining, or construing, the claim terms is generally
`
`referred to as claim construction. Generally speaking, I understand that I am to
`
`apply the ordinary and customary (i.e., plain and ordinary) meaning of each claim
`
`term as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention, consistent with the specification and prosecution history.
`
`21.
`
`I also understand that the patentee may act as its own lexicographer
`
`such that they may redefine a claim term to have a meaning that is different from
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning. I understand that when a patentee has acted as its
`
`own lexicographer, the patentee’s definition should be applied instead of the plain
`
`and ordinary meaning that the term would have absent the redefinition. I
`
`understand that the patentee can redefine a claim term in either the specification or
`
`in statements made to the Patent Office during prosecution of the patent. I
`
`understand that the patentee’s redefinition of a term does not need to be provided
`
`in express definitional format, but rather that the redefinition can be implied
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`through the disclosure of the specification or the patentee’s statements during
`
`prosecution.
`
`B. Anticipation
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable if it is “anticipated”
`
`by a piece of prior art. I have been instructed that a claim is “anticipated” if a
`
`prior art reference describes, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of the
`
`claim. I understand that this description must be recognizable to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention (in this case,
`
`September 2017).
`
`23.
`
`I understand that an element is “inherent in,” and therefore taught by,
`
`the prior art, if it necessarily flows from the explicit disclosure of the prior art.
`
`The fact that a certain result or characteristic may be present in the prior art is not
`
`sufficient to establish inherency. However, if the result or characteristic is
`
`necessarily present based upon the explicit disclosure in the prior art, it is inherent
`
`in the prior art and is therefore disclosed.
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a patent claim may also be unpatentable if it is
`
`rendered “obvious” by the prior art. I have been instructed that a claim is
`
`“obvious” if the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. I understand
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`that in considering obviousness I must consider the scope and content of the prior
`
`art, the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`25.
`
`In determining the scope and content of the prior art, I understand
`
`that a reference is considered analogous (i.e., appropriate) prior art if it falls within
`
`the field of the inventor’s endeavor. In addition, a reference is analogous prior art
`
`if it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
`
`involved. A reference is reasonably pertinent if it logically would have
`
`commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering the problem. If a
`
`reference relates to the same problem as the claimed invention, that supports use
`
`of the reference as prior art in an obviousness analysis.
`
`26. The prior art references applied in this Declaration are analogous art
`
`that is usable in an obviousness combination. The references are from the same
`
`field as the ’910 patent, e.g., devices for aspirating unwanted material from a
`
`patient. My understanding of the field of the ’910 patent is influenced by the
`
`prosecution history. I see that during prosecution the Examiner used patents
`
`describing aspiration devices for treating tissue wounds to reject the patent claims.
`
`I also see that the Patent Owner did not dispute the use of those patents or argue
`
`that such aspiration devices are not analogous art. The references are also
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`pertinent to the problem the inventor was focused on, e.g., removing clots, emboli,
`
`and thrombi from a patient’s blood vessel.
`
`27. To assess the differences between prior art and the claimed subject
`
`matter, I have been instructed that the law requires the claimed invention to be
`
`considered as a whole. This “as a whole” assessment requires showing that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, confronted by the same problems
`
`as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would have
`
`selected the elements from the prior art and combined them in the claimed
`
`manner.
`
`28.
`
`I am also informed that the law recognizes several rationales for
`
`combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness of claimed
`
`subject matter. Some of these rationales include:
`
`• combining prior art elements according to known methods to
`
`yield predictable results;
`
`• simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`• a predictable use of prior art elements according to their
`
`established functions;
`
`• applying a known technique to a known device (method or
`
`product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`• choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`
`with a reasonable expectation of success; and
`
`• some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that
`
`would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at
`
`the claimed invention.
`
`29. A prior art reference may also suggest a limitation of the claims. In
`
`that case, even if the prior art reference does not explicitly or inherently disclose
`
`the limitation, the motivation to modify the prior art reference to include the
`
`limitation may exist within the prior art reference itself. Thus, the limitation
`
`would have been obvious over that prior art reference alone. This is the case if a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a simple design choice or a
`
`finite number of identified, predictable solutions, for example, and if the
`
`modification furthers the goals of the prior art reference.
`
`30.
`
`I have also been informed that the obviousness analysis must be
`
`performed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the alleged invention. This is to avoid using impermissible hindsight in the
`
`analysis. The claims of the patent must not be used to provide a road map for
`
`obviousness; instead, the claims would have been obvious if a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`to arrive at the claimed invention and had a reasonable expectation of success in
`
`doing so.
`
`31. An obviousness analysis also must consider whether there are
`
`additional factors that would indicate that the invention would not have been
`
`obvious. These factors include whether there was: (i) a long-felt need in the
`
`industry; (ii) any unexpected results; (iii) skepticism of the invention; (iv) a
`
`teaching away from the invention; (v) commercial success; (vi) praise by others
`
`for the invention; and (vii) copying by others. I am not aware of any evidence
`
`under these factors that would suggest that Claims 1-8, 11-15, and 18-20 of the
`
`’910 patent would have been non-obvious, as further explained in Section § VIII
`
`(Heading: “Secondary Considerations”) below.
`
`D.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`32.
`
`It is my understanding that when interpreting the claims of the ’910
`
`patent, I must do so based on the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the relevant priority date. I have been instructed to assume for the purposes of
`
`my opinions that the relevant priority date of the ’910 patent is August 13, 2018. I
`
`have been informed that all of the references relied upon in this Declaration
`
`qualify as prior art under that priority date.
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`33.
`
`I am informed that the person of ordinary skill in the art is a
`
`hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of
`
`the invention. This is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.
`
`34.
`
`I am informed that in determining the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, several factors are considered. Those factors may include: (i) the type of
`
`problems encountered in the art; (ii) prior art solutions to those problems; (iii) the
`
`rapidity with which innovations are made; (iv) the sophistication of the
`
`technology; and (v) the educational level of active workers in the field. A person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art must have the capability of understanding the scientific
`
`and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.
`
`35. Based on my review of the specification and claims of the ’910
`
`patent, it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an
`
`undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a related engineering
`
`discipline and 2-4 years of catheter design experience and, where necessary,
`
`would have consulted with a physician regarding the methods of treatment.
`
`36.
`
`I can make this assessment because during my career, I had
`
`experience assigning engineers to work on mechanical design projects, including
`
`projects to design catheters, sheaths, and related components such as hemostasis
`
`valves for use in cardiovascular procedures. For such projects, I would assign an
`
`engineer with the experience described above.
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`III. THE ’910 PATENT
`Summary of the ’910 Patent
`
`37. The ’910 patent is titled “System for Treating Embolism and
`
`Associated Devices and Methods” and describes an aspiration system for
`
`intravascular removal of clot material. Ex. 1001 (’910 patent) at 4:17-33. The
`
`’910 patent explains that the system can treat various clots including pulmonary
`
`embolism (“PE”), cerebral embolism, and deep vein thrombosis (“DVT”). Id. at
`
`4:51-4:58. The aspiration system includes an aspiration “assembly 10” having a
`
`“catheter subsystem 100”, “pressure source 140,” and “tubing subsystem 120.”
`
`Id. at 5:25-30.
`
`38. The catheter subsystem also has a catheter 102 [orange below]
`
`“comprising an elongated shaft defining a lumen 104,” and a “valve 106” [yellow
`
`below] with a “lumen 109 extending therethrough.” Id. at 5:30-40. The ’910
`
`patent explains that the valve “is configured to maintain hemostasis during a clot
`
`removal procedure by preventing fluid flow in the proximal direction through the
`
`valve 106” when other components are inserted, such as “interventional devices”
`
`or “other aspiration catheters.” Id. at 5:41-50
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 1.
`
`39. The ’910 patent discloses the pressure source [red below] is
`
`“configured to generate (e.g., form, create, charge, build-up, etc.) a vacuum (e.g.,
`
`negative relative pressure) and store the vacuum for subsequent application to the
`
`catheter subsystem 100.” Id. at 6:57-60. “[T]he pressure source can be a pump
`
`(e.g., an electric pump coupled to a vacuum chamber) while, in other
`
`embodiments, the pressure source can include one or more syringes that can be
`
`actuated or otherwise activated by a user of the assembly 10 to generate and store
`
`a vacuum therein.” Id. at 7:36-41.
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Figs. 1, 3D.
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`40. The ’910 patent explains that the tubing subsystem “fluidly couples
`
`the catheter subsystem 100 to the pressure source 140.” Id. at 6:6-7. The tubing
`
`subsystem can include “one or more tubing sections 124,” [green] at least one
`
`“fluid control device 126” [purple] such a stopcock, and at least one “connector
`
`128 for fluidly coupling the tubing subsystem 120 to the pressure source 140
`
`and/or other suitable components.” Id. at 6:6-23.
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 1.
`
`41. The ’910 patent explains that a user “can first close the fluid control
`
`device 126 before activating the pressure source 140 to build up vacuum pressure
`
`within the pressure source 140 (e.g., a vacuum chamber of the pressure source
`
`140).” Id. at 6:62-66. After pressure is generated, “the user can actuate (e.g.,
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`twist a handle of) the fluid control device 126 to open the fluid control device
`
`126.” Id. at 18:44-48. Opening the fluid control device 126 will “fluidly connect
`
`the pressure source 140 to the catheter subsystem 100 and thereby apply or release
`
`the vacuum stored in the pressure source 140 to the lumen 104 of the catheter
`
`102.” Id. at 7:3-8.
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 9C. The ‘910 patent also explains that “[o]pening of the fluid control
`
`device 126 instantaneously or nearly instantaneously applies the stored vacuum
`
`pressure to the tubing subsystem 120 and the catheter 102, thereby generating
`
`suction throughout the catheter 102.” Id. at 7:8-12.
`
`42. The ’910 patent also describes variations of the aspiration system
`
`described above. For example, the ’910 patent describes a variation with “a first
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`
`aspiration assembly 20 and a second aspiration assembly 30.” Id. at 20:60-62.
`
`The ’910 patent explains that “the first and second aspiration assemblies 20, 30
`
`(“assemblies 20, 30”) can include some features generally similar to the features
`
`of the aspiration assembly 10 described in detail above with reference to FIGS. 1-
`
`10B.” Id. at 20:62-66. For example, the ’910 patent explains that the aspiration
`
`system includes a first aspiration assembly 20 having a “first catheter subsystem
`
`1000[,]” “first pressure source 1040,” and
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
