Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 148 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.16734 Page 1 of 32
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`PAUL D. TRIPODI II (SBN 162380)
`ptripodi@wsgr.com
`GRACE J. PAK (SBN 277705)
`gpak@wsgr.com
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 323-210-2900
`Fax: 866-974-7329
`WENDY L. DEVINE (SBN 246337)
`wdevine@wsgr.com
`One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, Suite 3300
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: 415-947-2000
`Fax: 415-947-2099
`NATALIE J. MORGAN (SBN 211143)
`nmorgan@wsgr.com
`CHRISTINA DASHE (SBN 292360)
`cdashe@wsgr.com
`12235 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA 92130
`Telephone: 858-350-2300
`Fax: 858-350-2399
`SARA L. TOLBERT (SBN 300945)
`stolbert@wsgr.com
`650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 593-9300
`Fax: (650) 493-6811
`Attorneys for Plaintiff NuVasive, Inc.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN DIEGO DIVISION
`NUVASIVE, INC., a Delaware
`CASE NO. 18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`corporation,
`NUVASIVE’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`Courtroom: 4C
`Hearing Date: February 14, 2019
`
`))))))))))))))))
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation and ALPHATEC
`SPINE, INC., a California corporation,,
`Defendants.
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
` 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 148 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.16735 Page 2 of 32
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`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
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ................................................................. 1
`II.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 2
`III.
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STANDARD ..................................................... 4
`V.
`DISPUTED TERMS ....................................................................................... 6
`A.
`“Distraction Assembly” (’832 patent, claim 1) .................................... 6
`B.
`“Slidably Engageable” (’780 patent, claims 21 and 25) ..................... 10
`C.
`“Rigidly Coupled” (’801 patent, claim 1) ........................................... 12
`1.
`Globus Construction ................................................................. 13
`2.
`The Intrinsic Record Supports NuVasive’s Construction ........ 15
`System Claim Terms Reciting “Lateral, Trans-Psoas Path” (’801
`patent; ’780 patent; ’832 patent; ’859 patent; ’531 patent) ................ 17
`1.
`Patentable Weight Is Not A Claim Construction Issue ............ 17
`2.
`If These Terms Are Construed, That Construction Should
`Be Consistent With The Federal Circuit’s Construction Of
`The Same Claim Language In A Related Patent ...................... 18
`Lateral Transpsoas Path Has Patentable Weight ...................... 19
`a.
`The Patent Office Gave Lateral Transpsoas Path In
`the ’801 Patent Claims Patentable Weight ..................... 21
`The IPR of the ’356 Patent Is Not Relevant ................... 22
`b.
`The Intrinsic Record Supports NuVasive’s Position ................ 23
`4.
`“Plurality Of Sequential Dilators” (’801 patent, claim 1; ’531
`patent, claim 1) .................................................................................... 24
`“Trajectory” (’227 patent, claim 16) ................................................... 24
`F.
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 24
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`3.
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`-i-
`
` 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 148 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.16736 Page 3 of 32
`
`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 Properties Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315 (Fed.
`Cir. 2013) ....................................................................................................... 17
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, 694 F.3d 1312
`(Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................... 5
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335 (Fed.
`Cir. 2012) ......................................................................................................... 7
`Biagro W. Sales, Inc. v. GrowMore, Inc., 423 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir.
`2005) ................................................................................................................ 5
`Blackbird Tech LLC v. ELB Elecs., Inc., 895 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.
`2018) ................................................................................................................ 7
`Callicrate v. Wadsworth Mfg., 427 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................. 21
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir.
`2010) ................................................................................................................ 5
`Freeman v. Gerber Prods. Co., 357 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Kan. 2005) .................. 18
`Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., No. C 03-
`1431 SBA, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29985 (N.D. Cal. May 16,
`2006) .............................................................................................................. 20
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................... 19
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple, Inc., No. 12-cv-02885-LHK, 2013 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 116647 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2013) .............................................. 17, 22
`In re Chudik, 851 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................................... 20
`In re NuVasive, Inc., 693 F. Appx 893 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................... 19
`In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................... 19, 20
`In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ............................................................ 20
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Monolithic Power Sys., No. 06-476-GMS, 2007
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104427 (D. Del. Nov. 20, 2007) ...................................... 14
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ............................... 14
`Minebea Co. v. Think Outside, Inc., Case No. 01CV771 BTM (POR),
`2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29417 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2002) ............................ 19
`NuVasive, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 2017-1666, 2018 WL 5883990 (Fed. Cir.
`Nov. 9, 2018) ................................................................................................. 19
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`-ii-
`
` 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 148 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.16737 Page 4 of 32
`
`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
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) ......................................................................................... 5, 19
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ....................... 4, 5
`Poly-America, L.P. v. GSE Lining Tech., Inc., 383 F.3d 1303 (Fed.
`Cir. 2004) ....................................................................................................... 19
`SkyHawke Techs., LLC v. DECA Int’l Corp., 828 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir.
`2016) .............................................................................................................. 23
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................. 5, 9
`Vizio, Inc. v. ITC, 605 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................. 19
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`-iii-
`
` 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 148 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.16738 Page 5 of 32
`
`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
`
`Ex. __
`
`NuVasive
`
`Alphatec
`
`’801 patent
`
`’780 patent
`
`’832 patent
`
`’227 patent
`
`’270 patent
`
`’156 patent
`
`’859 patent
`
`’531 patent
`
`’334 patent
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Documents attached to the Declaration of Wendy Lynn
`Devine in Support of NuVasive’s Opening Claim
`Construction Brief
`
`NuVasive, Inc.
`
`Alphatec Holdings, Inc. and Alphatec Spine, Inc.
`(collectively)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,819,801
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,355,780
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,439,832
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,833,227
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,753,270
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,361,156
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,924,859
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,974,531
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,187,334
`
`NuVasive Asserted
`Patents
`
`’801 patent, ’780 patent, ’832 patent, ’227 patent, ’270
`patent, ’156 patent, ’859 patent, ’531 patent, ’334 patent
`
`Youssef Decl.
`
`Youssef Reply Decl.
`
`Sachs Decl.
`
`Declaration of Jim A. Youssef, M.D. in Support of
`NuVasive’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (D.I. 27-
`45)
`
`Reply Declaration of Jim A. Youssef, M.D. in Support of
`NuVasive’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (D.I. 77-
`56)
`
`Declaration of Barton L. Sachs, M.D., M.B.A.,
`F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E. in Support of Defendants’
`Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
`Injunction (D.I. 49-5)
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`-iv-
`
` 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 148 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.16739 Page 6 of 32
`
`Sachs Depo.
`
`June 5, 2018 Deposition Transcript of Barton L. Sachs
`
`Globus Litigation
`
`NuVasive, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc., Case No. 1:10-
`cv-00849-LPS (D. Del.) (J. Stark).
`
`Link Decl.
`
`Declaration of Matthew Link in Support of NuVasive’s
`Motion for Preliminary Injunction (D.I. 37-13)
`
`*** Emphasis added and internal quotations and citations omitted unless stated
`otherwise
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`-v-
`
` 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 148 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.16740 Page 7 of 32
`
`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
`NuVasive’s proposed constructions are consistent with the intrinsic record,
`District Court and Federal Circuit precedent, and are further confirmed by the well-
`established canons of claim construction. In contrast, Alphatec ignores or
`mischaracterizes the relevant record and law in seeking self-serving and plainly
`incorrect constructions. For example, Alphatec asks the Court to construe the term
`“distraction assembly” in a manner that requires certain instruments—that are
`repeatedly discussed (in the specification and claims) as sequentially utilized tools
`of surgery— be pre-assembled prior to introduction into the patient. No such
`limitation is found in the claims, taught by the specification, or supported in the
`prosecution history. As another example, Alphatec seeks to introduce a limitation
`that is nowhere in the claims via a construction of “slidably engageable” that
`requires “connection.” If the inventors meant a connection, they were free to use
`that claim language—they did not. Alphatec should not be permitted to change the
`inventor’s claim language to suit their current desire to copy NuVasive’s
`proprietary technology. For the remaining disputed terms (i.e., “rigidly coupled,”
`“lateral, trans-psoas path”), Alphatec mischaracterizes previous proceedings in an
`attempt to negate the unambiguous teaching of the intrinsic record and bolster
`deficient infringement and invalidity arguments. This is not the purpose of claim
`construction. Because only NuVasive’s proposed constructions correctly apply the
`relevant and well-established legal framework for claim construction, the Court
`should adopt NuVasive’s constructions.
`II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`Shortly after filing its original complaint asserting six patents,1 NuVasive
`moved for a preliminary injunction. Doc. No. 37. During the preliminary
`
`1 The ’801, ’832, ’780, ’270, ’227 and ’156 patents.
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`-1-
`
` 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 148 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.16741 Page 8 of 32
`
`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
`
`injunction proceedings, NuVasive’s expert, Dr. Jim A. Youssef, opined regarding
`certain claim construction, infringement, and validity issues related to those six
`patents. Doc. Nos. 27-45, 77-56. Alphatec offered rebuttal testimony of Dr.
`Barton Sachs, which also included discussions of claim construction, validity, and
`infringement. Doc. Nos. 49-5. Both Dr. Youssef and Dr. Sachs were deposed
`regarding these opinions (including claim construction). Following the
`preliminary injunction proceedings, NuVasive amended the Complaint to assert
`three additional patents.2 Doc. No. 110.
`III.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`From 1997 to today, NuVasive has grown from a tiny, cash-strapped startup
`to a public company with over $1 billion in annual revenues. Link Decl. ¶6. Doc.
`No. 37-13. NuVasive’s transformation started in 2003 with its development and
`launch of XLIF: a revolutionary spinal surgery technique performed with highly
`specialized tools. Doc. No. 1-2 at 7. XLIF utilizes a first-of-its-kind set of nerve
`monitoring-enabled access equipment that creates a safe, minimally-invasive
`lateral approach to the spine through the nerve-rich psoas muscle to deliver an
`oversized implant for stable, spinal fusion. Id. ¶¶ 12-18. Before XLIF, surgeons
`largely avoided the psoas because of the unique dangers associated with damaging
`the important nerve structures within the muscle. In fact, because traversing the
`psoas was so dangerous, the majority of fusion procedures pre-XLIF were
`performed via other approaches to the spine, even though they came with their own
`significant downsides, such as huge blood loss, serious complications, and lengthy
`hospital stays. Indeed, when XLIF first launched, very few surgeons adopted it
`into their practice as the medical community was generally skeptical that NuVasive
`had actually solved the long-standing problems known to be related to approaching
`
`2 The ’859, 531 and ’334 patents.
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`-2-
`
` 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 148 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.16742 Page 9 of 32
`
`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
`
`the spine through the psoas. Today, as a result of NuVasive’s significant efforts to
`collect and distribute reams of clinical evidence showing that XLIF’s specialized
`equipment allows for safe and reproducible trans-psoas, lateral surgery (id. ¶ 19),
`hundreds of surgeons regularly perform XLIF (resulting in significant quality of
`life improvements for many patients that were not candidates for more traditional
`types of spinal fusion surgeries), and XLIF is now NuVasive’s flagship product.
`To protect its innovation, NuVasive secured numerous patents covering the
`XLIF platform. The seven “Access Platform”3 patents asserted in this case are a
`subset of the wider XLIF portfolio, and generally describe systems and methods
`for creating access to a targeted spinal disc along a lateral, trans-psoas path. The
`patents describe sequentially inserting at least two dilators along the lateral, trans-
`psoas path to create a distraction corridor. These dilators (and other insertion
`tools) may be equipped with stimulation electrodes that output electrical
`stimulation to monitor the nerves of the psoas muscle while traversing the muscle.
`
`Doc. No. 110-4 (2013 XLIF Surgical Guide) at 17, Fig. 29.
`
`3 The Access Platform patents include the ’801, ’780, ’832, ’227, ’270, ’859 and
`’531 patents.
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`-3-
`
` 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 148 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.16743 Page 10 of 32
`
`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
`
`A three-bladed retractor assembly may be inserted over the exterior of the
`outermost dilator. The three blades that extend from the retractor body can be
`configured to expand to create an operative corridor of sufficient size to allow a
`spinal implant to pass through the operative corridor to the targeted spinal disc. An
`intradiscal shim may penetrate the disc space in order to anchor and stabilize the
`retractor blades in an operating corridor. A supplemental retractor blade may also
`be utilized to prevent tissue creep into the operative corridor, while also providing
`stabilization.
`
`Doc. No. 110-14 at 20, Figs. 35-37; id. at 25, Fig. 57.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STANDARD
`IV.
`“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 banc) (citation omitted). Claim
`terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning. Id. at 1312-13. “[T]he
`ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would
`have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention,
`i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Id. at 1313. “In some
`cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in
`the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and [that] claim construction in
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`-4-
`
` 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 148 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.16744 Page 11 of 32
`
`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
`
`such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning
`of commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314. “[C]laim construction begins with,
`and remains focused on, the language of the claims.” Biagro W. Sales, Inc. v.
`GrowMore, Inc., 423 F.3d 1296, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
`Claim terms must be construed in view of the intrinsic evidence, which
`includes the claim language, the specification, and the prosecution history. Phillips,
`415 F.3d at 1312-17. Claim terms are to be construed in the context of the entire
`patent, including the specification, which “is always highly relevant to the claim
`construction analysis.” Id. at 1315 (citation omitted); see also Vitronics Corp. v.
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Usually, [the
`specification] is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed
`term.”); accord Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (“It is . . . entirely appropriate for a court,
`when conducting claim construction, to rely heavily on the written description for
`guidance as to the meaning of the claims.”). In contrast, use of extrinsic evidence to
`guide claim construction is appropriate only where it is “not used to contradict claim
`meaning that is unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`1324; see also Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583 (“In most situations, an analysis of the
`intrinsic evidence alone will resolve any ambiguity in a disputed claim term. In such
`circumstances, it is improper to rely on extrinsic evidence.”).
`“[D]istrict courts are not (and should not be) required to construe every
`limitation present in a patent’s asserted claims.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond
`Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis omitted).
`Courts often decline to construe claim terms for a variety of reasons. For example, a
`court may permit claim terms to carry their plain and ordinary meanings where the
`opposing proposed construction erroneously reads limitations into the claims.
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2010);
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, 694 F.3d 1312, 1326 (Fed. Cir.
`2012) (“The district court did not err in concluding that these terms have plain
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`-5-
`
` 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 148 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.16745 Page 12 of 32
`
`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
`
`meanings that do not require additional construction. ActiveVideo’s proposed
`construction erroneously reads limitations into the claims and the district court
`properly rejected that construction and resolved the dispute between the parties.”).
`V. DISPUTED TERMS
`A.
`“Distraction Assembly” (’832 patent, claim 1)
`
`NuVasive’s Construction
`“collection of components, including
`the elongate inner element and a
`plurality of dilators, that are
`introduced in sequence”
`
`Alphatec’s Construction
`“components, including an elongate
`inner element and a plurality of
`dilators, that are connected to form a
`single integrated unit”
`
`During preliminary injunction proceedings, this Court rejected Alphatec’s
`construction for “distraction assembly” which required that the claimed distraction
`assembly be “pre-assembled” prior to introduction along the lateral, trans-psoas
`path. Doc. No. 94 at 6 (holding that “neither the claim language nor the
`specification support [Alphatec’s] construction,” and thus finding that NuVasive
`had established a likelihood of success of proving that Alphatec infringes the
`claims of the ’832 patent). Alphatec’s new construction is no better—requiring
`that the distraction assembly form a “single integrated unit” prior to introduction.
`This construction suffers from the same flaws as Alphatec’s preliminary injunction
`construction and should be similarly rejected. In contrast, NuVasive’s proposal
`that the “distraction assembly” components “are introduced in sequence” is
`consistent with the language of the claims and the specification, as recognized by
`this Court. Id. (“the claim language ... indicate[s the components] are introduced
`in sequence, not simultaneously”). NuVasive’s construction should be adopted.
`Claim 1 of the ’832 patent defines the components that make up the
`“distraction assembly” and further explains how these components are configured
`for sequential insertion along the lateral, trans-psoas path:
`a distraction assembly to create a tissue distraction corridor in a lateral,
`trans-psoas path to a lumbar spine, wherein said distraction assembly
`NUVASIVE’S OPENING CLAIM
`-6-
` 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 148 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.16746 Page 13 of 32
`
`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
`
`includes an elongate inner element and a plurality of dilators, the
`plurality of dilators being configured to sequentially advance along the
`lateral, trans-psoas path to the lumbar spine, the elongate inner element
`being positionable in a lumen of an initial dilator. . .
`
`Notably, the claim specifically recites that dilators are advanced sequentially to
`create a tissue distraction corridor along the lateral, trans-psoas path, with the
`elongate inner element4 positionable within the opening of the initial dilator.
`Alphatec’s construction, requiring that these components form a “single integrated
`unit” prior to advancement along the lateral, trans-psoas path contradicts this
`requirement of the claim. First, if the dilators were connected as a single
`integrated unit, as Alphatec suggests, it would be impossible for them to be
`advanced sequentially as claimed. Equally problematic, Alphatec’s construction
`requires the elongate inner element be placed along the lateral, trans-psoas path at
`the same time as the initial dilator and secondary dilator(s). The claims do not
`contain any such restriction on the timing of the placement of the elongate inner
`element. Thus, Alphatec’s construction simultaneously reads out an express
`limitation (sequential advancement of the dilators) and reads in a limitation
`(placement of the elongate inner element simultaneous with the dilators) that is not
`found in the claims. Such a construction must be rejected. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v.
`Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (rejecting a
`construction that read the word “free” out of a claim reciting a “rearwardly directed
`free end”); Blackbird Tech LLC v. ELB Elecs., Inc., 895 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir.
`2018) (rejecting a construction that improperly imported an exemplary
`embodiment into the claim where nothing in the record indicated such a limitation
`should be present in the claim).
`
`4 An elongate inner element is also described as a K-wire. E.g., ’832 patent, claim
`4.
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`-7-
`
` 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 148 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.16747 Page 14 of 32
`
`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
`
`Additionally, a singular unit for distraction would defeat the stated purpose
`of these claimed components for sequential tissue distraction to gradually and
`safely create an operative corridor to the spinal target site. The specification
`explains that the claimed “distraction” is “the act of creating a corridor (extending
`to a location at or near the surgical target site) having a certain cross-sectional area
`and shape (‘distraction corridor’).” ’832 patent at 3:22-25; see also id. at 3:12-14,
`3:58-62. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the plurality of
`dilators within the distraction assembly are key to creating that corridor, and the
`act of sequentially placing such dilators “will lead to an increasing diameter of the
`operative corridor.” Youssef Reply Decl. ¶ 113; see also ’832 pat. at 4:11-18
`(describing that a “tissue distraction assembly may include any number of
`components,” such as a K-wire, an initial dilator, and one or more dilators for
`“performing necessary tissue distraction”).
`Alphatec’s attempt to support its previous failed construction for “distraction
`assembly” underscores the deficiencies with its new, but functionally identical
`construction. During the preliminary injunction proceedings, Dr. Sachs cited a
`portion of the specification stating that “as an initial step,” the distraction assembly
`distracts the tissue between the skin of the patient and the surgical target site, Sachs
`Decl. ¶ 123, but even this part of the specification (taken in its full context)
`confirms NuVasive’s construction. Dr. Sachs’ opinion ignores the fact that the
`specification goes on to describe that the “initial step” may be performed with an
`initial distraction assembly comprising a K-wire and initial dilating cannula,
`followed by insertion of a secondary distraction assembly that utilizes additional
`sequential dilators for further distraction of the tissue down to the target site. ’832
`patent at 9:64-10:5, 10:26-32, 5:47-64; Figs. 2 & 5. As explained by NuVasive’s
`expert, Dr. Youssef: “In context . . . an initial step does not mean that the creation
`of a tissue corridor occurs as a singular, initial step. Rather, as explained by the
`specification, the initial step involves ensuring that the tissue is sufficiently dilated
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`-8-
`
` 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 148 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.16748 Page 15 of 32
`
`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
`
`toward a targeted spinal site, which may be accomplished via sequential dilation
`(i.e., using one or more dilators at separate points in time).” Youssef Reply Decl.
`¶ 114. Alphatec thus commits legal error by excluding embodiments described in
`the specification. E.g., Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583.
`Notably, Dr. Sachs conceded that Alphatec’s position is wrong. During his
`deposition, Dr. Sachs first agreed that the claimed dilators and k-wire of the
`distraction assembly are not preassembled. Sachs Dep. at 198:22-199:6; 200:21-
`201:16. He went on to agree that these components “do not have to be
`preassembled for insertion into the body, but they are a part of the whole assembly
`system, tissue distraction assembly” and a construction to the contrary ignores the
`claim language of the ’832 patent defining the “distraction assembly.” Id. at
`201:10-16. Accordingly, as recognized by Alphatec’s own expert (and by this
`Court, as detailed above), the claims and specification do not support Alphatec’s
`position that the components must be integrated into a single unit. Rather, they
`support the opposite: the dilators are advanced sequentially, meaning one after
`another, to create a tissue distraction corridor. Youssef Reply Decl. ¶ 115.
`Moreover, to the extent Alphatec’s use of the word “connected” in its
`proposed construction is intended to insert a requirement that the components of
`the distraction assembly be connected by some engagement or connection
`mechanism, Alphatec’s construction is unsupported by the plain language of the
`claims or specification. While the specification teaches that the elongate inner
`element and plurality of dilators may operate together for tissue distraction,
`nothing in the intrinsic record limits that cooperative function to a “connection” as
`suggested by Alphatec’s proposed construction. For example, the specification
`does not mandate that these components be connected by any form of engagement
`or connection mechanism. E.g., ’832 pat. at 8:39-47. In contrast, connection is
`explicitly discussed with respect to other components of the claimed systems. E.g.,
`’832 pat. at 4:24-27 (“one or more retractor blades extending proximally from the
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`-9-
`
` 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 148 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.16749 Page 16 of 32
`
`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
`
`surgical target site for connection with a pivot linkage assembly”). Thus,
`“distraction assembly” should be construed as “collection of components,
`including the elongate inner element and a plurality of dilators, that are introduced
`in sequence.”
`B.
`“Slidably Engageable” (’780 patent, claims 21 and 25)
`
`NuVasive’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art
`Alternatively, “slidably mateable”
`
`Alphatec’s Construction
`“slidably connectable”
`
`The term “slidably engageable” should be given its plain and ordinary
`meaning, because it is readily understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`the context of the claims and specification, and nothing in the intrinsic evidence
`indicates a specific or contrary meaning. Claim 21 of the ’780 patent recites “a
`second dilator of said at least two dilators” that is “slidably engageable with an
`exterior of a first of said at least two dilators.” The ’780 patent specification
`describes the purpose and mechanism of this “slidable engagement.” The dilators
`have sequentially larger widths in order to distract tissue between an incision point
`to a surgical site. ’780 patent at 6:45-56. As an example, Figure 12 shows how
`supplemental dilators 52, 54 may be slidably engaged with the initial dilating
`cannula 44.
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`-10-
`
` 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 148 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.16750 Page 17 of 32
`
`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
`
`There is no specific “connection” or engagement mechanism between the dilators
`or elongate member described in the spe