`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`NUVASIVE, INC.,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` Case No.: 3:18-CV-347-CAB-MDD
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC. et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`On March 20, 2019, the Court held a hearing to construe certain disputed terms and
`
`phrases of the patents at issue in this lawsuit. Having considered the submissions of the
`
`parties, the arguments of counsel, and for the reasons set forth at the hearing, the Court
`
`enters the claim constructions listed below.
`
`Claim Term
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`
`Court’s Construction
`
`rigidly coupled
`
`7,819,801
`
`fixed and immovably connected
`
`distraction assembly
`
`8,439,832
`
`collection or group of components that
`operate together to create a tissue
`distraction corridor
`
`slidably engageable
`
`8,355,780
`
`slides to contact
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1
`
`3:18-CV-347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 167 Filed 03/20/19 PageID.17468 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`In addition the Court adopts the parties’ agreed upon constructions of the following
`
`terms:
`
`Claim Term
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`
`Construction
`
`plurality of sequential
`dilators
`
`7,819,801
`
`two or more sequential dilators
`
`trajectory
`
`9,833,227
`
`direction or path
`
`9,974,531
`
`two or more dilators
`
`9,974,531
`
`wherein when the first, second, and
`third retractor blades are adjacent to
`one another in the closed position
`such that the first, second, and third
`retractor blades abut one another
`
`plurality of dilators /
`plurality of sequential
`dilators
`
`Wherein the first,
`second, and third
`retractor blades are
`adjacent to one another
`in the closed position
`the first, second, and
`third retractor blades
`abut one another
`
`
`
`As for the term “lateral, transpoas path”, as used in many of the patents at issue
`
`in this case, the Court understands that the parties agree that it means “approach to the
`
`lumbar spine that (1) approaches from the patient's lateral aspect (or side); and (2) goes
`
`through the psoas muscle,” see In re NuVasive, Inc., 693 F. App’x 893, 900–01 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017), but that the parties dispute whether this term is limiting. The Court takes this issue
`
`under submission and will issue a ruling in due course.
`
`It is SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: March 20, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`2
`
`3:18-CV-347-CAB-MDD
`
`