Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 250-1 Filed 01/17/20 PageID.19954 Page 1 of 60
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`PAUL D. TRIPODI II (SBN 162380)
`ptripodi@wsgr.com
`WENDY L. DEVINE (SBN 246337)
`wdevine@wsgr.com
`NATALIE J. MORGAN (SBN 211143)
`nmorgan@wsgr.com
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 323-210-2900
`Fax: 866-974-7329
`Hilgers Graben PLLC
`MICHAEL T. HILGERS (Pro Hac Vice)
`mhilgers@hilgersgraben.com
`575 Fallbrook Blvd, Suite 202
`Lincoln, NE 68521
`Telephone: 402-218-2106
`Fax: 402-413-1880
`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,
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
`AND AUTHORITIES IN
` Plaintiff,
`SUPPORT OF NUVASIVE, INC.’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL
`v.
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`PER CHAMBERS RULES, NO
`ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS
`SEPARATELY ORDERED BY THE
`COURT
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`Magistrate Judge: Mitchell D. Dembin
`
`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
`
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation, and ALPHATEC
`SPINE, INC., a California corporation,
` Defendants.
`
`))
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)))
`
`NUVASIVE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 250-1 Filed 01/17/20 PageID.19955 Page 2 of 60
`
`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
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. UNDISPUTED FACTS .................................................................................. 1
`A.
`The Asserted Patents ............................................................................. 1
`1.
`The ’832 Patent ........................................................................... 1
`2.
`The ’780 Patent ........................................................................... 2
`3.
`The ’270 Patent ........................................................................... 2
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 3
`B.
`The Accused Products ........................................................................... 3
`C.
`Prior Art ................................................................................................ 5
`D.
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 6
`A.
`Summary Judgment ............................................................................... 6
`B.
`Infringement .......................................................................................... 7
`C.
`Inequitable Conduct .............................................................................. 8
`D. Validity .................................................................................................. 7
`INFRINGEMENT ........................................................................................... 9
`A.
`The Accused Alphatec Devices Infringe claims 1, 3, 9, and 10 of
`the ’832 Patent....................................................................................... 9
`1.
`Alphatec’s Distraction Corridor Argument ................................ 9
`2.
`Alphatec’s Incomplete Surgical Guide Argument ................... 11
`The Accused Alphatec Devices Infringe Claims 21, 22, 24, 25,
`and 27 of the ’780 Patent .................................................................... 12
`1.
`Alphatec’s Distraction Corridor Argument .............................. 12
`2.
`Alphatec’s Incomplete Surgical Guide Argument ................... 13
`3.
`Alphatec’s Separate Dilator Argument..................................... 13
`4.
`Alphatec’s New Claim Construction for Pivot Argument ....... 14
`
`IV.
`
`B.
`
`NUVASIVE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`i
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 250-1 Filed 01/17/20 PageID.19956 Page 3 of 60
`
`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
`(CONTINUED)
`
`C.
`
`VI.
`
`PAGE(S)
`The Accused Alphatec Devices Infringe the ’270 Patent ................... 15
`1.
`Alphatec’s the Detent is not a Ridge Structure Argument ....... 16
`V. VALIDITY .................................................................................................... 18
`A.
`The ’832 Patent is Valid ...................................................................... 18
`B.
`The ’227 Patent is Valid ...................................................................... 21
`C.
`The ’780 Patent is Valid ...................................................................... 23
`D.
`The ’270 Patent is Valid ...................................................................... 24
`E.
`The ’801 Patent is Valid ...................................................................... 26
`F.
`The ’531 Patent is Valid ...................................................................... 28
`G.
`The ’859 Patent is Valid ...................................................................... 32
`INEQUITABLE CONDUCT ........................................................................ 35
`A.
`The ’832 Patent ................................................................................... 36
`1.
`Leu is Cumulative of Prior Art of Record ................................ 36
`2.
`Alphatec Cannot Show That Leu is Material ........................... 38
`3.
`Alphatec Cannot Show Specific Intent to Deceive by Any
`Individual Who Owed a Duty of Candor to the PTO ............... 39
`The ’227 Patent ................................................................................... 40
`1.
`Kanter is Cumulative of Prior Art of Record ........................... 40
`2.
`Alphatec Cannot Show Kanter is Material ............................... 41
`3.
`Alphatec Cannot Show Specific Intent to Deceive by Any
`Individual Who Owed a Duty of Candor to the PTO ............... 42
`No Individual Who Owed a Duty of Candor to the PTO
`Made a Materially Misleading Statement ................................. 43
`The ’859 Patent ................................................................................... 44
`1.
`The Undisclosed Reference Are Cumulative of Prior Art
`of Record ................................................................................... 44
`Alphatec Cannot Show That the Undisclosed References
`Are Material .............................................................................. 45
`NUVASIVE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
`ii
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`4.
`
`2.
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 250-1 Filed 01/17/20 PageID.19957 Page 4 of 60
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Alphatec Cannot Show Specific Intent to Deceive by Any
`Individual Who Owed a Duty of Candor to the PTO ............... 46
`The ’531 Patent ................................................................................... 46
`1.
`Kanter is Cumulative of Prior Art of Record ........................... 46
`2.
`Alphatec Cannot Show Kanter is Material ............................... 47
`3.
`Alphatec Cannot Show Specific Intent to Deceive by Any
`Individual Who Owed a Duty of Candor to the PTO ............... 48
`No Individual Who Owed a Duty of Candor to the PTO
`Made a Materially Misleading Statement ................................. 49
`Alphatec’s Improper and Untimely Expert Opinions ................... 49
`E.
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 50
`
`D.
`
`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 MOTION FOR PARTIAL
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`iii
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 250-1 Filed 01/17/20 PageID.19958 Page 5 of 60
`
`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
`1st Media, LLC v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 694 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................... 8
`Altair Instruments, Inc. v. Kelley W. Enters., Ltd. Liab. Co., No. CV
`15-8115-R (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2016) ............................................................... 9
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ............................................... 7
`Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am.,
`Inc., No. C 92-20643 RMW, 1995 WL 261407 (N.D. Cal. Apr.
`25, 1995) .......................................................................................................... 50
`Asia Vital Components Co. v. Asetek Danmark A/S, 377 F. Supp. 3d
`990 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ................................................... 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 33
`Avid Identification Sys., Inc. v. Crystal Import Corp., 603 F.3d 967
`(Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................... 39
`Barry v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-104, 2016 WL 7665782 (E.D.
`Tex. July 19, 2016) .......................................................................................... 50
`Becton Dickinson & Co. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 922 F.2d 792 (Fed. Cir.
`1990) .................................................................................................................. 6
`Carl Zeiss Vision Int’l GmbH v. Signet Armorlite, Inc., No. 07cv0894
`DMS (POR), 2011 WL 6372785 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2011)39, 40, 42, 43, 46, 48, 49
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ............................................................ 6
`Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310 (1984) .......................................................... 7
`Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en
`banc) .................................................................................................................. 7
`Dimension One Spas, Inc. v. Coverplay, Inc., Case No. 03cv1099-
`L(CAB), 2007 WL 2815042 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2007) ................................. 36
`In re Katz Interactive, Nos. 07-ML-01816-RGK, 2009 WL 8635983
`(C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2009) ................................................................... 36, 41, 47
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016)20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 30, 33
`Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp., 732 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...................... 8
`Intermec Techs. Corp. v. Palm Inc., 738 F. Supp. 2d 522 (D. Del.
`2010), aff’d, 466 F. App’x 881 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................. 36
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 ............................................ 20, 23, 31, 35
`NUVASIVE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
`iv
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 250-1 Filed 01/17/20 PageID.19959 Page 6 of 60
`
`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
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) .............. 6, 7
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91 (2011) ............................................... 7
`NuVasive v. Iancu, 752 F. App’x 985 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................. 28
`Osram Sylvania, Inc. v. Am. Induction Techs., Inc., No. CV 09- 8748-
`R, 2011 WL 5143630 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2011) ............................................ 36
`Plumley v. Mockett, 836 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (C.D. Cal. 2010) ...................................... 9
`Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 537 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir.
`2008) .................................................................................................................. 8
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........ 7, 8, 36
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir.
`2011) ...................................................................................................... 8, 37, 40
`Warner-Lambert Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 418 F.3d 1326 (Fed.
`Cir. 2005) ........................................................................................................... 7
`Zevo Golf Co. v. Karsten Mfg. Corp., No. 99-CV-2310 .................................... passim
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ....................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ............................................................................................................ 7
`RULES
`37 C.F.R. § 1.56(b) ................................................................................................ 8, 37
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) .................................................................................................... 6
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) .................................................................................................... 6
`
`NUVASIVE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`v
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 250-1 Filed 01/17/20 PageID.19960 Page 7 of 60
`
`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
`
`“Accused
`Alphatec
`Devices”
`
`“’832 patent”
`“’780 patent”
`“’270 patent”
`“’801 patent”
`“’227 patent”
`“’859 patent”
`“’531 patent”
`“NuVasive”
`“Alphatec”
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`U.S. Patent No. 8,439,832
`U.S. Patent No. 8,355,780
`U.S. Patent No. 8,753,270
`U.S. Patent No. 7,819,801
`U.S. Patent No. 9,833,227
`U.S. Patent No. 9,924,859
`U.S. Patent No. 9,974,531
`NuVasive, Inc.
`Alphatec Holdings, Inc. and Alphatec Spine, Inc.
`The Battalion Lateral System and Battalion™ Intradiscal
`Shim. The Battalion Lateral System includes a K-wire,
`Initial Dilator, the Secondary Dilator, the Squadron™
`Lateral Retractor Body, the Squadron™ Lateral Retractor
`Right Blade, the Squadron™ Lateral Retractor Left Blade
`and the Squadron™ Lateral Retractor Posterior Blade.
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Transcript of the Deposition of Charles L. Branch, Jr.,
`M.D. (Jan. 14, 2020)
`Corrected Opening Expert Report of Charles L. Branch,
`“Branch 11/1
`Jr., M.D. (November 1, 2019)
`Rpt.”
`U.S. Patent No. 6,945,933
`“Branch ’933”
`U.S. Patent No. 6,174,311
`“Branch ’311”
`U.S. Patent No. 7,556,601
`“Branch ’601”
`WO 01/37728 A1
`“Kelleher”
`WO 03/005887 A2
`“Blewett”
`U.S. Patent No. 4,545,374
`“Jacobson”
`U.S. Patent No. 6,500,180
`Foley ’180
`William A. Friedman, Percutaneous Discectomy: An
`“Friedman
`Alternative to Chemonucleolysis?, Neurosurgery (1983)
`1983”
`“Friedman
`W.A. Friedman & S.L. Kanter, The lateral percutaneous
`1988”
`approach to discectomy, Int’l Radiology in Bone and
`NUVASIVE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
`vi
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`“PTO”
`
`“Branch Tr.”
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 250-1 Filed 01/17/20 PageID.19961 Page 8 of 60
`
`“Kanter”
`
`“Koros ’139”
`“Koros ’493”
`“Koros ’831”
`“Kunin 11/22
`Rpt.”
`
`“Leu”
`
`“Maeda”
`“Büttner-Janz”
`“Nathanson”
`“Michelson
`’214”
`“Michelson
`’661”
`“Marchek”
`“Ray ’582”
`“Ray ’847”
`“Ritland ’073”
`“Schermerhorn
`Rough Tr.”
`“Sachs 11/22
`Rpt.”
`“Smith Patents”
`“Spears”
`“Youssef 11/1
`Rpt.”
`“Youssef 11/22
`Rpt.”
`
`Joint, 149-154 (1988)
`Steven L. Kanter & William A. Friedman, Percutaneous
`Discectomy: An Anatomical Study, Neurosurgery (1985)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,928,139
`U.S. Patent No. 6,139,493
`U.S. Patent No. 5,893,831
`
`Expert Report of Stephen G. Kunin (November 22, 2019)
`
`Leu, et al., Percutaneous Fusion of the Lumbar Spine,
`Spine (1992)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,681,265
`European Patent Application No. EP 0 951 868 A1
`U.S. Patent No. 6,074,343
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,159,214
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,772,661
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2005/013461
`U.S. Patent No. 6,042,582
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2002-0022847
`U.S. Patent No. 7,166,073
`Rough Transcript of Deposition of Rory Schermerhorn
`(Jan. 9, 2020)
`Rebbuttal Report of Barton L. Sachs, M.D., M.B.A.,
`F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E. (Nov. 22, 2019)
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,679,833 and 7,261,688
`U.S. Patent No. 6,080,105
`Corrected Opening Expert Report of Jim Youssef
`(November 1, 2019)
`Responsive Expert Report of Jim Youssef (November 22,
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`vii
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 250-1 Filed 01/17/20 PageID.19962 Page 9 of 60
`
`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
`Plaintiff NuVasive hereby moves for summary judgement of infringement
`and validity. There are no genuine issues of fact that the asserted claims of the ’832
`patent, the ’780 patent, and ’270 patent are valid and infringed. NuVasive also
`seeks summary judgment of no inequitable conduct because Alphatec failed to
`develop evidence sufficient to establish a triable issue of fact as to inequitable
`conduct.
`II.
`UNDISPUTED FACTS
`A.
`The Asserted Patents
`1.
`The asserted patents claim systems and methods for minimally invasive
`spinal surgery and lateral interbody fusion procedures. See generally Doc. No. 110
`(Amended Complaint).
`1.
`The ’832 Patent
`The ’832 patent issued on May 14, 2013. Doc. No. 110-32, ’832 patent)
`2.
`NuVasive is the owner of the ’832 patent by assignment of all rights,
`3.
`title and interest to the ’832 patent. Id.
`4.
`The priority date for the ’832 patent is January 16, 2003. Id.
`5.
`NuVasive claims that the Alphatec Accused Devices infringe claims 1,
`3, 9, and 10 of the ’832 patent. Doc. No. 110, ¶¶ 260-342.
`6.
`Claim 1 of the ’832 patent claims:
`A system for forming an operating corridor to a lumbar spine,
`comprising: a distraction assembly to create a tissue distraction corridor
`in a lateral, trans-psoas path to a lumbar spine, wherein said distraction
`assembly 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 of the
`plurality of dilators, wherein at least one instrument from the group
`consisting of said elongate inner element and said dilators includes a
`stimulation electrode that outputs electrical stimulation for nerve
`monitoring when the at least one instrument is positioned in the psoas
`muscle. Id. p. 31 at 14:31-45; p. 32 at 15:9, 15:33, 15:38.
`
`NUVASIVE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`1
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 250-1 Filed 01/17/20 PageID.19963 Page 10 of
`60
`
`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.
`The ’780 Patent
`The ’780 patent issued on January 15, 2013. Doc. No. 110-30 at 2.
`7.
`NuVasive is the owner of the ’780 patent by assignment of all rights,
`8.
`title and interest to the ’780 patent. Id.
`9.
`The priority date for the ’780 patent is September 25, 2003. Id.
`10. NuVasive claims that the Alphatec Accused Devices infringe claims
`21, 22, 24, 25, and 27 of the ’780 patent. Doc. No. 110, ¶¶ 200-259.
`11. Claim 21 of the ’780 patent recites:
`A system for forming an operating corridor to a lumbar spine,
`comprising: a dilator system to create a distraction corridor along a
`lateral, trans-psoas path to the lumbar spine, wherein said dilator
`system comprises at least two dilators of sequentially larger widths
`deliverable to a spinal disc along the lateral, trans-psoas path to the
`lumbar spine, a second dilator of said at least two dilators being
`slidably engageable with an exterior of a first of said at least two
`dilators, at least one of the first and second dilators including a
`stimulation electrode to deliver electrical stimulation for nerve
`monitoring when the stimulation electrode is positioned along the
`lateral, trans-psoas path to the lumbar spine; Doc. No. 110-30, p. 36 at
`15:3-16.
`12. Claim 21 of the ’780 patent also teaches:
`wherein the second refractor blade is movable relative to the first blade
`in response to pivoting movement of a first pivotable arm member of
`said arm members which is coupled to the second retractor blade, and
`wherein the third retractor blade is movable relative to the first blade in
`response to pivoting movement of a second pivotable arm member of
`said arm members which is coupled to the third refractor blade. Doc.
`No. 110-30, p. 36 at 15:37-43.
`3.
`The ’270 Patent
`The ’270 patent issued on June 17, 2014. Doc. No. 110-36 at 2.
`13.
`14. NuVasive is the owner of the ’270 patent by assignment of all rights,
`title and interest to the ’270 patent. Id.
`15.
`The priority date for the ’270 patent is January 16, 2003. Id. at 36.
`16. NuVasive claims that the Alphatec Accused Devices infringe 1, 2, 3, 6,
`and 12 of the ’270 patent. Doc. No. 110 ¶¶ 394-452.
`17. Claim 1 of the ’270 patent recites:
`
`NUVASIVE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`2
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 250-1 Filed 01/17/20 PageID.19964 Page 11 of
`60
`
`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 proximal portion including a rearwardly extending ridge structure
`to releasably engage with a corresponding groove along an interior face
`of the spinal access refractor blade when the proximal portion
`releasably attaches to the spinal access retractor blade, the ridge
`structure having a length extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of
`the shim device and being bisected by a longitudinal plane passing
`through the longitudinal axis of the shim device.” Doc. No. 110-36, p.
`32 at 14:52-60.
`18. Claim 3 of the ’270 patent teaches:
`The spinal shim device of claim 2, wherein the length of the rearwardly
`extending ridge structure is greater than a lateral width of the ridge
`structure and greater than a rearwardly extending thickness of the ridge
`structure. Id. p. 32-33 at 14:66-15:1-2.
`B.
`Claim Construction1
`19.
`This Court construed “lateral, transpoas path” to mean an “approach to
`the lumbar spine that (1) approaches from the patient’s lateral aspect (or side); and
`(2) goes through the psoas muscle. Doc. No. 167 at 2.
`20.
`This Court construed “distraction assembly” as “collection or group of
`components that operate together to create a tissue distraction corridor.” Id. at 1.
`21.
`This Court construed “slidably engageable” as “slides to contact.” Id.
`22.
`The Court did not construe any claim limitations for the ’270 patent. Id.
`C.
`The Accused Products
`23. NuVasive alleges that Alphatec’s K-wire, Initial Dilator, the Secondary
`Dilator, the Squadron™ Lateral Retractor Body, the Squadron™ Lateral Retractor
`Right Blade, the Squadron™ Lateral Retractor Left Blade and the Squadron™
`Lateral Retractor Posterior Blade. (“the Battalion Lateral System”) infringe claims
`1, 3, 9, and 10 of the ’832 patent and claims 21, 22, 24, and 27 of the ’780 patent.
`
`1 There is an open issue regarding whether “lateral transpsoas path” is limiting
`in the system claims (the parties agree that it is limiting in method claims) which
`the Court took under advisement at the claim construction hearing. Doc. No. 169 at
`78:19-24.
`
`NUVASIVE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`3
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 250-1 Filed 01/17/20 PageID.19965 Page 12 of
`60
`
`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
`
`(Youssef Opening Report ¶ 257 for ’780 patent and ¶ 348 for ’832 patent; NuVasive
`Second Amended Infringement Contentions pg. 11-12; pg. 7.
`24.
`The Alphatec Surgical Guide demonstrates using Dilators, the
`Squadron™ Lateral Retractor and a K-wire to form an operating corridor to a
`lumbar spine.
`
`Ex. 30 at ATEC_LLIF000167299.
`25.
`The Battalion Lateral System dilators referenced in the 2019 Surgical
`Guide are neuromonitoring enabled.
`Q: The dilators that are part of Battalion lateral platform prior to this
`September 2019 surgical guide contained an electrode for purposes of neuro
`monitoring, correct?
`A: Right.
`Q: And the dilators that are part of the Battalion lateral platform
`subsequent to issuance of this September 19, 2009 [sic] surgical guide
`still contain an electrode for purposes of neuro monitoring, correct?
`A: Correct
`Ex. 31(Aleali Dep.) 202:12-22; Ex. 32 (Robinson Dep.) 96:1-5; 113:4-16; Ex. 33,
`(Costabile Dep.) 54:13-21; 86:7-12.
`26.
`The Alphatec Surgical Guide discloses that each of the Initial Dilator
`and the Secondary Dilator includes a stimulation electrode to deliver electrical
`stimulation for nerve monitoring when positioned along the lateral, trans-psoas path.
`
`NUVASIVE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`4
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 250-1 Filed 01/17/20 PageID.19966 Page 13 of
`60
`
`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. 30 (Battalion™ Lateral Thoracolumbar Surgical Technique Guide) at
`ATEC_LLIF000167298, 167301); see also Ex. 1 at minute 6:20-7:20.
`27.
`The Alphatec Surgical guide teaches the Secondary Dilator is advanced
`over the Initial Dilator “using a clockwise, counter-clockwise motion.” Ex. 30 at
`ATEC_LLIF000167301.
`28.
`The Alphatec Surgical Guide discloses that the Battalion Intradiscal
`Shim is a spinal shim device configured to releasably attach to the spinal access
`retractor blade (i.e. Posterior Blade) of the Squadron™ Lateral Retractor. The
`Battalion™ Intradiscal Shim is configured to penetrate into a spinal disc in order to
`stabilize the Squadron™ Lateral Retractor to the disc space. Ex. 30 at 167312.
`D.
`Prior Art
`29. Branch ’933 discloses a two-blade retractor for a variety of surgical
`approaches. Ex. 6 at ATEC_LLIF000005240.
`30. Branch ’311 discusses interbody implants for insertion from the
`posterior aspect of the patient. Ex. 7 at Abstract, Fig. 11.
`31. Kelleher and Blewett disclose nerve monitoring for use in
`intraoperative monitoring. Exs. 10, 9.
`32.
`The Jacobson technique involves advancing an elongated nasal
`speculum “through the retroperitoneal soft tissues and psoas muscle, to the midpoint
`of the lateral surface of the desired interspace,” opening the speculum, placing a
`small chest tube inside the speculum, then removing the speculum. Ex. 13 at 101.
`33.
`The Friedman 1983 paper, the 1988 Friedman paper, Kanter, and
`Jacobson disclose the “Jacobson technique.” Exs. 12, 13, 37, 11.
`34. Koros ’139 shows variable length retractor or distractor blades useful
`for performing lumbar fusion surgery where the access corridor is through the
`abdomen (anterior) of the patient. Ex. 14 at 1:34-48.
`35.
` Maeda shows an anal speculum with three blades. Ex. 16.
`
`NUVASIVE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`5
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 250-1 Filed 01/17/20 PageID.19967 Page 14 of
`60
`
`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
`
`36. Büttner-Janz discloses a scissor retractor that enables parallel
`distraction in two or four directions. Ex. 17.
`37. Nathanson discusses a retractor specifically designed for use in small
`incisions, such as for heart valve surgery. Ex. 18 at ATEC_LLIF000160711-13.
`38. Michelson ’214 discusses an apparatus and method for placing
`vertebrae at a distance by use of a milling block. Ex. 20 at Abstract.
`39. Michelson ’661 shows features designed to maintain distraction of the
`disc which engage the bone. Ex. 21 at 10:50-67.
`40. Marchek discusses an adjustable retractor blade that is capable of being
`adjusted to lengthen or shorten the blade. Ex. 22 at ATEC_LLIF000161740.
`41. Ray ’582 and Ray ’847 describe devices designed for use in posterior
`(’582) and anterior (’847) threaded cage procedures. Ex. 23; Ex. 24 at [0002].
`42.
`Spears discusses an illuminated dental retractor. Ex. 27.
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`A.
`Summary Judgment
`Summary judgment should be granted where “there is no genuine issue as to
`any material fact and that the [movant] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
`The moving party bears the burden to proving, through portions of the pleadings,
`discovery, and affidavits, that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the
`movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
`Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 n.10 (1986); Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at
`323. If the moving party is able to demonstrate an absence of disputed material
`facts, the nonmoving party must then “come forward with ‘specific facts showing
`that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citing Fed. R.
`Civ. P. 56(e)) (emphasis added). A fact will only be considered genuinely disputed
`if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-
`moving party. Becton Dickinson & Co. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 922 F.2d 792, 796 (Fed.
`
`NUVASIVE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`6
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 250-1 Filed 01/17/20 PageID.19968 Page 15 of
`60
`
`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
`
`Cir. 1990). Moreover, if the moving party meets the initial burden, the nonmoving
`party cannot defeat summary judgment merely by demonstrating “that there is some
`metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586; see
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986) (“The mere existence of
`a scintilla of evidence in support of the [nonmoving party’s] position will be
`insufficient . . . .”).
`B.
`Infringement
`Direct infringement exists when “whoever without authority makes, uses,
`offers to sell, or sells any patented invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). The
`determination of infringement is a two-step processing involving: (1) construction
`of the claim to determine its meaning and scope and (2) comparison of the
`construed claim to the infringing device. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d
`1448, 1466-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). Infringement is “proven by a
`preponderance of the evidence, which simply requires proving that infringement
`was more likely than not to have occurred.” Warner-Lambert Co. v. Teva Pharms.
`USA, Inc., 418 F.3d 1326, 1341 n.15 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`C.
`Validity
`Each claim of a patent is presumed valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282. The party
`challenging the validity of a patent claim must prove invalidity by clear and
`convincing evidence, and the burden of proof always remains with the challenger.
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 564 U.S. 91, 100 (2011). To be clear and
`convincing evidence, the fact finder must have “an abiding convicting that the truth
`of [the] factual contentions are highly probable,” such that “the material [] offered
`instantly tilt[s] the evidentiary scales in the affirmative [for the proponent] when
`weighed against the evidence [] offered in opposition.” Colorado v. New Mexico,
`467 U.S. 310, 316 (1984) (internal citation omitted). “[I]f the fact trier of the issue
`is left uncertain, the party with the burden loses.” Tech. Licensing, 545 F.3d at
`1327.
`
`NUVASIVE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`7
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 250-1 Filed 01/17/20 PageID.19969 Page 16 of
`60
`
`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
`
`Inequitable Conduct
`D.
`To prove inequitable conduct, a party must show by clear and convincing
`evidence that an individual “(1) misrepresented or omitted information material to
`patentability, and (2) did so with specific intent to mislead or deceive.” Intellect
`Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp., 732 F.3d 1339, 1341-42 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Courts
`require a showing of clear and convincing evidence on both materiality and
`deceptive intent before exercising their discretion to do so. Therasense, Inc. v.
`Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “If a threshold
`level of intent to deceive or materiality is not established by clear and convincing
`evidence, the district court does not have any discretion to exercise and can