Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 260 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24426 Page 1 of 59
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NIMALKA R. WICKRAMASEKERA (SBN: 268518)
`nwickramasekera@winston.com
`DAVID P. DALKE (SBN: 218161)
`ddalke@winston.com
`LEV TSUKERMAN (SBN: 319184)
`ltsukerman@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 S. Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
`Telephone: (213) 615-1700
`Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
`
`BRIAN J. NISBET (Pro Hac Vice)
`bnisbet@winston.com
`SARANYA RAGHAVAN (Pro Hac Vice)
`sraghavan@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601-9703
`Telephone: (312) 558-5600
`Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
`
`CORINNE STONE HOCKMAN (Pro Hac Vice)
`chockman@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1111 Louisiana Street, 25th Floor
`Houston, TX 77002-5242
`Telephone: (713) 651-2600
`Facsimile: (713) 651-2700
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC. AND ALPHATEC SPINE, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN DIEGO DIVISION
`Case No. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`NUVASIVE, INC., a Delaware
`
`corporation,
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
`
`NUVASIVE, INC.’S MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`v.
`
`
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC., a
`Courtroom: 4C
`Delaware corporation and
`ALPHATEC SPINE, INC., a
`
`California corporation,
`PER CHAMBERS RULES, NO ORAL
`
`ARGUMENT UNLESS SEPARATELY
`ORDERED BY THE COURT
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO NUVASIVE, INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 260 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24427 Page 2 of 59
`
`
`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
`
`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
`I.
`RESPONSE TO PURPORTED UNDISPUTED FACTS .................................... 3
`II.
`III. LEGAL STANDARD .......................................................................................... 5
`A.
`Summary Judgment .................................................................................... 5
`B.
`Non-infringement ....................................................................................... 5
`C.
`Invalidity .................................................................................................... 6
`D.
`Inequitable Conduct ................................................................................... 6
`IV. NON-INFRINGEMENT ...................................................................................... 7
`A. Alphatec’s Accused Products Do Not Infringe Claims 1, 3, 9, or 10
`of the ’832 Patent ....................................................................................... 7
`1.
`Alphatec’s dilators do not “create a tissue distraction corridor in a
`lateral, trans-psoas path to a lumbar spine.” .................................... 8
`Alphatec’s accused system does not include dilators with “a
`stimulation electrode that outputs electrical stimulation for nerve
`monitoring.” ................................................................................... 10
`Alphatec’s Accused Products Do Not Infringe Claims 21, 22, 24,
`25, or 27 of the ’780 Patent ...................................................................... 12
`1.
`Alphatec’s dilators do not “create a tissue distraction corridor
`along a lateral, trans-psoas path to the lumbar spine.” .................. 12
`Alphatec’s accused system does not “deliver electrical stimulation
`for nerve monitoring.” ................................................................... 12
`Alphatec’s accused outer dilator is not “slidably engageable” with
`an exterior of its inner dilator. ....................................................... 13
`Alphatec’s retractors arms do not “move relative to” one another
`“in response to pivoting movement.” ............................................ 14
`Alphatec’s Accused Products Do Not Infringe the ’270 Patent .............. 18
`C.
`D. NuVasive’s Cases Do Not Support Summary Judgment of
`Infringement ............................................................................................. 19
`INVALIDITY ..................................................................................................... 20
`A. NuVasive’s Arguments Fail as a Matter of Law ..................................... 23
`1.
`Dr. Branch opined that each asserted claim as a whole is obvious.
` ........................................................................................................ 23
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`i
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO NUVASIVE, INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 260 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24428 Page 3 of 59
`
`
`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.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`VI.
`
`Dr. Branch provides detailed opinions on motivation to combine
`each reference beyond them being in the same field of endeavor. 23
`Dr. Branch’s opinions are not conclusory or unsupported. ........... 26
`Dr. Branch’s motivation to combine opinions are tied to the
`elements of the asserted claims. ..................................................... 27
`Though not needed to support obviousness, Dr. Branch provided
`motivation to combine the teachings of Branch and Maeda to reach
`a three-bladed retractor. ................................................................. 28
`It is undisputed that sequential dilation, stimulated sequential
`dilation, and/or stimulated sequential dilation was known. .......... 30
`Releasably attached intradiscal shim elements were well-known to
`the POSA. ...................................................................................... 31
`INEQUITABLE CONDUCT ............................................................................. 32
`A.
`There Are Genuine Issues of Material Fact Regarding Inequitable
`Conduct During Prosecution of the ’227 and ’531 Patents ..................... 35
`1.
`Kanter is material. .......................................................................... 35
`2.
`Kanter is non-cumulative. .............................................................. 37
`3.
`There is evidence of specific intent to deceive. ............................. 38
`4.
`NuVasive made a materially misleading statement to the PTO. ... 39
`There Are Genuine Issues of Material Fact Regarding Inequitable
`Conduct During Prosecution of the ’832 Patent ...................................... 40
`1.
`Leu is material. .............................................................................. 40
`2.
`Leu is non-cumulative. .................................................................. 42
`3.
`There is evidence of specific intent to deceive. ............................. 43
`There Are Genuine Issues of Material Fact Regarding Inequitable
`Conduct During Prosecution of the ’859 Patent ...................................... 44
`1.
`XLIF Surgical Techniques, Jacobson, Friedman, Kanter, Leu, and
`Maeda are material. ........................................................................ 44
`XLIF Surgical Techniques, Jacobson, Friedman, Kanter, Leu, and
`Maeda are non-cumulative. ........................................................... 46
`There is evidence of specific intent to deceive. ............................. 46
`3.
`D. NuVasive’s Cases Do Not Support Summary Judgment of No
`Inequitable Conduct ................................................................................. 48
`VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 49
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`ii
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO NUVASIVE, INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 260 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24429 Page 4 of 59
`
`
`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
`ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.,
`346 F.3d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................... 15, 16, 17
`Altair Instruments, Inc. v. Kelley W. Enterprises,
`LLC, No. CV 15-8115-R, 2016 WL 9023017 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16,
`2016) ........................................................................................................................ 19
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986)................................................................................................... 5
`In re Applied Materials, Inc.,
`692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................. 5
`Carl Zeiss Vision Int’l GMBH v. Signet Armorlite, Inc.,
`No. 07-cv-0894 DMS (POR), 2011 WL 6372785 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 19,
`2011) ........................................................................................................................ 48
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986)................................................................................................... 5
`Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l Inc.,
`631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................... 11
`Critikon, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson Vascular Access,
`120 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................. 6
`DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc.,
`239 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................... 17
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`251 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ......................................................................... 2, 6, 20
`Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc.,
`737 F.3d 731 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................... 29, 30
`
`iii
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO NUVASIVE, INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 260 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24430 Page 5 of 59
`
`
`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
`
`IPS Grp., Inc. v. Duncan Sols., Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-1526-CAB-MDD, 2017 WL 3530968 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16,
`2017), aff’d sub nom., Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Grp., Inc.,
`914 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................. 5
`In re Katz Interactive,
`No. 07–ML–01816–RGK, 2009 WL 8635983 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14,
`2009) ........................................................................................................................ 48
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC,
`2020 WL 485909, --- F.3d ---- (Fed. Cir. 2020)...................................................... 25
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`No. 02CV2060–B(CAB), 2007 WL 1877983 (S.D. Cal. June 27,
`2007) ................................................................................................................. passim
`M. Eagles Tool Warehouse, Inc. v. Fisher Tooling Co.,
`439 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................. 2, 6
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 25, 27
`Matsushita Elec. Inds. Co., Ltd., v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
`475 U.S. 574 (1986)................................................................................................... 5
`Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................. 9
`In re NuVasive, Inc.,
`693 F. App’x 893 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................ 8, 9
`NuVasive, Inc. v. Iancu,
`752 F. App’x 985 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................... passim
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC,
`735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................. 6
`Omega Patents, LLC. v. CalAmp Corp.,
`920 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ......................................................................... 11, 13
`Paragon Podiatry Lab., Inc. v. KLM Labs., Inc.,
`984 F.2d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ................................................................................. 6
`
`iv
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO NUVASIVE, INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 260 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24431 Page 6 of 59
`
`
`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
`
`Parallel Networks, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co.,
`704 F.3d 958 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... passim
`Park v. CAS Enterprises, Inc.,
`No. 08-CV-0385 DMS (NLS), 2010 WL 11508731 (S.D. Cal. Mar.
`30, 2010) ........................................................................................................... passim
`PC Connector Solutions LLC v. Smartdisk Corp.,
`406 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................. 5
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................... 25
`Plumley v. Mockett,
`836 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (C.D. Cal. 2010) ................................................................... 20
`Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp.,
`190 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................... 17
`SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.,
`727 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................... 15
`Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc.,
`308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................... 17
`United States v. Various Slot Machines on Guam,
`658 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1981) ............................................................................. 16, 43
`Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Pac. Surf Designs, Inc.,
`No. 3:17-cv-01118-BEN-BLM, 2019 WL 4452986 (S.D. Cal. Sept.
`16, 2019) ........................................................................................................ 2, 6, 7, 8
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................................... 6
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ....................................................................................................... 5
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 1.56(a) ..................................................................................... 33, 38, 43, 47
`
`
`v
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO NUVASIVE, INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 260 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24432 Page 7 of 59
`
`
`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 moves for summary judgment of infringement of certain asserted
`claims of the ’832, ’780, and ’270 patents. (Doc. No. 250-1 at 9–26.) As a threshold
`matter, NuVasive’s motion fails because NuVasive did not set forth undisputed
`evidence that the accused system meets each and every limitation of the claims it has
`moved on. Instead, NuVasive assumes infringement, purports to limit Alphatec’s
`defenses to certain arguments and evidence that it has characterized, and then proceeds
`to address its own characterization of Alphatec’s arguments and the limited evidence it
`chose to discuss. This is improper burden-shifting. Alphatec’s defenses to NuVasive’s
`claims are numerous and the evidence in support of them is well beyond what NuVasive
`presents in its motion. For this reason alone, NuVasive’s motion must fail.
`Beyond that, NuVasive’s motion makes clear that its only evidence of
`infringement of certain critical terms—e.g., “distraction corridor” and “pivot”—is the
`uncorroborated testimony of its business consultant and purported expert, Dr. Youssef.
`But Dr. Youssef’s opinions are conclusory, simply parroting the claim language and
`saying Alphatec meets it. This evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support
`NuVasive’s motion. Indeed, Dr. Youssef’s ipse dixit opinions are insufficient as a
`matter of law to avoid Alphatec’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement
`of all asserted claims for failure to meet the same limitations NuVasive addresses in its
`own motion. Parallel Networks, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 704 F.3d 958, 970
`(Fed. Cir. 2013). As such, NuVasive’s motion should be denied and summary judgment
`of non-infringement should be entered in Alphatec’s favor.
`NuVasive’s motion for summary judgment of validity is equally deficient. The
`premise of NuVasive’s motion is that, although it is undisputed that the prior art
`discloses all the key elements of the asserted claims, there is no motivation to combine
`those teachings to reach the claimed inventions as a matter of law. But, importantly,
`NuVasive makes no substantive challenge to Alphatec’s evidence on that issue.
`NuVasive never states that Alphatec is wrong, or that there is not actually a motivation
`
`1
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO NUVASIVE, INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 260 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24433 Page 8 of 59
`
`
`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
`
`to combine the key elements of the asserted claims. Indeed, NuVasive would be hard-
`pressed to take such a position because it would be asking this Court to find the opposite
`of the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit, in analyzing a related NuVasive patent,
`found a motivation to combine the lateral, trans-psoas approach, with “ubiquitous”
`surgical tools like retractors, sequential dilators, and stimulated dilators, which are all
`the key elements of the claimed inventions. NuVasive, Inc. v. Iancu, 752 F. App’x 985,
`989–90, 997–98 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Instead, NuVasive makes superficial criticisms of
`Alphatec’s expert’s opinion, none of which are supported by the record. NuVasive’s
`disguised Daubert motion should be denied, as NuVasive has not shown that no
`reasonable juror could find the patents not invalid. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`251 F.3d 955, 962–63 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`NuVasive also moves to dismiss Alphatec’s inequitable conduct counterclaims
`against the ’227, ’531, ’832, and ’859 patents because it asserts that the undisclosed
`references are immaterial and cumulative to the prior art of record and that Alphatec
`has not found direct evidence of a specific intent to deceive the PTO. As a starting
`point, both this Court and the Federal Circuit have “urge[d] caution in making an
`inequitable conduct determination at the summary judgment stage.” Whitewater W.
`Indus., Ltd. v. Pac. Surf Designs, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-01118-BEN-BLM, 2019 WL
`4452986, at *9, 21 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2019) (quoting M. Eagles Tool Warehouse, Inc.
`v. Fisher Tooling Co., 439 F.3d 1335, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Even setting that aside,
`NuVasive’s motion asks this Court to ignore its own successful reliance on the
`undisclosed references. The materiality and non-cumulativeness of these references is
`beyond dispute, as NuVasive successfully relied on them to invalidate a competitor
`patent directed to the same technology in proceedings before the PTO. Not one
`NuVasive fact witness has corroborated NuVasive’s excuse that its deliberate non-
`disclosure resulted from a belief that the references were cumulative or immaterial.
`NuVasive should not be allowed to say one thing to the PTO to invalidate competitor
`patents and say the direct opposite to this Court to defend its own.
`
`2
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO NUVASIVE, INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 260 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24434 Page 9 of 59
`
`
`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
`
`As to specific intent, not one NuVasive witness has explained why these
`references were not disclosed during prosecution. Instead, NuVasive blocked
`Alphatec’s attempts at collecting direct evidence by asserting privilege as to every
`question relevant to intent during the deposition of the only fact witness NuVasive
`presented on this issue (NuVasive claimed that other prosecuting attorneys for
`NuVasive (e.g., outside counsel) were unlikely to have non-cumulative information and
`its corporate designee on the topic confirmed that NuVasive had no non-privileged
`testimony on this issue). But despite NuVasive’s attempt to hide the ball, NuVasive
`cannot avoid its own reliance on these undisclosed references to invalidate a competitor
`patent covering related technology, which provides at least a disputed fact that
`NuVasive’s attorneys had knowledge of each prior art reference and intentionally chose
`not to disclose them in prosecuting the asserted patents. Under these circumstances,
`“an inference of deceptive intent may be fairly drawn.” Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway,
`Inc., No. 02CV2060–B(CAB), 2007 WL 1877983, at *6 (S.D. Cal. June 27, 2007).
`II. RESPONSE TO PURPORTED UNDISPUTED FACTS
`NuVasive purports to present a number of undisputed facts in its motion for
`summary judgment. (Doc. No. 250-1 at 9–14.) NuVasive bears the burden to
`demonstrate ownership and assignment of all asserted patents. A number of asserted
`patents were filed or have claims that were written after individuals NuVasive named
`as inventors left the employ of NuVasive, and NuVasive has not shown that these
`inventors were informed of the filing of those patents and/or their issued claims (e.g.,
`the ’227, ’859, and ’531 patents), or that proper assignments were executed.
`Accordingly, Alphatec does not waive any challenge to NuVasive’s alleged ownership
`of the patents, which remains NuVasive’s burden to prove. Moreover, NuVasive moves
`for summary judgment of validity of all asserted claims of all asserted patents, but does
`not demonstrate the priority date to which each asserted claim is entitled. NuVasive
`cannot dispute that its disclosures and expert reports allege conflicting priority dates,
`which in and of itself creates a genuine issue of material fact. For example, NuVasive’s
`
`3
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO NUVASIVE, INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 260 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24435 Page 10 of 59
`
`
`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
`
`June 29, 2018, Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions alleges a
`January 16, 2004, priority date for the ’270 patent, and NuVasive’s November 9, 2018,
`Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions alleges an
`August 23, 2010, priority date for the ’859 patent. (Ex. 1 at 22; Ex. 2 at 30.)1 Dr.
`Youssef uses different priority dates for these patents. (Ex. 3 (Youssef Responsive
`Report) (¶¶ 50–51.) Accordingly, Alphatec disagrees that NuVasive has established the
`priority dates for its patents. Nevertheless, as discussed below, Alphatec has presented
`substantial evidence that prior art dated before the earliest claimed priority date for each
`patent invalidates the asserted claims.
`Alphatec also agrees that the structure and function of the accused products, and
`the scope and content of the Alphatec surgical guides, are not disputed. As discussed
`in NuVasive’s motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. No. 250-1, 12–15), however,
`NuVasive’s legal conclusion (Doc. No. 250-1 at ¶ 24) regarding the “operative corridor”
`is irrelevant and ignores the indisputable evidence that in the Alphatec surgical
`technique, the surgeon’s finger creates the claimed “distraction corridor.” The relevant
`facts concerning Alphatec’s accused products are addressed in greater detail below.
`Similarly, Alphatec agrees that the scope and content of the prior art are not
`disputed; however, NuVasive’s legal conclusions regarding the disclosure of various
`prior art references improperly limits the entirety of those disclosures to a single
`sentence each, and ignores the undisputed scope and content of each reference as a
`whole. (Id. at ¶¶ 29–42.) For example, NuVasive suggests that Branch ’933 only
`“discloses a two-blade retractor” by ignoring the undisputed full scope of its disclosure,
`which also teaches a three-bladed retractor. (Id. at ¶ 29; Doc. No. 250-18 at 7:38-47.)
`But “[a] reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the
`
`
`1 All exhibits are to the Declaration of Brian J. Nisbet in Support of Defendants’
`Opposition to NuVasive, Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed
`concurrently herewith.
`
`4
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO NUVASIVE, INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 260 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24436 Page 11 of 59
`
`
`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
`
`described invention or a preferred embodiment.” In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d
`1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012).2 The relevant facts concerning the prior art are addressed
`in greater detail below.
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`A. Summary Judgment
`“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no
`genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
`of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden to show that
`there is no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323
`(1986). The court must construe all facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving
`party and draw reasonable inferences in that party’s favor, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
`Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), but it should grant summary judgment where a claim or
`defense is factually unsupported, or where the record taken as a whole could not lead a
`rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323–24;
`Matsushita Elec. Inds. Co., Ltd., v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
`B. Non-infringement
`“To prove direct infringement, the patentee must establish, by a preponderance
`of the evidence, that one or more claims of the patent read on the accused device literally
`or under the doctrine of equivalence.” IPS Grp., Inc. v. Duncan Sols., Inc., No. 15-CV-
`1526-CAB-MDD, 2017 WL 3530968, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2017), aff'd sub
`nom., Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Grp., Inc., 914 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`“Summary judgment for the defendants on the issue of infringement is proper when no
`reasonable jury could find that every limitation recited in a properly construed claim is
`found in the accused device either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.” Id.
`(citing PC Connector Solutions LLC v. Smartdisk Corp., 406 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis is added and internal citations and quotations are
`omitted.
`
`5
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO NUVASIVE, INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 260 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24437 Page 12 of 59
`
`
`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
`
`2005).
`C. Invalidity
`A patent claim is invalid as obvious if “the differences between the claimed
`invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have
`been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having
`ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103. “[A]
`moving party seeking to have a patent held not invalid at summary judgment must show
`that the nonmoving party, who bears the burden of proof at trial, failed to produce clear
`and convincing evidence on an essential element of a defense upon which a reasonable
`jury could invalidate the patent.” Eli Lilly, 251 F.3d at 962–63 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`D. Inequitable Conduct
`As a preliminary point, the Federal Circuit “urges caution in making an
`inequitable conduct determination at the summary judgment stage.” Whitewater, 2019
`WL 4452986, at *9, 21 (quoting M. Eagles Tool Warehouse, 439 F.3d at 1340).
`“To prove inequitable conduct in the prosecution of a patent, the defendant must
`have provided evidence of affirmative misrepresentations of a material fact, failure to
`disclose material information, or submission of false material information, coupled with
`an intent to deceive.” Lucent Techs., 2007 WL 1877983, at *5. The elements of
`materiality and intent involve questions of fact. Park v. CAS Enterprises, Inc., No. 08-
`CV-0385 DMS (NLS), 2010 WL 11508731, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2010). Notably,
`this Court and the Federal Circuit have held that evidence of a deliberate decision to
`withhold a material reference may be proven circumstantially because direct proof of
`wrongful intent is rarely available. Id. at *7 (citing Critikon, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson
`Vascular Access, 120 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); Whitewater, 2019 WL
`4452986, at *9 (citing Paragon Podiatry Lab., Inc. v. KLM Labs., Inc., 984 F.2d 1182,
`1189–90 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“‘[S]moking gun’ evidence is not required in order to
`establish an intent to deceive.”)). Thus, “[t]he specific intent to commit inequitable
`conduct may be inferred from indirect and circumstantial evidence.” Ohio Willow
`
`6
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO NUVASIVE, INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 260 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24438 Page 13 of 59
`
`
`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
`
`Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2013). And when multiple
`reasonable inferences may be drawn from the facts, the plaintiff cannot conclusively
`demonstrate that it did not intend to deceive the PTO. Whitewater, 2019 WL 4452986,
`at *21.
`IV. NON-INFRINGEMENT
`NuVasive moves for summary judgment of infringement of certain asserted
`claims of the ’832, ’780, and ’270 patents. (Doc. No. 250-1 at 17–26.) Although
`NuVasive’s motion does not seek summary judgment for all asserted claims in this case,
`it asks this Court to resolve whether Alphatec’s accused products meet three limitations
`that together are required for Alphatec to infringe all asserted claims in this case—
`Alphatec’s accused dilators must create the tissue distraction corridor along the lateral,
`trans-psoas path to the lumbar spine; Alphatec’s accused retractor arms must pivot; and
`Alphatec’s accused shim must have the claimed rearwardly extending ridge structure.
`Alphatec moved for summary judgment of non-infringement of all asserted claims
`based on the same limitations. (Doc. No. 256-1 at 11–19, 20–23.) Accordingly, if the
`Court determines that Alphatec’s accused products lack these three limitations, the
`Court’s decision will resolve all issues of infringement in this case.
`Alphatec and NuVasive agree that the structure and function of Alphatec’s
`accused products, and the scope and content of Alphatec’s surgical guides, are not
`disputed. Accordingly, Alphatec respectfully requests that the Court deny NuVasive’s
`motion and enter summary judgment of non-infringement of all asserted claims. (Doc.
`No. 256-1 at 11–24.)
`
`A. Alphatec’s Accused Products Do Not Infringe Claims 1, 3, 9, or 10 of the
`’832 Patent
`NuVasive moves for partial summary judgment of infringement for certain
`asserted claims of the ’832 patent. (Do