Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 261 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24927 Page 1 of 46
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI P.C.
`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,
`NUVASIVE, INC.’S OPPOSITION
`TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
` Plaintiff,
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN
`THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
`v.
`ADJUDICATION
`
`))
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`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
`
`PER CHAMBERS RULES, NO
`ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS
`SEPARATELY ORDERED BY THE
`COURT
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`Magistrate Judge: Mitchell D. Dembin
`
`))))))
`
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation, and ALPHATEC
`SPINE, INC., a California corporation,
` Defendants.
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPPOS TO DEFS’
`MTN FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 261 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24928 Page 2 of 46
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`THE RECORD SUPPORTS ASSIGNOR ESTOPPEL .................................. 1
`5
`A.
`Factual Record Regarding Assignor Estoppel ...................................... 1
`6
`Mr. Miles, Mr. Snider, and NuVasive ........................................ 1
`7
`Mr. Miles’ Decision to Leave NuVasive .................................... 2
`8
`Mr. Miles Works with Alphatec’s Chairman to Draft the
`Blueprint for a “New Alphatec” Under Miles’ Leadership ........ 2
`9
`Mr. Miles and Mr. Snider Invest in Alphatec ............................. 4
`10
`Alphatec Hires Mr. Miles, Announcing Company
`11
`“Turnaround” .............................................................................. 4
`12
`Mr. Miles Spearheads Commercial Launch of the Accused
`Products, with Focus On Surgeon Engagement ......................... 5
`13
`Legal Standard ...................................................................................... 6
`14
`Alphatec Is in Privity with Mr. Miles and Mr. Snider .......................... 7
`15
`Under Federal Circuit Law, Privity May Exist Where an
`16
`Assignor Joined the Defendant After It Developed and
`Launched Its Infringing Products ............................................... 8
`17
`Alphatec’s Motion Ignores NuVasive’s Claims of Induced
`18
`Infringement.............................................................................. 10
`19
`Alphatec’s Motion Ignores Miles’ Collaboration with
`Alphatec Beginning In April 2016 to Draft The Blueprint
`20
`For the “New Alphatec” That Ultimately Emerged Under
`Miles’ Leadership ..................................................................... 12
`21
`D. Mr. Miles’ Threat to Use His Knowledge to Invalidate
`22
`NuVasive’s Patents Is An Independent Reason To Find Privity. ....... 13
`23
`An Affirmative Finding of Assignor Estoppel Is Appropriate ........... 15
`E.
`24
`THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF THE ’832 PATENT ARE VALID ........... 15
`25
`A.
`There Is No Evidence Of Record That Establishes A Complete
`Legal Theory Of Invalidity ................................................................. 15
`26
`B.
`Alphatec Fails To Address Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness ..... 17
`27
`28 NUVASIVE’S OPPOS TO DEFS’ MTN
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
`SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`i
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 261 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24929 Page 3 of 46
`
`C.
`
`III.
`
`The Federal Circuit Remand Of ’057 Reexam For Further
`Consideration Does Not Support Alphatec’s Invalidity Argument .... 17
`THE ACCUSED DEVICES AND METHODS INFRINGE THE
`ASSERTED CLAIMS ................................................................................... 19
`A.
`The Alphatec Shim Contains A Rearwardly Extending Ridge
`Structure—’270 Patent ........................................................................ 19
`Distraction corridor—’801, ’780, ’832, ’227, and ’531 patents ......... 21
`Alphatec’s Retractor Blades Are Rigidly Coupled To Retractor
`Arms—’801 Patent ............................................................................. 25
`Arms pivot relative to one another—’801, ’780, and ’531 patents .... 26
`Arms rotate about longitudinal axis—’859 Patent ............................. 28
`Indirect Infringement .......................................................................... 29
`Induced Infringement ................................................................ 29
`Contributory Infringement ........................................................ 31
`JUDGMENT OF NO LOST PROFITS IS NOT APPROPRIATE .............. 31
`IV.
`DR. YOUSSEF IS A CREDIBLE, RESPECTED SPINE SURGEON ........ 34
`V.
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 35
`
`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 OPPOS TO DEFS’ MTN
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
`SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`E.
`F.
`
`ii
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 261 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24930 Page 4 of 46
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`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 OPPOS TO DEFS’ MTN
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
`SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
`
`3M v. Chemque, Inc.,
`303 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ....................................................................... 30
`Agri-Labs Holding LLC v. Taplogic, LLC,
`304 F. Supp. 3d 773 (N.D. Ind. 2018) ............................................................. 30
`Albino v. Baca,
`747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 15
`AMP Inc. v. Lantrans, Inc., No. CV 90-1525-DWW(JRX),
`1991 WL 253796 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 1991) .................................................... 33
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 12-CV-00630-LHK,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8157 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014) ................................. 19
`Barry v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`914 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ....................................................................... 10
`Brocade Commc’n Sys., Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc.,
`No. C 10-cv-03428-LHK,
`2012 WL 2326064 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2012) ............................................ 7, 12
`CA, Inc. v. New Relic, Inc., CV 12-5468(AKT),
`2015 WL 1611993 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2015) ........................................ 7, 9, 13
`Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mech. Sys.,
`15 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ........................................................................... 7
`Cross Med. Prods. v. Depuy Acromed, Inc.,
`No. SA CV 00-0876-GLT(ANx),
`2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27884 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2002) ............................... 28
`Diamond Sci. Co. v. Ambico, Inc.,
`848 F.2d 1220 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ......................................................... 6, 7, 14, 15
`Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co.,
`909 F.3d 398 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................................................................... 30
`Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson Co.,
`438 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................................... 31
`Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc.,
`325 F. Supp. 3d 507 (D. Del. 2018) ............................................................ 7, 12
`HWB, Inc. v. Braner, Inc.,
`869 F. Supp. 579 (N.D. Ill. 1994) ................................................................... 11
`
`iii
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 261 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24931 Page 5 of 46
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`1
`2
`PAGE(S)
`i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp.,
`3
`598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ......................................................................... 20
`4
`Intel Corp. v. U.S. ITC,
`946 F.2d 821 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ........................................................................... 7
`5
`Kaufman Co. v. Lantech, Inc.,
`6
`926 F.2d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ....................................................................... 32
`7
`Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson,
`745 F.2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ....................................................................... 17
`8
`King Instruments Corp. v. Perego,
`9
`65 F.3d 941 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ........................................................................... 31
`10
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .................................................................................. 16, 17
`11
`Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Quickturn Design Sys.,
`12
`150 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ........................................................... 7, 8, 9, 13
`13
`Mikkelsen Graphic Eng’g Inc. v. Zund Am. Inc., No. 07-C-0391,
`2014 WL 12654766 (E.D. Wis. May 23, 2014) .................................... 9, 10, 11
`14
`N. Telecom Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`15
`215 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ....................................................................... 27
`16
`NuVasive Inc. v. Iancu,
`752 F. App’x 985 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................. 18
`17
`Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works,
`18
`575 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir.1978) .......................................................................... 31
`19
`PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. IBM, No. 16-cv-01266-EJD,
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76162 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2017) .......................... 25, 31
`20
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`21
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc) ......................................................... 20
`22
`Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp.,
`875 F.3d 1369, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................. 32
`23
`Rhoades v. Avon Prods.,
`24
`504 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2007) ......................................................................... 14
`25
`Roche Molecular Sys., Inc. v. Cepheid, No. 14-cv-03228-EDL,
`2017 WL 6311568 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2017) ................................................... 7
`26
`Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc.,
`27
`550 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................................................................... 16
`28 NUVASIVE’S OPPOS TO DEFS’ MTN
`iv
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
`SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 261 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24932 Page 6 of 46
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`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 OPPOS TO DEFS’ MTN
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
`SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`Shamrock Techs., Inc. v. Med. Sterilization, Inc.,
`903 F.2d 789 (Fed. Cir. 1990) .................................................................. passim
`State Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc.,
`883 F.2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ....................................................................... 31
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Magma Design Auto., Inc., No. C-04-3923 MMC,
`2005 WL 1562779 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2005) ................................................... 13
`TI Grp. Auto. Sys. (North Am.), Inc. v. VDO N. Am., L.L.C.,
`375 F.3d 1126 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ....................................................................... 27
`Vulcan Eng’g Co., Inc. v. FATA Aluminium, Inc.,
`278 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ....................................................................... 25
`Warrior Lacrosse, Inc. v. Brine, Inc., No. 04-71649,
`2006 WL 763190 (E.D. Mich. 2006) .............................................................. 11
`Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. Globus Med., Inc.,
`416 F. App’x 67 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 20
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................................... 27
`RULES
`Fed. R. Evid. 408 ....................................................................................................... 14
`L.R. 4.2 ...................................................................................................................... 19
`
`v
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 261 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24933 Page 7 of 46
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Mtn. or
`Alphatec’s Motion
`
`’832 patent
`’780 patent
`’270 patent
`’801 patent
`’227 patent
`’859 patent
`’531 patent
`’057 patent
`NuVasive
`Alphatec
`
`1
`2
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
`3
`Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment or, In The
`Alternative, Summary Adjudication
`4
`(Doc. No. 252-1)
`5
`U.S. Patent No. 8,439,832
`6
`U.S. Patent No. 8,355,780
`7
`U.S. Patent No. 8,753,270
`8
`U.S. Patent No. 7,819,801
`9
`U.S. Patent No. 9,833,227
`10
`U.S. Patent No. 9,924,859
`11
`U.S. Patent No. 9,974,531
`12
`U.S. Patent No. 7,691,057
`NuVasive, Inc.
`13
`Alphatec Holdings, Inc. and Alphatec Spine, Inc.
`14
`The Battalion Lateral System and Battalion™
`15
`Intradiscal Shim. The Battalion Lateral System includes
`16
`a K-wire, Initial Dilator, the Secondary Dilator, the
`Squadron™ Lateral Retractor Body, the Squadron™
`17
`Lateral Retractor Right Blade, the Squadron™ Lateral
`18
`Retractor Left Blade and the Squadron™ Lateral
`Retractor Posterior Blade.
`19
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`20
`Inter Partes Review
`21
`eXtreme Lumbar Interbody Fusion
`22
`October 2017 North American Spine Society
`23
`Conference
`24
`Transcript of the Deposition of Charles L. Branch, Jr.,
`M.D. (Jan. 14, 2020)
`25
`Corrected Opening Expert Report of Charles L. Branch,
`26
`Jr., M.D. (November 1, 2019)
`27
`Branch ’933
`U.S. Patent No. 6,945,933
`28 NUVASIVE’S OPPOS TO DEFS’ MTN
`vi
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
`SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
`
`Accused Alphatec
`Devices
`
`PTO
`IPR
`XLIF
`
`2017 NASS
`
`Branch Dep.
`
`Branch 11/1 Rpt.
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 261 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24934 Page 8 of 46
`
`Friedman 1983
`
`Friedman 1988
`
`Kanter
`
`Koros ’139
`Koros ’493
`Koros ’831
`
`Branch ’311
`Branch ’601
`Kelleher
`Blewett
`Jacobson
`Foley ’180
`
`1
`U.S. Patent No. 6,174,311
`2
`U.S. Patent No. 7,556,601
`WO 01/37728 A1
`3
`WO 03/005887 A2
`4
`U.S. Patent No. 4,545,374
`5
`U.S. Patent No. 6,500,180
`6
`William A. Friedman, Percutaneous Discectomy: An
`7
`Alternative to Chemonucleolysis?, Neurosurgery (1983)
`8
`W.A. Friedman & S.L. Kanter, The lateral
`9
`percutaneous approach to discectomy, Int’l Radiology
`in Bone and Joint, 149-154 (1988)
`10
`Steven L. Kanter & William A. Friedman,
`11
`Percutaneous Discectomy: An Anatomical Study,
`12
`Neurosurgery (1985)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,928,139
`13
`U.S. Patent No. 6,139,493
`14
`U.S. Patent No. 5,893,831
`15
`Expert Report of Stephen G. Kunin (November 22,
`16
`2019)
`17
`Leu, et al., Percutaneous Fusion of the Lumbar Spine,
`18
`Spine (1992)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,681,265
`Maeda
`19
`European Patent Application No. EP 0 951 868 A1
`Büttner-Janz
`20
`U.S. Patent No. 6,074,343
`Nathanson
`21
`U.S. Patent No. 6,159,214
`Michelson ’214
`22
`U.S. Patent No. 5,772,661
`Michelson ’661
`23
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2005/013461
`Marchek
`24
`’801,’780,’832,’227, ’270, and ’531 patents
`Miles Patents
`25
`U.S. Patent No. 6,042,582
`Ray ’582
`26
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2002-0022847
`Ray ’847
`27
`Ritland ’073
`U.S. Patent No. 7,166,073
`28 NUVASIVE’S OPPOS TO DEFS’ MTN
`vii
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
`SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
`
`Kunin 11/22 Rpt.
`
`Leu
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 261 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24935 Page 9 of 46
`
`Youssef 11/1 Rpt.
`
`Youssef 11/8 Rpt.
`
`Youssef Dec.
`
`Aleali Dep.
`
`Chang Dep.
`
`Schermerhorn
`Rough Dep.
`Sachs Rebuttal
`11/22 Rpt.
`Smith Patents
`Spears
`
`1
`Rough Transcript of Deposition of Rory Schermerhorn
`(Jan. 9, 2020)
`2
`Rebuttal Report of Barton L. Sachs, M.D., M.B.A.,
`3
`F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E. (Nov. 22, 2019)
`4
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,679,833 and 7,261,688
`5
`U.S. Patent No. 6,080,105
`6
`Corrected Opening Expert Report of Jim Youssef
`(November 1, 2019)
`7
`Expert Report of Jim Youssef re Damages
`8
`(November 8, 2019)
`9
`Declaration of Jim Youssef, M.D. In Support of
`10
`NuVasive’s Opposition to Alphatec’s Motion for
`Summary Judgment or, In The Alternative, Summary
`11
`Adjudication (filed concurrently herewith)
`12
`Transcript of the Deposition of Mike Aleali (Dec. 19,
`13
`2019)
`14
`Transcript of the Deposition of Frank Chang (Jan. 15,
`2020)
`15
`Transcript of the Deposition of Jonathan Thomas
`16
`Costabile (Dec. 15, 2019)
`17
`Transcript of the Deposition of Blake B. Inglish
`(Apr. 20, 2019)
`18
`Transcript of the Deposition of Blake B. Inglish
`19
`(Dec. 20, 2019)
`20
`Transcript of the Deposition of Patrick S. Miles
`21
`(Dec. 19, 2019)
`22
`Transcript of the Deposition of Scott Robinson
`(Oct. 29, 2019)
`23
`Transcript of the Deposition of Jim Youssef, M.D.
`Youssef Apr. 2018
`24
`(Apr. 27, 2018)
`Dep.
`25
`Transcript of the Deposition of Jim Youssef, M.D.
`Youssef Jan. 2020
`(Jan. 10, 2019)
`Dep.
`26
`***** Unless stated otherwise, all emphasis is added and internal citations are
`27
`omitted.
`28 NUVASIVE’S OPPOS TO DEFS’ MTN
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
`SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
`
`Costabile Dep.
`
`Inglish Apr. 2018
`Dep.
`Inglish Dec. 2019
`Dep.
`Miles Dep.
`
`Robinson Dep.
`
`viii
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 261 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24936 Page 10 of 46
`
`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’s Motion does not even attempt to demonstrate the absence of
`issues of material fact. Rather, it ignores the applicable law, quibbles with the
`strength of NuVasive’s evidence, advocates belated, incorrect claim constructions,
`and distorts with baseless rhetoric. In reality, on several issues, the facts
`exclusively favor summary judgment in favor of NuVasive.
`I.
`THE RECORD SUPPORTS ASSIGNOR ESTOPPEL
`Alphatec’s request for summary judgment is not appropriate on the issue of
`assignor estoppel. A determination of privity—the central issue of assignor
`estoppel—is a fact-intensive question for the Court. Here, the record contains
`substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that
`Alphatec is in privity with two former NuVasive inventors, Patrick Miles and Brian
`Snider, who are assignors of the patents-in-suit.
`A.
`Factual Record Regarding Assignor Estoppel
`Mr. Miles, Mr. Snider, and NuVasive
`Patrick Miles is an original, named inventor of the ’801,’780,’832,’227, ’270,
`and ’531 patents (the “Miles Patents”). Doc. Nos. 110-28–37, 46, 47; Doc. No. 110
`at ¶¶ 196-99, 256-59, 339-42, 390-93, 449-52, and 727-30. For good, valuable
`consideration, Mr. Miles assigned NuVasive all rights, title, and interests to the
`Miles Patents (or applications that became the Miles Patents). Exs. 59-63. Mr.
`Snider is an original, named inventor of the ’859 patent. Doc. Nos. 110-44, 45;
`Doc. No. 110 at ¶¶ 668-71. For good, valuable consideration, Mr. Snider assigned
`NuVasive all rights, title, and interest in the ’859 patent. Ex. 64.
`NuVasive employed Mr. Miles as a high-level executive from 2001 through
`Sept. 2017, most recently serving as its President and COO from 2015-2016 and
`rising to Vice Chairman in September 2016. Ex. 65 at 845756. Mr. Miles actively
`participated in the research, development, commercialization, and marketing of
`NuVasive’s pioneering XLIF procedure, inventing and conceiving multiple aspects
`of the procedure. Ex. 66 (Miles Dep.) at 102:13-113:17; Ex. 67 at 943158
`NUVASIVE’S OPPOS TO DEFS’ MTN
`1
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
`SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 261 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24937 Page 11 of 46
`
`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
`
`(describing Mr. Miles as “THE industry executive MOST responsible for
`commercializing lateral surgery”); Ex. 68 at 944305. Mr. Snider was employed at
`NuVasive from 2008-2017, rising to the level of Business Lead of Thoracolumbar
`Anterior, which “included overall responsibility for the anterior column business
`including XLIF®.” Ex. 65 at 845758.
`Mr. Miles’ Decision to Leave NuVasive
`Mr. Miles testified at deposition that he initially decided to leave NuVasive
`in 2015 due to a conflict with NuVasive’s then-interim CEO, Greg Lucier. Ex. 66
`(Miles Dep.) at 40:21-41:10. Mr. Miles testified that he believed Mr. Lucier was
`incompetent, id. at 96:7-12, and that he would have made the better CEO. Id. at
`58:1-19. In addition, Mr. Miles felt he did not have the level of influence within
`NuVasive that he deserved. E.g., id. at 47:4-12, 53:10-12, 96:18-23.
`Mr. Miles Works with Alphatec’s Chairman to Draft the
`Blueprint for a “New Alphatec” Under Miles’ Leadership
`In 2015, Alphatec was in dire financial circumstances. Doc. No. 1-32, pp. 7-
`8. Among other things, it was carrying significant debt and was unprofitable. Id.
`In or about January 2016, Alphatec attempted to entice NuVasive to acquire
`Alphatec. Ex. 66 (Miles Dep.) at 139:2-6; Ex. 69 at 319007-13. Mr. Miles
`participated in NuVasive’s evaluation of the offer and recommended that NuVasive
`not acquire Alphatec, describing the venture as a “waste of time.” Ex. 70 at
`319051; see also Ex. 66 at 114:24-25, 121:12-21, 123:7-124:2, 145:12-153:3
`(testifying that he thought Alphatec “was a horrific company” that “made a lot of
`bad decisions”). Shortly thereafter, around April 2016, Mr. Miles joined Carlsbad
`Growth Partners (“Carlsbad”), a group of investors attempting to acquire Alphatec.
`Ex. 66 at 135:3-6; see also Ex. 71 at 661-62. Mr. Miles’ main contact at Carlsbad
`was Mortimer Berkowitz, the then-Chairman of Alphatec’s Board. Doc. No. 1-34,
`p. 21; Ex. 66 at 139:12-15. Despite Alphatec’s myriad problems, Mr. Miles became
`interested in joining the company because he would have full license to “create” a
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPPOS TO DEFS’ MTN
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
`SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
`
`2
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 261 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24938 Page 12 of 46
`
`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
`
`new company. Id. at 117:11-16, 125:10-18.
`The purpose of Carlsbad’s and Mr. Miles’ proposed acquisition of Alphatec
`was to recapitalize the company to carry out Mr. Miles’ vision of the new Alphatec.
`Id. at 126:9-20 (“A. But, you know, if you’re going to do it in your mind’s eye,
`you’re going to need the capital to do it. And so the expectation was that there was
`going to be a recapitalization effort.”). As a result, Miles and the then-NuVasive
`CFO, Quentin Blackford, participated in numerous discussions with Carlsbad in
`which Mr. Miles helped craft Alphatec’s new strategy to overhaul the company.
`E.g., Ex. 71 at 46-47, 77-113, 294, 368-73, 463-64, 661-62, 882-83; Ex. 72; Ex. 73.
`One of the critical aspects of the Carlsbad proposal to investors was that Alphatec
`would be bringing in “New Management,” with Mr. Miles to become the new CEO
`of the company. See generally Ex. 73, Ex. 72; Ex. 71 at 77-113. Carlsbad
`recognized that Mr. Miles had “[e]xceptional credibility with capital markets” and
`“[e]xceptional surgeon and industry relationships.” Ex. 73 at 857185.
`Carlsbad’s strategy documents describe Mr. Miles’ and Mr. Blackford’s
`success at NuVasive and state that they would implement their winning strategies at
`Alphatec. E.g., Ex. 71 at 99-101. Carlsbad highlighted that Mr. Miles would bring
`his surgeon and industry relationships to Alphatec. Ex. 73 at 857185; Ex. 66 at
`168:11-14. A Carlsbad slide deck, internal business strategy, and private placement
`memorandum identified specific changes that Miles would bring to Alphatec’s
`strategy going forward. Ex. 73; Ex. 71 at 77-113, especially at 102-03.
`In July 2016, Alphatec announced it sold its international operations and
`distribution channels to Globus for $80 million in cash and a $30 million credit
`facility. Ex. 76 at 857055-6. That infusion of funds, however, did not solve
`Alphatec’s underlying financial problem—Alphatec’s 2016 Annual Report stated
`the company was historically unprofitable and anticipated the company would
`remain unprofitable in the near term. Doc. No. 1-34, pp. 16-17.
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPPOS TO DEFS’ MTN
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
`SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
`
`3
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 261 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24939 Page 13 of 46
`
`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
`
`Thereafter, although Carlsbad’s effort to re-capitalize the company ended,
`Alphatec continued to actively solicit Mr. Miles to leave NuVasive and become
`Alphatec’s CEO. On September 6, 2016, Mr. Miles resigned from NuVasive to
`become the CEO of Alphatec. Ex. 66 (Miles Dep.) at 87:22-88:1, 204:1-18.
`Nevertheless, NuVasive immediately persuaded Mr. Miles to come back to
`NuVasive as Vice Chairman of the Board. Id. at 205:18-206:1.
`Mr. Miles and Mr. Snider Invest in Alphatec
`In March 2017, six months after his first, aborted, move to Alphatec,
`NuVasive’s Vice Chairman of the Board, Mr. Miles, invested $500,000 in Alphatec
`through an entity he created and named MOM, Inc. Id. at 132:5-23. Around this
`same time, Mr. Snider also invested $100,000 in Alphatec. Ex. 78 at 710517. The
`Miles and Snider investments were part of a larger private placement, of which
`several of the contributors were members of Carlsbad. Ex. 77; compare Ex. 78 at
`710517-19, with Miles Dep. at 135:1-136:12. Alphatec’s press release regarding
`the March 2017 private placement boasted that the investments “will allow us to
`execute on our plans to expand our surgeon customer base, drive growth through
`the launch of our new products . . . [including] Battalion Lateral.” Ex. 77.
`On March 24, 2017, Alphatec hired Mr. Snider as Executive V.P., Strategic
`Marketing and Product Development. Ex. 79 at 8. According to Alphatec, upon
`assuming this position, “Mr. Snider provided direction and input, based upon
`salesforce and surgeon feedback, regarding Alphatec’s Squadron Lateral Access
`System Surgical Technique Guide, the Squadron retractor, Battalion implant sizing
`and nomenclature, the implant inserter, and set configurations.” Id. at 9.
`Alphatec Hires Mr. Miles, Announcing Company
`“Turnaround”
`On September 30, 2017, Alphatec reached an agreement to hire Mr. Miles to
`serve as Executive Chairman of the company. Ex. 80; Ex. 81. At this time Mr.
`Miles paid approximately $3 million to purchase an additional 1.3 million shares of
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPPOS TO DEFS’ MTN
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
`SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
`
`4
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 261 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24940 Page 14 of 46
`
`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 common stock and received (i) an award of 1,000,000 restricted stock
`units to vest ratably over three years, and (ii) a five-year warrant to purchase up to
`an additional 1.3 million shares of common stock. Ex. 80 at 855362; Ex. 82 at
`857030-35. Alphatec reported that, as of September 27, 2019, Mr. Miles owned
`over $5 million in Alphatec stock (a 5.3% ownership interest) and Mr. Snider
`owned more than $250,000 in Alphatec stock. Ex. 79 at 9.
`An Alphatec press release announcing the hire of Mr. Miles states: “Today’s
`announcement marks continued execution of our vision to reposition Alphatec as
`the most respected, fastest-growing company in U.S. spine.” Doc. No. 1-43, p. 2.
`Alphatec’s then-CEO stated: “I have great confidence that [Mr. Miles’] influence
`on daily operations, product development decisions, and surgeon engagement will
`accelerate the business transformation that we are driving.” Ex. 83. An October
`2017 Alphatec Slide Deck boasted: “Turnaround Positioned for Value Creation,”
`citing its “New Leadership with Extensive Spine Experience… Re-inventing the
`ATEC Brand.” Ex. 84 at 711996, -712014-15 (“Revolutionizing the Organization
`to Build the New ATEC”). Upon joining Alphatec, Mr. Miles personally reiterated
`his intention to re-create the company. E.g., Doc. No. 221-13, pp. 17757-58.
`Mr. Miles Spearheads Commercial Launch of the Accused
`Products, with Focus On Surgeon Engagement
`Alphatec commercially launched the accused products at the October 2017
`North American Spine Society Conference (“2017 NASS”)—with Mr. Miles and
`Mr. Snider taking key, leadership roles. Ex. 85 at 617746; Doc. No. 221-13,
`p. 617763; Ex. 91 at 855778-84. During 2017 NASS, Mr. Miles and other Alphatec
`personnel “met with prominent spine surgeons from around the world” to officially
`introduce the Battalion Lateral System, and “[t]he reception [Alphatec] received
`was exceptional.” Doc. No. 221-13, p. 617763.
`In addition, Alphatec described one of Mr. Miles’ main responsibilities as
`“expanding and fortifying the Company’s relationships with surgeon customers.”
`NUVASIVE’S OPPOS TO DEFS’ MTN
`5
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
`SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 261 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24941 Page 15 of 46
`
`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
`
`Doc. No. 1-43, p. 2; see also Ex. 85 at 617746; Doc. No. 221-13, p. 617756 (“In his
`first month with Alphatec, Pat has already fully immersed himself in the operational
`aspects of the organization, greatly accelerating both the quantity and quality of
`our . . . surgeon engagement efforts.”). At deposition, Mr. Miles testified that he
`had approached “a ton” of surgeons about joining Alphatec. Ex. 66 at 68:14-18;
`71:5-10; 191:18-20. Mr. Miles has also been directly involved with Alphatec’s
`surgeon recruitment and training, participating regularly in the “Visiting Surgeon
`Program,” and even hosting surgeons at his own private residence as part of the
`recruitment process; Mr. Snider also participates regularly in these surgeon
`recruiting efforts. E.g., Ex. 86; Ex. 87; Ex. 66 (Miles Dep.) at 193:7-194:18.
`Within nine months of Mr. Miles joining, Alphatec “hosted a record number of
`surgeons” as part of its visiting surgeon program. Ex. 88 at 723815.
`After Mr. Miles joined Alphatec, the company decided to purchase SafeOp, a
`neuromonitoring platform that Alphatec has acknowledged is integral to the success
`of the Accused Devices. Ex. 89 at 942951. Alphatec also acknowledged that “[Mr.
`Miles’] oversight led to this conclusion.” Id.
`B.
`Legal Standard
`“Assignor estoppel is an equitable doctrine that prevents one who has
`assigned the rights to a patent (or patent application) from later contending that
`what was assigned is a nullity.” Diamond Sci. Co. v. Ambico, Inc., 848 F.2d 1220,
`1224 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “The estoppel also operates to bar other parties in privity
`with the assignor, such as a corporation founded by the assignor.” Id. Whether the
`defendant is in privity with the assignor depends on the relationship between the
`assignor and the defendant “in light of the act of infringement.” Shamrock Techs.,
`Inc. v. Med. Sterilization, Inc., 903 F.2d 789, 793 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “The closer that
`relationship, the more the equities will favor applying the doctrine to [the
`defendant].” Id.
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPPOS TO DEFS’ MTN
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
`SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
`
`6
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 261 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.24942 Page 16 of 46
`
`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 test for privity. Rather, courts consider a variety of
`factors when determining whether the relationship between an assignor and
`defendant is close enough to create privity. Among other things, courts have looked
`at (i) the assignor’s role within the defendant corporation; (ii