Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 300 Filed 01/08/21 PageID.26904 Page 1 of 29
`
`
`
`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
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 S. Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
`Telephone: (213) 615-1700
`Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
`
`GEORGE C. LOMBARDI (pro hac vice)
`glombardi@winston.com
`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
`800 Capitol Street, Suite 2400
`Houston, TX 77002-2529
`Telephone: (713) 651-2600
`Facsimile: (713) 651-2700
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC. AND ALPHATEC SPINE, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN DIEGO DIVISION
`Case No. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`NUVASIVE, INC., a Delaware
`
`corporation,
`[Assigned to Courtroom 4C – Honorable
`
`Cathy Ann Bencivengo]
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
`v.
`MOTION TO STRIKE INVALIDITY
`
`CONTENTIONS
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC., a
`
`Delaware corporation and
`
`ALPHATEC SPINE, INC., a
`PER CHAMBERS RULES, NO ORAL
`California corporation,
`ARGUMENT UNLESS SEPARATELY
`
`ORDERED BY THE COURT
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 300 Filed 01/08/21 PageID.26905 Page 2 of 29
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... 1
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................................... 4
`A. Overview of Alphatec’s on-sale bar and public-use defenses. ................ 4
`B. Alphatec’s on-sale bar and public-use invalidity contentions. ................ 6
`C. NuVasive withheld the information that forms the basis of its
`motion until discovery closed............................................................ 9
`D. Alphatec’s inter partes review proceedings and request for stay. ......... 13
`III. LEGAL STANDARD............................................................................. 15
`IV. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................ 16
`A. Alphatec is not estopped from raising on-sale and public-use
`defenses. ...................................................................................... 16
`1.
`Alphatec could not have raised these defenses in IPR. ............... 16
`2.
`Alphatec is not estopped from relying on NuVasive’s
`implants (i.e., devices) based on the “Wayback Machine”
`document. ........................................................................... 18
`B. Alphatec is not estopped from challenging the patents’ priority
`dates. ........................................................................................... 21
`V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 300 Filed 01/08/21 PageID.26906 Page 3 of 29
`
`
`
`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
`Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 13-CV-01015-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 2526231 (E.D. Tex. May 11,
`2017) ................................................................................................... 19, 21
`Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc.,
`No. 17-CV-04738-WHO, 2020 WL 109063 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2020)................. 20
`Depomed, Inc. v. Purdue Pharma L.P.,
`No. 13-CV-571-MLC, 2016 WL 8677317 (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2016) ...................... 17
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................5, 22
`GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC,
`908 F.3d 690 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................... 20
`Gree, Inc. v. Supercell Oy,
`No. 19-CV-00071-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 4999689 (E.D. Tex. July 9,
`2020) ................................................................................................... 17, 18
`Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`139 S.Ct. 628 (2019) ................................................................................... 21
`Medline Indus., Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc.,
`No. 17-CV-7216, 2020 WL 5512132 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 14, 2020)........... 4, 15, 17, 19
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................... 22
`Odyssey Wireless, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-01735-H-RBB, 2016 WL 7634450 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13,
`2016) .......................................................................................................... 5
`Oil-Dri Corp. of Am. v Nestlé Purina Petcare Co.,
`No. 15-CV-1067, 2019 WL 861394 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2019) .................18, 19, 20
`Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Co.,
`No. 14-CV-00492-WDQ, 2014 WL 12934576 (D. Md. Nov. 6, 2014) 13, 14, 15, 17
`
`ii
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 300 Filed 01/08/21 PageID.26907 Page 4 of 29
`
`
`
`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
`
`Pavo Sols. LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co., Inc.,
`No. 14-CV-01352-JLS-KES, 2020 WL 1049911 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18,
`2020) ................................................................................................... 16, 19
`Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-4475-JRT-TNL, 2019 WL 3824255 (D. Minn. Aug. 15,
`2019) ........................................................................................................ 19
`Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 1:13-CV-0633-DEP, 2014 WL 201965 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2014) .......... 15, 17
`SPEX Techs. Inc v. Kingston Tech. Corp.,
`No. 16-CV-01790-JVS-AGRx, 2020 WL 4342254 (C.D. Cal. June 16,
`2020) ........................................................................................................ 16
`Star Envirotech, Inc. v. Redline Detection, LLC,
`No. 12-CV-01861, 2015 WL 4744394 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) ....................... 20
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`814 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2016), overruled on other grounds by Aqua
`Prod., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................. 1, 16, 17
`Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc.,
`No. 17-CV-00220-MLH-KSx, 2020 WL 136591 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13,
`2020) .................................................................................................. passim
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Schrader Int’l, Inc.,
`432 F. Supp. 3d 448 (D. Del. 2020) .....................................................18, 19, 20
`Zitovault, LLC v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp.,
`No. 16-CV-0962-M, 2018 WL 2971178 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 4, 2018) .................... 21
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...........................................................................................1, 15
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................ passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)........................................................................................1, 17
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................ 4, 19, 21, 22
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...........................................................................................1, 17
`
`iii
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 300 Filed 01/08/21 PageID.26908 Page 5 of 29
`
`
`
`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
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...........................................................................................1, 15
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...........................................................................................1, 15
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) .................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) ................................................................................ passim
`Other Authorities
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) ........................................................................................ 12
`S.D. Cal. Patent L.R. 3.2(a) ............................................................................ 2, 9
`S.D. Cal. Patent L.R. 3.3 .................................................................................... 9
`
`iv
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 300 Filed 01/08/21 PageID.26909 Page 6 of 29
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`NuVasive’s motion is unprecedented and fails on the merits. NuVasive asks this
`Court to do what none of its cited cases have done (and none that Alphatec has found):
`hold that statutory estoppel bars inter partes review (“IPR”) petitioners from raising on-
`sale and public-use bars in district court proceedings. Courts across the country have
`held the opposite. According to the Federal Circuit, “[i]nter partes review cannot
`replace the district court in all instances, for example, when claims are challenged in
`district court as invalid based on the on-sale bar, for claiming patent ineligible subject
`matter, or on grounds of indefiniteness. See 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (limiting inter partes
`review to grounds ‘that could be raised under section 102 [anticipation] or 103
`[obviousness] and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed
`publications’).” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309, 1316 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (citations to statute and brackets in original), overruled on other grounds by
`Aqua Prod., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017).1 In fact, NuVasive’s own
`cases support this proposition: “‘[I]n IPR proceedings, the PTAB will only consider
`patents or printed publications as grounds for invalidity due to anticipation or
`obviousness.’ Thus, § 102 and § 103 invalidity grounds that are based on non-
`patent/nonprinted publication references, such as ‘known or used by others’ references
`under pre-AIA § 102(a) or ‘in public use or on sale’ references under pre-AIA § 102(a),
`cannot be raised in IPR proceedings.” Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc., No. 17-CV-
`00220-MLH-KSx, 2020 WL 136591, at *23 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2020) (citation omitted).
`As these cases acknowledge, the applicable statute states that estoppel does not
`apply to the on-sale or public-use bars. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) (preclusion from raising
`only those grounds petitioner could have raised during IPR). “[A]ny grounds based on
`§§ 101 and 112 or any grounds based on public use, prior sale, or prior invention under
`§§ 102 and 103 remain intact for assertion in concurrent or subsequent district court
`
`
`1 Aqua Prod. overruled Synopsys for placing the burden of patentability of amended
`claims on the patentee.
`
`1
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 300 Filed 01/08/21 PageID.26910 Page 7 of 29
`
`
`
`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
`
`litigation or USITC proceedings.” The Sedona Conference, Commentary on Patent
`Litigation Best Practices: Parallel USPTO Proceedings Chapter (“Stage One”), 35
`(Oct. 2016). 2
`NuVasive’s motion also mischaracterizes Alphatec’s on-sale and public-use
`defenses. To be sure, Alphatec’s defenses are based on actual NuVasive implants being
`used and sold in the United States, as established by, among other things, NuVasive’s
`own internal documents. They are not—and never were—based on “a patent or printed
`publication invalidity ground” using “labels” to “cloak its prior art” and “skirt estoppel.”
`Vaporstream, 2020 WL 136591, at *23 (citations omitted). They could not be:
`NuVasive’s entire argument to this effect is based on a single purported printed
`publication that NuVasive retrieved from the archives of its own website
`(nuvasive.com) but withheld from discovery in this case for well over two years until
`November 6, 2020—the same day fact discovery closed, less than one week before
`Alphatec’s final invalidity contentions were due, and just two weeks before Alphatec’s
`opening expert reports were due.
`NuVasive’s untimely disclosure was not only prejudicial; it was improper.
`Alphatec was entitled to this information—the true dates of first sale of NuVasive’s
`embodying implants and accompanying documents—long ago, beginning with
`NuVasive’s initial infringement contentions. Patent L.R. 3.2(a) (patentee “must”
`produce “advertisements” and “marketing materials” “sufficient to evidence each …
`sale of or offer to sell, the claimed invention prior to the date of application for the
`patent in suit”).3 But not once in any of NuVasive’s four infringement contentions
`served between June 29, 2018, and November 6, 2020, their accompanying document
`productions, or any discovery responses, did NuVasive admit that it sold or created
`publicly available material depicting its embodying products before “the date of
`application” of the implant patents.
`
`at
`2 Available
`https://www.lw.com/thoughtLeadership/commentary-on-patent-
`litigation-best-practices.
`3 Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis is added.
`2
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 300 Filed 01/08/21 PageID.26911 Page 8 of 29
`
`
`
`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
`
`Indeed, because of NuVasive’s conduct, Alphatec had no reason to believe such
`printed marketing or advertising existed before October 2004, the date NuVasive has
`maintained for over two years of litigation (and still maintains in formal discovery
`responses) is the date of first sale, which notably is after the patent application dates.
`Critically, despite Alphatec’s repeated discovery requests (and deficiency letters),
`NuVasive obscured the true dates of first sale, even blocking discovery on this subject
`in depositions by instructing corporate witnesses to claim NuVasive has no knowledge
`of these dates, until NuVasive believed these dates and its marketing documents suited
`its estoppel strategy and the present motion. In fact, NuVasive clearly and
`unequivocally admitted for the first time that “NuVasive’s embodying products were
`disclosed/used before March 29, 2004” in an October 26, 2020, email from NuVasive’s
`counsel, arguing that internal NuVasive documents show that a surgery conducted in
`December 2003, in fact, used NuVasive’s embodying implant and should be a basis for
`estoppel. Until that point—well after Alphatec filed its IPR petitions—NuVasive
`disputed that it sold or publicly disclosed embodying products before October 2004.
`Alphatec had no reason to know before the October 26, 2020 admission that—directly
`contrary to NuVasive’s discovery position—NuVasive had actually created publicly
`available printed publications describing the embodying products before the October
`2004 date of first sale NuVasive advanced. NuVasive blocked discovery on this issue
`until nearly two years after Alphatec filed its IPRs, and now seeks to create a basis to
`benefit from that improper conduct.
`Alphatec’s priority date, on-sale bar, and public-use challenges rely on the
`NuVasive implants themselves, dozens of NuVasive internal, confidential documents
`that corroborate Alphatec’s priority date challenge, establish those implants were used
`in surgeries before March 29, 2004, and prove that NuVasive sold tens of thousands of
`dollars-worth of them before March 29, 2004, as well as NuVasive’s October 26, 2020
`and November 6, 2020 clear and unequivocal admissions that its embodying implants
`were sold and publicly used as early as December 2003. Ҥ 315(e)(2) does not estop an
`
`3
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 300 Filed 01/08/21 PageID.26912 Page 9 of 29
`
`
`
`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
`
`II.
`
`IPR petitioner’s use in litigation of an invalidity theory that relies upon a product as a
`prior art reference because a prior art product cannot be used as a reference to challenge
`the validity of a patent claim in an IPR.” Medline Indus., Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No.
`17-CV-7216, 2020 WL 5512132, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 14, 2020).
`For these reasons, the Court should deny NuVasive’s motion to strike.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A. Overview of Alphatec’s on-sale bar and public-use defenses.
`The implant patents4 are invalid because NuVasive implants embodying the
`claimed inventions were sold and used in the United States before March 29, 2004,
`more than one year before their earliest effective priority date. See 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`In late 2003, NuVasive launched an implant called the Cement Restrictor XL.
`See Ex. 2 (NUVA_ATEC0338292–294, October 2003 FDA Letter).5 It is identical to,
`and was later rebranded as, the CoRoent XL (sold today), and it admittedly embodied
`the inventions claimed in the implant patents. See Ex. 18 (10-16-2020 NuVasive
`Interrogatory Responses) at 30–31 (identifying product codes 6908840 and 6912845 as
`embodying products); Ex. 3 (NUVA_ATEC0340873, Product Code List) (identifying
`product codes 6908840 and 6912845 as Cement Restrictor implants). It is now
`undisputed that these embodying implants were sold and used in the United States
`before March 29, 2004. For example, NuVasive’s counsel recently confirmed that one
`NuVasive internal document, entitled “Post-Launch MaXcess XLIF-90 Surgeries,”
`details various XLIF surgical procedures using embodying implants as early as
`December 24, 2003, at a hospital in Oregon. Ex. 1 (NUVA_ATEC0115139–153) at 1
`(row 13); see Ex. 20 (10-26-2020 P. Tripodi Email) at 2. Further, NuVasive’s financial
`records confirm over $150,000 in sales of embodying implants before March 29, 2004.
`See Ex. 6 (NUVA_ATEC0341176–177, 2004 Sales Inventory Analysis Spreadsheet) at
`
`
`4 U.S. Patent Nos. 8,187,334 (the “’334 patent”) and 8,361,156 (the “’156 patent”)
`(collectively, the “implant patents”).
`5 Ex. __refers to exhibits to the concurrently filed declaration of Brian J. Nisbet.
`4
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 300 Filed 01/08/21 PageID.26913 Page 10 of 29
`
`
`
`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
`
`4 of 19 (MaXcess-PEEK CRX); Ex. 7 (NUVA_ATEC0341182–183, 2004 Sales
`Inventory Analysis spreadsheet) at 4 of 19 (MaXcess-PEEK CRX); Ex. 8
`(NUVA_ATEC0341357–358, CoRoent Sales Spreadsheet) at “SALES” (CoRoent –
`XL); see also Ex. 5 (NUVA_ATEC0341168, Spreadsheet Showing CoRoent XL
`“Actual Sales”); Ex. 4 (NUVA_ATEC0341150–153, Spreadsheet Showing “PEEK
`CR-X” Sales) at NUVA_ATEC0341153.
`Because it is now undisputed that embodying products were sold and used in the
`United States more than one year before March 29, 2005, the only attack NuVasive can
`mount against Alphatec’s defenses is to move the priority date to which the implant
`patents are entitled back to March 29, 2004, the date on which NuVasive filed a
`provisional application. Indeed, contrary to NuVasive’s assertion that “in order to even
`assert the on-sale defense, Alphatec must first prove that the implant patents are not
`entitled to the priority (i.e., filing) date of the original provisional application,” Doc.
`No. 296-1 at 7, it is well-established law that NuVasive “bears the burden of coming
`forward with evidence to prove ‘entitlement to claim priority to an earlier filing date.’”
`Odyssey Wireless, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-CV-01735-H-RBB, 2016 WL 7634450, at
`*5 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2016) (citing PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d
`1299, 1305–06 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). And NuVasive is not entitled to any presumption that
`the filing date of the provisional application is the earliest effective filing date. Dynamic
`Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Thus,
`because the PTO does not examine priority claims unless necessary, the Board has no
`basis to presume that a reference patent is necessarily entitled to the filing date of its
`provisional application.”). NuVasive cannot meet its burden because the provisional
`application does not provide written description support for two critical aspects of the
`claimed inventions.
`First, the implant patents claim implants that have radiopaque markers used to
`visualize the location of the implant in the spine during or after surgery. The provisional
`application does not disclose radiopaque markers, nor does it describe implants having
`
`5
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 300 Filed 01/08/21 PageID.26914 Page 11 of 29
`
`
`
`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
`
`radiopaque markers used to visualize the location of the implant in the spine during or
`after surgery. See Ex. 13 (11-12-2020 Final Invalidity Contentions) at 2–4, 6–8.6
`Instead, radiopaque markers are first disclosed in the non-provisional application filed
`on March 29, 2005. See id. at 3, 4, 7, 8. This is corroborated by contemporaneous
`evidence produced by NuVasive. See, e.g., id. at 3 (citing NUVA_ATEC0251803–38,
`NuVasive’s September 2004 letter responding to FDA concerns regarding inadequate
`description of certain titanium parts in implant and explaining differences between “a
`titanium marker” and “a titanium spike”).
`Second, the implant patents claim implants that have certain and very specific
`length and width dimensions, which are not disclosed in the provisional application. In
`fact, the provisional application describes implants having the exact opposite
`dimensions as those claimed in the implant patents. See id. at 4–6, 8–10. Again, the
`non-provisional application filed on March 29, 2005, changed the dimensions to match
`the implants claimed in the implant patents. See id. at 5–6, 9–10.
`B. Alphatec’s on-sale bar and public-use invalidity contentions.
`In October and December 2018, respectively, Alphatec served preliminary
`invalidity contentions for the ’334 patent and amended invalidity contentions for the
`’156 patent. See Ex. 9 (10-30-2018 Preliminary Invalidity Contentions); Ex. 10 (12-7-
`2018 Amended Invalidity Contentions). In both, Alphatec disclosed its on-sale and
`public-use defenses (along with obviousness and other validity challenges) to the
`implant patents. Ex. 9 at 8–11; Ex. 10 at 13–18. Alphatec also disclosed at that time
`
`
`6 NuVasive improperly redacted portions of Alphatec’s November 12, 2020 final
`invalidity contentions without seeking a sealing order. See Doc. No. 296-6 at 5, 9, 13–
`14. NuVasive has thus waived the confidentiality of the redacted information. See Doc.
`No. 247 at 2 (“In the Ninth Circuit there is a strong presumption in favor of access to
`court records and a party must show compelling reasons to file materials under seal as
`part of a non-discovery motion, even if they were produced subject to a discovery
`protective order … [o]nce the protected discovery documents are made part of a
`dispositive motion, ‘they lose their status of being raw fruits of discovery’ and no longer
`enjoy protected status without some overriding interests in favor of keeping the material
`sealed.” (emphasis in original)). Alphatec attaches a full and unredacted version of its
`November 12, 2020 final invalidity contentions, which are the contentions NuVasive
`seeks to strike.
`
`6
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 300 Filed 01/08/21 PageID.26915 Page 12 of 29
`
`
`
`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
`
`that it would challenge the priority date of the implant patents. Ex. 9 at 4–5; Ex. 10 at
`7. In January 2019, through supplemental and amended invalidity contentions,
`Alphatec affirmed its priority date, on-sale bar, and public-use challenges to the implant
`patents. Ex. 11 (1-15-2019 Supplemental Invalidity Contentions) at 7, 13–18; Ex. 12
`(1-16-2019 Amended Invalidity Contentions) at 7, 15–19. And on August 21, 2020,
`October 15, 2020, and November 12, 2020, respectively, the parties submitted the Joint
`Discovery Plan, and Alphatec served updated and final invalidity contentions for the
`implant patents, reiterating its priority date, on-sale bar, and public-use challenges.
`Doc. No. 292 at 15; Doc. No. 296-5 (10-15-2020 Updated Preliminary Contentions) at
`5–15; Ex. 13 at 2–13.
`NuVasive filed this motion over two years after Alphatec first disclosed the
`defenses NuVasive now seeks to strike, see Ex. 9 at 8–11, and at least three months
`after Alphatec confirmed it would continue to raise these defenses and spend
`considerable resources developing them during this phase of the case, see Doc. No. 292
`at 15. NuVasive acknowledges that Alphatec disclosed its on-sale and public-use
`challenges two years ago. Doc. No. 296-1 at 11. But NuVasive repeatedly argues that
`in these early contentions “Alphatec admitted that it was aware of ‘publicly available
`materials’ (i.e., printed publications) relating to sales and/or public use of NuVasive
`devices that could be used in a ‘prior art’ attack with respect to both the ’334 and ’156
`patents ‘under one or more sections of 35 U.S.C. § 102.’” Doc. No. 296-1 at 10
`(emphasis in original). This is false.
`
`NuVasive bases this repeated and false assertion—an assertion that forms the
`foundation of its motion (see id. at 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12)—on Alphatec’s December 2018
`Section IV.C. “On-Sale Bar and Prior Public Use” overview:
`The asserted claims are subject to the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`and/or 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (AIA). For at least the reasons explained
`above, Plaintiff has not met its burden to show that it is entitled to any
`priority date earlier than the filing date of each of the asserted patents.
`Each of the devices discussed below were sold by Plaintiff NuVasive, Inc.
`and are subject to the on-sale bar for the reasons described below. Each of
`these instruments (and publicly available materials describing them) may
`7
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 300 Filed 01/08/21 PageID.26916 Page 13 of 29
`
`
`
`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
`
`also qualify as prior art under one or more sections of 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`Ex. 10 at 13; see Doc. No. 291-1 at 9–10. NuVasive fails to inform this Court that
`Alphatec’s preliminary, generic statement was included in a section that covered
`NuVasive’s asserted instrument and implant patents. Ex. 10 at 13–18. Indeed, where
`Alphatec’s prior invalidity contentions specifically addressed the on-sale bar and public
`use of the implants, Alphatec cited only publicly available documents pertaining to non-
`NuVasive commercial prior art implants (e.g., Brantigan and Frey implants not
`affiliated with NuVasive). Ex. 10 at 17–18. To reduce the issues for trial, and
`immediately after NuVasive admitted to public use and sale of its embodying implants
`before March 29, 2004, Alphatec withdrew its 102(b) on-sale and public-use invalidity
`defenses related to the non-NuVasive implants in its November 12, 2020 final invalidity
`contentions. See Ex. 13 at 10–13.
`As for Alphatec’s contentions based on the sale and use of commercially
`available NuVasive implants, Alphatec never referenced any publicly available
`documents in its December 2018 contentions that described NuVasive’s implants before
`March 29, 2004 because it was not aware of any at the time (and NuVasive certainly
`had not disclosed or even suggested the existence of any). Id. at 16–17. NuVasive’s
`repeated assertions to the contrary are demonstrably false. Instead, Alphatec’s early
`contentions expressly relied on NuVasive’s discovery responses (id. at 16–17), which,
`as discussed below, NuVasive has now admitted, two years later, in fact provided
`Alphatec incorrect dates of first sale of the NuVasive embodying implants.
`NuVasive also criticizes Alphatec’s final invalidity contentions, served almost
`immediately after NuVasive first admitted that its embodying implants were sold and
`used before March 29, 2004. Specifically, NuVasive suggests these contentions were
`somehow deficient because Alphatec did not provide charts for its invalidity arguments.
`Doc. No. 296-1 at 8, 16–17. Alphatec’s narrative, however, provided detailed
`explanation and evidence to support its on-sale and public-use-bar defenses. Ex. 13 at
`10–13. Moreover, the Local Rules do not appear to require charts for the on-sale-bar
`
`8
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 300 Filed 01/08/21 PageID.26917 Page 14 of 29
`
`
`
`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
`
`or public-use-bar defenses, as opposed to anticipation and obviousness—especially
`where NuVasive expressly admitted twice in the two weeks prior that the products are
`embodying and were sold and used before March 29, 2004. See Patent L.R. 3.3; Ex. 20
`(10-26-2020 P. Tripodi Email and 11-6-2020 C. Dashe Email) at 1, 3–4. Thus, this was
`no longer a disputed issue requiring charts at the time Alphatec served its final
`contentions.
`NuVasive also incorrectly states that Alphatec “doubled down” on its reliance on
`the “Wayback Machine” document in its final contentions. Doc. No. 296-1 at 12. This
`cannot possibly be true because NuVasive disclosed its existence to Alphatec less than
`one week before Alphatec served its final contentions. See Ex. 20 (11-6-2020 C. Dashe
`Email) at 1. As in its early contentions, Alphatec relies on actual sales and public uses
`of NuVasive’s embodying implants to support those defenses as primarily established
`through NuVasive’s internal documents. See Ex. 13 at 10–13. Alphatec cited the
`“Wayback Machine” document in its contentions because NuVasive attached it to the
`correspondence admitting that embodying products had been used and sold before
`March 29, 2004. See, e.g., Doc. 297-7 at 22; Ex. 20 at 1.
`As discussed below, NuVasive’s suggestion that Alphatec’s on-sale and public-
`use invalidity contentions are based on the “Wayback Machine” document, and other
`“unknown … publicly available material” regarding sale and use of NuVasive’s
`embodying implants before March 29, 2004, Doc. No. 296-1 at 13, is both wrong and
`ignores NuVasive’s efforts to block such discovery.
`C. NuVasive withheld the information that forms the basis of its motion
`until discovery closed.
`The Patent Local Rules required NuVasive to produce “advertisements” and
`“marketing materials” showing “each” “sale of or offer to sell, the claimed invention”
`before the patent filing dates with its infringement contentions. Patent L.R. 3.2(a).
`Despite serving f