Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 304-1 Filed 01/26/21 PageID.27817 Page 1 of 39
`
`
`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.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN DIEGO DIVISION
`Case No. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`NUVASIVE, INC., a Delaware
`
`corporation,
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
`
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`v.
`
`
`
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC., a
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`Delaware corporation and
`Courtroom: 4C
`ALPHATEC SPINE, INC., a
`California corporation,
`
`
`PER CHAMBERS RULES, NO ORAL
`Defendants.
`ARGUMENT UNLESS SEPARATELY
`ORDERED BY THE COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
` CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 304-1 Filed 01/26/21 PageID.27818 Page 2 of 39
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`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.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 2
`A.
`The ’156 and ’334 Patents ......................................................................... 2
`1.
`The asserted claims and indefinite terms ......................................... 2
`2.
`The common specification ............................................................... 4
`The Intrinsic Record and Claim Construction ........................................... 7
`1.
`“at a position proximate to said medial plane” (’156 patent,
`claim 1) ............................................................................................ 7
`“central region” (’334 patent, claims 1, 16) .................................... 9
`2.
`“approximately 18 mm” (’334 patent, claim 18) ........................... 11
`3.
`NuVasive’s Expert Testimony Regarding the Indefinite Terms ............. 11
`1.
`“at a position proximate to said medial plane” (’156 patent,
`claim 1) .......................................................................................... 11
`“central region” (’334 patent, claims 1, 16) .................................. 13
`2.
`“approximately 18 mm” (’334 patent, claim 18) ........................... 14
`3.
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................... 15
`A.
`Summary Judgment .................................................................................. 15
`B.
`Indefiniteness ........................................................................................... 16
`IV. THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE INDEFINITE............................................... 18
`A.
`“At A Position Proximate to Said Medial Plane” Lacks Objective
`Boundaries (All Asserted Claims of the ’156 Patent) .............................. 18
`The Claimed “Central Region” Lacks Objective Boundaries (All
`Asserted Claims of the ’334 Patent) ........................................................ 25
`“Approximately 18 mm” Lacks Objective Boundaries (Claim 18 of
`the ’334 Patent) ........................................................................................ 30
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 34
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`i
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 304-1 Filed 01/26/21 PageID.27819 Page 3 of 39
`
`
`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
`Abdou v. Alphatec Spine, Inc.,
`No. 12-CV-1804-BEN-RBB, 2014 WL 6611422 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 19,
`2014) ............................................................................................................ 23, 30, 32
`Advanced Aerospace Techs., Inc. v. United States,
`124 Fed. Cl. 282 (2015) .................................................................................... passim
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986)................................................................................................. 16
`Ave. Innovations, Inc. v. E. Mishan & Sons Inc.,
`310 F. Supp. 3d 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), aff’d, 829 F. App’x 529 (Fed.
`Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................................. 30
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................... 17
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986)................................................................................................. 16
`Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................... 18
`In re Collier,
`397 F.2d 1003 (C.C.P.A. 1968) ................................................................................. 7
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................... 2, 18
`Dominion Assets LLC v. Masimo Corp.,
`No. 14-CV-03002-BLF, 2017 WL 10592326 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20,
`2017) ................................................................................................................. passim
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Nova Chems. Corp. (Canada),
`803 F.3d 620 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................. 17
`GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. Lights of Am., Inc.,
`663 F. App’x 938 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 22
`
`ii
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 304-1 Filed 01/26/21 PageID.27820 Page 4 of 39
`
`
`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
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`341 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ......................................................................... 23, 30
`HZNP Medicines LLC v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc.,
`940 F.3d 680 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..................................................................... 17, 23, 30
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................ passim
`Matsushita Elec. Inds. Co., v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
`475 U.S. 574 (1986)................................................................................................. 16
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014).......................................................................................... passim
`In re Neurografix (’360) Patent Litig.,
`201 F. Supp. 3d 206 (D. Mass. 2016) ................................................................ 20, 32
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................. 9
`In re NuVasive, Inc.,
`841 F.3d 966 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................... 9
`In re Nuvasive, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................. 8
`Prolifiq Software Inc. v. Veeva Sys. Inc.,
`No. 13-CV-03644-SI, 2014 WL 3870016 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014) ...... 2, 17, 18, 20
`RideApp, Inc. v. Lyft, Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-07152-JST, 2019 WL 7834175 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2019) .................. 20
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp.,
`948 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................................................. 7
`Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.,
`774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ................................................................................... 7
`Other Authorities
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ..................................................................................................... 16
`
`iii
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 304-1 Filed 01/26/21 PageID.27821 Page 5 of 39
`
`
`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
`Alphatec moves for summary judgment that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent
`Nos. 8,187,334 and 8,361,156 are invalid as indefinite.
`The ’334 and ’156 patents are related and share the same specification. Both
`patents claim a spinal fusion implant having certain dimensions and radiopaque markers
`placed in certain locations in the implant. Alphatec challenges the definiteness of three
`terms. First, all asserted claims of the ’156 patent require radiopaque markers that
`extend into the sidewalls of the implant “at a position proximate to said medial plane.”
`Second, all asserted claims of the ’334 patent require radiopaque markers that are
`positioned in the “central region” which is “generally centrally” located in the implant.
`Third, one asserted claim of the ’334 patent additionally requires the implant be
`“approximately 18 mm” wide.
`As confirmed by the testimony of NuVasive’s expert, Dr. Youssef, all asserted
`claims are indefinite as a matter of law because none “inform, with reasonable certainty,
`those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014). Dr. Youssef—a surgeon who claims to be
`the most knowledgeable person remaining at NuVasive and who has submitted
`thousands of pages of testimony regarding these patents in this proceeding and before
`the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB”)—confirmed under oath that determining
`whether each of the three challenged terms is met in the context of these patents and for
`purposes of infringement is a “subjective analysis” that will vary from surgeon to
`surgeon. Ex. 121 (Youssef Dep. Tr.) at 102:3–12 (“I don’t think there is an objective
`boundary.”) (“at a position proximate to said medial plane” term); Ex. 13 (Youssef Dep.
`Tr.) at 79:7–80:20 (“So I don’t know that there is objective. It’s more subjective; right?
`. . . I think you have to be somewhat subjective in recognizing that that is truly within
`the scope of claim language . . . .”) (“central region” term); Ex. 14 (Youssef Dep. Tr.)
`
`1 All exhibits are to the Declaration of Brian J. Nisbet In Support of Defendants’ Motion
`for Summary Judgment filed concurrently herewith.
`
`1
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 304-1 Filed 01/26/21 PageID.27822 Page 6 of 39
`
`
`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
`
`at 45:3–46:3 (“I think that approximately 18 millimeters is -- has some subjectivity
`within it. No question.”) (“approximately 18 mm” term). He also could not identify
`any objective measure by which a skilled artisan could assess whether a radiopaque
`marker placed at a certain location on the implant would fall inside or outside the claim
`scope, or whether an implant is approximately 18 mm wide within the context of these
`patents. Id. Thus, it is undisputed that the challenged terms are subjective and their
`limits are not defined anywhere in the specification or prosecution history of the patents.
`Given this unequivocal testimony, NuVasive has no evidence to show that “[t]he
`claims, when read in light of the specification and the prosecution history,” have
`“objective boundaries for those of skill in the art,” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014), or that the claim scope is not subject to the
`“unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the
`invention,” Prolifiq Software Inc. v. Veeva Sys. Inc., No. 13-CV-03644-SI, 2014 WL
`3870016, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014) (quoting and finding instructive Datamize,
`LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
`All asserted claims are, therefore, invalid as indefinite.
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. The ’156 and ’334 Patents
`1.
`The asserted claims and indefinite terms
`NuVasive alleges infringement of claims 1, 5, 10, 18, and 24 of the ’156 patent
`and claims 16 and 18 of the ’334 patent. Ex. 6 (Youssef Opening Rpt.) ¶ 2. The ’156
`and ’334 patents each have one independent claim, reproduced below with the indefinite
`terms in bold. Independent claim 1 of the ’156 patent (from which all asserted claims
`depend) recites:
`1. A spinal fusion implant of non-bone construction positionable within
`an interbody space between a first vertebra and a second vertebra, said
`implant comprising:
`an upper surface including anti-migration elements to contact said first
`vertebra when said implant is positioned within the interbody space, a
`lower surface including anti-migration elements to contact said second
`
`2
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 304-1 Filed 01/26/21 PageID.27823 Page 7 of 39
`
`
`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
`
`vertebra when said implant is positioned within the interbody space, a
`distal wall, a proximal wall, a first sidewall, and a second sidewall
`generally opposite from the first sidewall, wherein said distal wall,
`proximal wall, first sidewall, and second sidewall comprise a
`radiolucent material;
`wherein said implant has a longitudinal length extending from a
`proximal end of said proximal wall to a distal end of said distal wall,
`said implant has a maximum lateral width extending from said first
`sidewall to said second sidewall along a medial plane that is generally
`perpendicular to said longitudinal length, and said longitudinal length is
`greater than said maximum lateral width;
`at least a first fusion aperture extending through said upper surface and
`lower surface and configured to permit bone growth between the first
`vertebra and the second vertebra when said implant is positioned within
`the interbody space, said first fusion aperture having: a longitudinal
`aperture length extending generally parallel to the longitudinal length of
`said implant, and a lateral aperture width extending between said first
`sidewall to said second sidewall, wherein the longitudinal aperture
`length is greater than the lateral aperture width; and
`at least first and second radiopaque markers oriented generally parallel
`to a height of the implant, wherein said first radiopaque marker extends
`into said first sidewall at a position proximate to said medial plane,
`and said second radiopaque marker extends into said second sidewall at
`a position proximate to said medial plane.
`
`Doc. No. 110-38 (’156 patent) at cl. 1.2
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’334 patent3 (from which both asserted claims 16
`and 18 depend) recites:
`1. A spinal fusion implant of non-bone construction positionable within
`an interbody space between a first vertebra and a second vertebra, said
`implant comprising:
`an upper surface including anti-migration elements to contact said first
`vertebra when said implant is positioned within the interbody space, a
`lower surface including anti-migration elements to contact said second
`vertebra when said implant is positioned within the interbody space, a
`distal wall, a proximal wall, a first sidewall and a second sidewall, said
`distal wall, proximal wall, first sidewall, and second sidewall
`comprising a radiolucent material;
`wherein said implant has a longitudinal length greater than 40 mm
`extending from a proximal end of said proximal wall to a distal end of
`said distal wall;
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis is added.
`3 As discussed below, claim 1 of the ’334 patent, along with 18 dependent claims, have
`been deemed invalid as obvious by the Federal Circuit. An additional three dependent
`claims of the ’334 patent have been deemed invalid as obvious by the PTAB.
`
`3
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 304-1 Filed 01/26/21 PageID.27824 Page 8 of 39
`
`
`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
`
`wherein a central region of said implant includes portions of the first
`and second sidewalls positioned generally centrally between the
`proximal wall and the distal wall, at least a portion of the central
`region defining a maximum lateral width of said implant extending
`from said first sidewall to said second sidewall, wherein said
`longitudinal length is at least two and half times greater than said
`maximum lateral width;
`at least a first fusion aperture extending through said upper surface and
`lower surface and configured to permit bone growth between the first
`vertebra and the second vertebra when said implant is positioned within
`the interbody space, said first fusion aperture having: a longitudinal
`aperture length extending generally parallel to the longitudinal length of
`said implant, and a lateral aperture width extending between said first
`sidewall to said second sidewall, wherein the longitudinal aperture
`length is greater than the lateral aperture width; and
`at least three radiopaque markers; wherein a first of the at least three
`radiopaque markers is at least partially positioned in said distal wall, a
`second of said at least three radiopaque markers is at least partially
`positioned in said proximal wall, and a third of said at least three
`radiopaque markers is at least partially positioned in said central
`region.
`
`Doc. No. 110-48 (’334 patent) at cl. 1. Dependent claim 16 of the ’334 patent also
`includes the indefinite “central region” term, further requiring “a fourth radiopaque
`marker . . . positioned in said central region at a position spaced apart from said third
`radiopaque marker.” Id. at cl. 16. Dependent claim 18 of the ’334 patent includes an
`additional indefinite term, which is reproduced below with the indefinite term in bold:
`18. The spinal fusion implant of claim 1, wherein said maximum lateral
`width of said implant is approximately 18 mm.
`
`Id. at cl. 18.
`Apart from the indefinite dimensional term of claim 18 of the ’334 patent, all the
`indefinite terms pertain to where to position claimed radiopaque markers in the implant.
`2.
`The common specification
`The ’156 and ’334 patents are related and share a specification that was not filed
`until March 2005, but NuVasive is claiming priority to a provisional application filed
`in March 2004. See Doc. No. 110-38 at 1:1–15; Doc No. 110-48 at 1:1–13. The patents
`are titled “Systems and Methods for Spinal Fusion.” Id.4 Both patents were
`
`4 Citations to the common specification are to the earlier filed ’334 patent.
`
`4
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 304-1 Filed 01/26/21 PageID.27825 Page 9 of 39
`
`
`expeditiously allowed with no substantive rejections. Ex. 2 (’156 Patent Prosecution
`History) at NUVA_ATE00022976–978 (allowed roughly eight months after filing); Ex.
`3 (’334 Patent Prosecution History) at ATEC_LLIF000051702–703 (allowed roughly
`one year after filing).
`The patents relate to “a system and method for spinal fusion comprising a spinal
`fusion implant of non-bone construction . . . to introduce the spinal fusion implant into
`any of a variety of spinal target sites.” Doc. No. 110-48 at 2 (Abstract). The implants
`are made of radiolucent material and have four walls, shown below—a “distal wall”
`(the implant’s leading end farthest from the surgeon during insertion), a “proximal wall”
`(the implant’s trailing end closest to the surgeon during insertion), and two “sidewalls”:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 2 (annotated).
`As the specification explains, “Figure 2 is a perspective view of a lumbar fusion
`implant,” (id. at 3:36), which may be “introduc[ed] into the disc space via a lateral
`(trans-psoas) approach to the spine” or “in a variety of approaches, such as posterior,
`anterior, antero-lateral, and postero-lateral,” (id. at 5:29–33), and is made from a
`radiolucent material, such as PEEK (poly-ether-ether-ketone). Id. at 5:10–15. It
`“includes anti-migration features designed to increase friction between spinal fusion
`implant 10 and adjacent contacting surfaces of vertebral bodies”, (id. at 6:21–25), such
`as ridges 6 and spike elements 7–9. Id. at 6:26–35; Figs. 2–3.
`The provisional application to which NuVasive claims priority does not disclose
`
`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
`
`5
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 304-1 Filed 01/26/21 PageID.27826 Page 10 of
`
`39
`
`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,” their purpose, or where to position them. Nor does it describe
`the contours of a medial plane or central region of the implant, or any purpose for these
`features. It only illustrates anti-migration spike elements in the proximal wall, distal
`wall, and middle of the sidewalls, and, in a single sentence, notes these anti-migration
`spike elements “may be manufactured from any of a variety of suitable materials,
`including but not limited to a metal, ceramic, and/or polymer material, preferably
`having radiopaque characteristics.” Ex. 1 (Provisional Application) at 14:4–14.
`The issued specification adds extensive new matter disclosing the use of anti-
`migration spike elements as “markers”—i.e., that they are “observable under X-ray and
`fluoroscopy[,] such that a surgeon may track the progress of the implant 10 during
`implantation and/or the placement of the implant 10 after implantation.” Doc. No. 110-
`48 at 6:49–56; see also id. at Figs. 18–23, 2:53–3:11, 4:40–53, 6:49–56, 9:65–10:9,
`11:48–12:11 (new matter added to the specification). But even with these additional
`disclosures, the specification does not disclose where to place a radiopaque marker such
`that it is “at a position proximal to said medial plane” or in the “central region”, beyond
`being directly in the middle of the implant. It provides no objective boundaries for these
`terms as they relate to marker positioning.
`The specification purports to improve on the prior art because the disclosed
`implants are made from “any suitable non-bone composition,” such as plastic, metal,
`ceramic, or composites. Id. at 1:66–2:11. According to the specification, the prior art
`primarily used autologous or allograft bone grafts (i.e., bone harvested from the patient
`or others), which had “drawbacks” the claimed invention “overcomes” with “non-bone
`construction.” Id. at 1:37–2:2. Neither the provisional application nor the specification
`identifies the implant’s dimensions or positioning of radiopaque markers as novel. In
`fact, the specification emphasizes the “implant of the present invention may be provided
`in any number of suitable shapes and sizes depending upon the particular surgical
`procedure or need,” (id. at 2:12–14), “dimensioned for use in the cervical and/or lumbar
`spine without departing from the scope of the present invention,” (id. at 2:14–17), and
`
`6
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 304-1 Filed 01/26/21 PageID.27827 Page 11 of
`
`39
`
`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
`
`“provided with any number of features for enhancing the visualization of the implant
`during and/or after implantation into a spinal target site,” including “spike elements
`used for anti-migration” which may “take any of a variety of suitable shapes.” Id. at
`2:53–3:10.
`B.
`The Intrinsic Record and Claim Construction
`NuVasive has not proposed any specific construction for the indefinite terms. As
`discussed below, the parties agreed to the construction of one related term, and the
`parties, the Federal Circuit, and the PTAB previously addressed the invalidity of claims
`including these terms but did not otherwise address their scope.5
`1.
`“at a position proximate to said medial plane” (’156 patent,
`claim 1)
`
`As discussed above, claim 1 of the ’156 patent requires first and second
`radiopaque markers extending into each sidewall “at a position proximate to said medial
`plane.” Doc. No. 110-38 at cl. 1. The parties agreed that a separate, but related claim
`term, “medial plane that is generally perpendicular to said longitudinal length,” means
`a “plane that is generally perpendicular to and intersects with said longitudinal length
`at the middle or midline of the longitudinal length.” Doc. No. 133-2 at 21–23. The
`parties’ agreed-upon construction identifies where the “medial plane” is located (in the
`middle of the implant), but it does not address the objective boundaries of the term “at
`a position proximate to said medial plane.”
`In considering a previous decision by the PTAB invalidating claim 1 of the ’156
`patent, the Federal Circuit stated that it understood “proximate to said medial plane” to
`
`
`5 The PTAB may not cancel claims for indefiniteness in an inter partes review (“IPR”)
`proceeding. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., 948 F.3d
`1342, 1350–51 (Fed. Cir. 2020). But claims may be found both obvious and indefinite.
`Id. at 1355 (citing Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 453–55 (Fed.
`Cir. 1985) (upholding decision that claim was invalid for both indefiniteness and
`obviousness) and In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 1004–06 (C.C.P.A. 1968) (rejecting
`claim on grounds of indefiniteness and obviousness)).
`
`7
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 304-1 Filed 01/26/21 PageID.27828 Page 12 of
`
`39
`
`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
`
`mean “near the middle of the implant,”6 but did not determine the objective boundaries
`of the term. In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In that appeal,
`the Federal Circuit addressed whether the PTAB had sufficiently articulated its
`reasoning in its Final Written Decision for why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`(“POSA”) would have been motivated to combine the radiopaque markers shown in the
`middle of one prior art implant (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0028249
`(“Baccelli”)) with implants disclosed in other prior art references to meet the
`dimensional limitations of the claims. In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1382–85. However,
`there was no dispute that Baccelli disclosed radiopaque markers in the middle of the
`implant, which is included within “near the middle of the implant.” See id. The Federal
`Circuit, therefore, provided some meaning to the indefinite term—near the middle of
`the implant—but did not determine the objective boundaries of that term.7 Id. at 1384.
`In December 2018, Alphatec filed a petition for IPR of the asserted claims of the
`’156 patent, relying on the same Baccelli reference disclosing radiopaque markers in
`the middle of the implant to meet the requirement of having radiopaque markers
`extending into the sidewalls “at a position proximate to said medial plane.” Doc. No.
`136-1, Ex. A (IPR2019-00362, Petition) at 16, 64–67. Consistent with the Federal
`Circuit’s understanding, the PTAB explained that “‘proximate’ means ‘near’ and that
`the phrase ‘proximate to said medial plane’ means near or approximately at the midpoint
`of the longitudinal length consistent with our understanding of ‘longitudinal length.’”
`Doc. No. 288-1 (IPR2019-00362, Paper 57 [Final Written Decision]) at 20. But because
`Baccelli disclosed radiopaque markers in the middle of the sidewalls, the PTAB did not
`determine the objective boundaries of the term. See Id. (PTAB noting “Patent Owner
`
`6 Alphatec and its expert, Dr. Barton Sachs, applied this understanding of the Federal
`Circuit to the indefiniteness analysis. See Ex. 4 (Sachs Opening Rpt.) ¶ 334.
`7 The Federal Circuit ultimately vacated the prior judgment because it could not
`“‘reasonably discern’ the PTAB’s reasoning as to motivation to combine” and thus
`“judicial review cannot ‘meaningfully [be] achieved.’” In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d at
`1384–85. The court “remanded for additional PTAB findings and explanations.” Id.
`at 1385. But because the parties to that IPR settled, there were no further proceedings
`before the PTAB.
`
`8
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 304-1 Filed 01/26/21 PageID.27829 Page 13 of
`
`39
`
`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
`
`provides no arguments related to the term ‘proximate’ and our construction.”); see
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (discussing that the PTAB and courts “need only construe terms ‘that
`are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”).8
`Accordingly, no tribunal has determined the scope of the term “at a position
`proximate to said medial plane” as used in claim 1 of the ’156 patent (and its dependent
`claims) or whether that term is indefinite. There is also nothing in the claims,
`specification, or prosecution history to provide a POSA any objective boundaries for
`placing a radiopaque marker “at a position proximate to said medial plane” or “near the
`middle of the implant.” See Doc No. 110-38; Ex. 2.
`2.
`“central region” (’334 patent, claims 1, 16)
`The PTAB invalidated claims 1–5, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 19–28 of the ’334 patent
`as obvious in a previous IPR filed by a third party, as affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
`In re NuVasive, Inc., 841 F.3d 966, 967–68, 975 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The PTAB
`invalidated claims 6–9 of the ’334 patent as obvious in the IPR proceedings filed by
`Alphatec. Doc. No. 288-2 (IPR2019-00361, Paper 59 [Final Written Decision]) at 3–
`4. In both IPR proceedings, the petitioners relied on prior art (Baccelli and U.S. Patent
`Application Publication No. 2002/0165550 (“Frey”)) that disclose radiopaque markers
`in the middle of the implant as disclosing the claimed radiopaque markers in the “central
`region” of the implant. See In re NuVasive, 841 F.3d at 970; Doc. No. 136-1 Ex. B
`(IPR2019-00361, Petition) at 117–118 (“Frey”), 154 (“Baccelli”). Accordingly, the
`indefinite “central region” terms were not construed because their scope was not
`relevant to the dispute. See Doc. No. 288-2 at 20; see also Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.
`
`8 Ultimately, the PTAB concluded that Baccelli’s radiopaque markers in the mi