Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 304-15 Filed 01/26/21 PageID.28764 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`TO THE DECLARATION OF
`BRIAN J. NISBET IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 304-15 Filed 01/26/21 PageID.28765 Page 2 of 6
`
`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
`
`Attorneys of record continued on next page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN DIEGO DIVISION
`
`
`
`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, INC., a Delaware
`corporation
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation and
`ALPHATEC SPINE, INC., a
`California corporation,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`[Assigned to Courtroom 4C – Honorable
`Cathy Ann Bencivengo]
`
`[Magistrate: Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin]
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`REBUTTAL REPORT OF BARTON L.
`SACHS, M.D., M.B.A., F.A.C.P.E.,
`F.A.C.H.E.
`
`
`Complaint Filed: February 13, 2018
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT
`Ex 002
`Barton Sachs
`01/11/2021
`
`
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF BARTON L. SACHS, M.D., M.B.A.,
`F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E.
`
`
`EXHIBIT 5 - PAGE 892
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 304-15 Filed 01/26/21 PageID.28766 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`doctrine of equivalents analysis. Dr. Youssef’s conclusory analysis simply erases
`
`meaningful structural limitations from the claims. I understand that in any case, that is
`
`not a proper doctrine of equivalents analysis and Dr. Youssef has failed to meaningfully
`
`set forth any such analysis here.
`
`255. For the reasons discussed above, the Battalion™ Lateral Spacer does not
`
`infringe claim 1 of the ’334 patent.
`
`(a) Dependent Claims 16 and 18
`
`256. Claims 16 and 18 depend from independent claim 1. Alphatec’s
`
`Battalion™ Lateral Spacer does not infringe these claims at least for the same reasons
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`as described above with respect to independent claim 1.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`(b) Dependent Claim 18
`
`257. Claim 18 additionally requires that the “maximum lateral width of said
`
`13
`
`implant is approximately 18 mm.” It is my opinion that certain configurations of the
`
`14
`
`Battalion™ Lateral Spacers do not meet this limitation, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`15
`
`equivalents.
`
`16
`
`258. The following configurations of the Alphatec’s Battalion™ Lateral
`
`17
`
`Spacers do not have a “maximum lateral width … [of] … approximately 18 mm.”
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`16 mm width, 30 mm length, 6 mm height (parallel and lordotic)
`
`22 mm width, 45 mm length, 8 mm height (parallel and lordotic)
`
`22 mm width, 45 mm length, 10 mm height (parallel and lordotic)
`
`22 mm width, 45 mm length, 12 mm height (parallel and lordotic)
`
`22 mm width, 50 mm length, 8 mm height (parallel and lordotic)
`
`22 mm width, 50 mm length, 10 mm height (parallel and lordotic)
`
`22 mm width, 50 mm length, 12 mm height (parallel and lordotic)
`
`22 mm width, 50 mm length, 14 mm height (parallel and lordotic)
`
`22 mm width, 55 mm length, 8 mm height (parallel and lordotic)
`
`22 mm width, 55 mm length, 10 mm height (parallel and lordotic)
`
`128
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF BARTON L. SACHS, M.D., M.B.A.,
`F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E.
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 5 - PAGE 893
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 304-15 Filed 01/26/21 PageID.28767 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`22 mm width, 55 mm length, 12 mm height (parallel and lordotic)
`
`22 mm width, 60 mm length, 8 mm height (parallel and lordotic)
`
`22 mm width, 60 mm length, 10 mm height (parallel and lordotic)
`
`22 mm width, 60 mm length, 12 mm height (parallel and lordotic)
`
`259. Dr. Youssef states—without any explanation—that “Alphatec offers a
`
`version of the Battalion™ Lateral Spacer that is 22 mm wide, which is approximately
`
`18 mm.” (Youssef Rpt. at Ex. D at 69 (emphasis added).) The 22 mm wide Battalion™
`
`Lateral Implant, which is 22% wider than the 18 mm Battalion™ Lateral Spacer, does
`
`not have a maximum lateral width of “approximately 18 mm.” In fact, Dr. Youssef’s
`
`opinion that the 22 mm wide Battalion™ Lateral Spacer falls within the scope of this
`
`claim only confirms that this claim lacks reasonable certainty and renders the claim
`
`indefinite.
`
`260.
`
`In fact, Dr. Youssef offers no written description or intrinsic evidence to
`
`support that the claims cover the above-listed configurations of the Alphatec’s
`
`Battalion™ Lateral Spacers. Specifically, the ’334 patent only discloses implants
`
`“having a width ranging between 9 and 18 mm, a height ranging between 8 and 16 mm,
`
`and a length ranging between 25 and 45 mm.” (’334 patent at 2:17–21.) Per this
`
`disclosure, the above-listed configurations of the Battalion™ Lateral Spacers having a
`
`22 mm width, 6 mm height, 50 mm length, 55 mm length, and 60 mm length are
`
`categorically excluded from the claim scope. Dr. Youssef’s opinion that these implants
`
`are covered by the claimed dimensions appears to be based on a subjective assessment
`
`and there is no objective criteria by which a POSA would conclude that these implants
`
`would fall within the scope of this claim.
`
`261. Further, Dr. Youssef states in a conclusory fashion and without the
`
`required analysis or explanation that this limitation is also infringed under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents. (Youssef Rpt. at Ex. D at 74.) Dr. Youssef’s generalized statement
`
`alleging infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is unsupported, and lacks
`
`129
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF BARTON L. SACHS, M.D., M.B.A.,
`F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E.
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 5 - PAGE 894
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 304-15 Filed 01/26/21 PageID.28768 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`particularized testimony and argument regarding the insubstantiality of any differences
`
`between the claimed invention and the accused implants that I understand is required in
`
`a proper doctrine of equivalents analysis. Dr. Youssef’s conclusory analysis simply
`
`erases meaningful structural limitations from the claims. I understand that in any case,
`
`that is not a proper doctrine of equivalents analysis and Dr. Youssef has failed to
`
`meaningfully set forth any such analysis here.
`
`262. Accordingly, these configurations of the Battalion™ Lateral Spacer do not
`
`infringe claim 18 of the ’334 patent.
`
`2.
`
`TranscendTM LIF PEEK Spacer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`263.
`
`In my opinion, Alphatec’s Transcend™ LIF PEEK Spacer does not
`
`11
`
`infringe claims 16 and 18 of the ’334 patent for the reasons set forth below.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`(a)
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`264. Below I have reproduced independent claim 1 of the ’334 patent. I
`
`14
`
`understand that NuVasive is not asserting this claim, but asserted claims 16 and 18
`
`depend from independent claim 1.
`
`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;
`
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`130
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF BARTON L. SACHS, M.D., M.B.A.,
`F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E.
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 5 - PAGE 895
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 304-15 Filed 01/26/21 PageID.28769 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`interchangeable with NuVasive’s MAS platform because Alphatec’s lateral platform did
`
`not include dedicated neuromonitoring. (See Youssef Rpt. ¶¶ 434, 437.)
`
`385.
`
`Fourth, Dr. Youssef has not identified anything about Alphatec’s accused
`
`implants that make them more or less comparable to NuVasive’s CoRoent™ implants
`
`than other competitors. In fact, Dr. Youssef has alleged that many of the other offerings
`
`on the market infringe the Implant Patents. (See Youssef Rpt. § XIV.) I also understand
`
`that the Alphatec’s implants have certain advantages over NuVasive’s CoRoent™
`
`implants (in addition to being noninfringing) in that it was specifically designed to
`
`fracture less. (See paragraph 176 above (citing ATEC_LLIF000971390–396 at 396
`
`
`10
`
`(Implant Testing)).)
`
`11
`
`386.
`
`Fifth, as discussed in my Rebuttal Report on Damages, in particular
`
`12
`
`Section IV incorporated here, there are many technological differences and advantages
`
`13
`
`to Alphatec’s retractor over NuVasive’s MaXcess retractor.
`
`14
`
`387.
`
`For these reasons, I disagree with Dr. Youssef’s conclusion that surgeons
`
`15
`
`who have purchased Alphatec’s accused lateral products would not have found any of
`
`16
`
`the available lateral products on the market to be acceptable substitutes to NuVasive’s
`
`17
`
`MAS Platform of products. (See Youssef Rpt. ¶¶ 437–38.)
`
`18
`
`388. At bottom, as discussed, there are many viable, noninfringing, acceptable
`
`19
`
`substitutes to NuVasive’s MAS Platform of products.
`
`Dated: December 18, 2020
`
`I I
`
`'
`.
`
`. ·. ·17
`. ·.·.~· .. .,
`'. ,r:;,}
`
`~
`
`By:
`
`Barton L. Sachs, M.D., M.B.A.,
` F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`183
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF BARTON L. SACHS, M.D., M.B.A.,
`F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E.
`
`EXHIBIT 5 - PAGE 896
`
`