Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 307-21 Filed 02/16/21 PageID.30014 Page 1 of
`16
`
`EXHIBIT 20
`
`TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN J.
`NISBET IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
`OPPOSITION TO NUVASIVE’S MOTION
`FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 307-21 Filed 02/16/21 PageID.30015 Page 2 of
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Confidential – Outside Counsel Only
`
`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
`1111 Louisiana Street, 25th Floor
`Houston, TX 77002-5242
`Telephone: (713) 651-2600
`Facsimile:
`(713) 651-2700
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC. and ALPHATEC SPINE, INC.
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN DIEGO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NUVASIVE, INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`[Assigned to Courtroom 4C – Honorable
`Cathy Ann Bencivengo]
`
`[Magistrate: Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin]
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF
`NUVASIVE, INC.’S
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8,
`AND 17)
`
`
` CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MD
`
`
`v.
`
`
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation and
`ALPHATEC SPINE, INC., a
`California corporation,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NUVASIVE, INC.’S
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, AND 17)
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 20 - PAGE 349
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 307-21 Filed 02/16/21 PageID.30016 Page 3 of
`16
`
`Confidential – Outside Counsel Only
`
`Confidential – Outside Counsel Only
`
`
`Complaint Filed: February 13, 2018
`
`PROPOUNDING PARTY:
`
`PLAINTIFF NUVASIVE, INC.
`
`RESPONDING PARTY:
`
`DEFENDANTS ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC.
`
`INTERROGATORIES.:
`
`NOS. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 17
`
`AND ALPHATEC SPINE, INC.
`
`
`
`Defendants Alphatec Holdings, Inc. and Alphatec Spine, Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Alphatec” or “Defendants”) hereby provide supplemental responses to Plaintiff
`
`NuVasive, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Interrogatories (Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 17) as set forth in
`
`the Court’s Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 293) under Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure and the applicable rules of this Court. These responses are
`
`based on information reasonably available to the Defendants at this early stage of
`
`litigation, prior to claim construction and fact discovery. The Defendants reserve the
`
`right to amend and/or supplement these responses as necessary.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`The following general objections apply to each of Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and
`
`are incorporated by reference into each response made herein as though fully set forth
`
`in each and every following Interrogatory response. The assertion of the same, similar,
`
`or additional objections or the provision of partial answers in the individual responses
`
`to these Interrogatories does not waive any of Defendants’ General Objections as set
`
`forth below.
`
`1.
`
`Defendants’ responses are made solely for the purpose of the above-
`
`captioned litigation. The Defendants expressly reserve the right to object to the
`
`admissibility or otherwise seek exclusion of the information disclosed in its responses.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants have not completed their investigation, discovery or analysis
`
`of all the facts of this case and have not completed preparation for trial. Accordingly,
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NUVASIVE, INC.’S
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, AND 17)
`
`
`
`
` CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MD
`
`
`EXHIBIT 20 - PAGE 350
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 307-21 Filed 02/16/21 PageID.30017 Page 4 of
`16
`
`
`
`Confidential – Outside Counsel Only
`
`determined by examining the following documents: ATEC_LLIF000965524 -
`
`ATEC_LLIF000965644; and ATEC_LLIF000965884 - ATEC_LLIF000965978.
`
`These documents, produced in the form and manner maintained in the normal
`
`course of business and without removal of any information, are the agendas for various
`
`surgeon visits.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`
`Describe in detail the circumstances surrounding Alphatec’s knowledge of each
`
`of the Patents-in-Suit and any Related Patent Application or Patent and any design-
`
`around attempts for the Accused Products taken in light of Alphatec’s knowledge of
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`each patent or patent application.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`
`In addition to the General Objections, Defendants object to this Interrogatory as
`
`13
`
`compound and as containing multiple discrete subparts, which in the aggregate exceed
`
`14
`
`the number of interrogatories permissible under the CivLR 33.1(a).
`
`15
`
`Defendants further object to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome,
`
`16
`
`not relevant to the claims or defenses of this case, and not proportional to the needs of
`
`17
`
`the case, in requesting the “circumstances surrounding Alphatec’s knowledge . . . and
`
`18
`
`any design-around attempts.” Defendants further object to this Interrogatory as vague
`
`19
`
`and ambiguous as to “Alphatec’s knowledge.” Defendants further object to this
`
`20
`
`Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, not relevant to the claims or defenses
`
`21
`
`of this case, and not proportional to the needs of the case to the extent that it requests
`
`22
`
`information about products other than the Accused Alphatec Components. Defendants
`
`23
`
`further object to the extent this Interrogatory seeks information protected from
`
`24
`
`discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other
`
`25
`
`privilege or immunity. Defendants further object to this Interrogatory as seeking
`
`26
`
`disclosure of private, confidential, trade secret, proprietary, or commercially and
`
`27
`
`competitively sensitive information, the disclosure of which would result in substantial
`
`28
`
`competitive injury to Defendants. Defendants expressly reserve the right to supplement
`168
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NUVASIVE, INC.’S
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, AND 17)
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MD
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 20 - PAGE 351
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 307-21 Filed 02/16/21 PageID.30018 Page 5 of
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Alphatec incorporates by reference the expert reports and the documents cited
`
`Confidential – Outside Counsel Only
`
`therein of: Dr. Jim Youssef, Dr. Barton Sachs, Dr. Charles Branch, Blake Inglish, Dr.
`
`Keith Ugone, and Stephen Kunin.
`
`THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`
`Subject to and without waiver of all previously asserted General and Specific
`
`objections regarding this Interrogatory, Alphatec supplements its previous response as
`
`follows:
`
`Alphatec had knowledge of the patents-in-suit from Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v.
`
`NuVasive Inc., No. 3:12-cv-02738, (Costabile Dep. Tr. 68:13–21), and was aware of
`
`10
`
`Medtronic’s IPRs and the subsequent appeals. Medtronic filed IPRs for the ’334 and
`
`11
`
`’156 patents, both of which the PTAB instituted. In February 2015, the PTAB issued
`
`12
`
`Final Written Decisions, invalidating claims 1–5, 10, 11, 14–17, and 19–28 of the ’334
`
`13
`
`patent and claims 1–14, 19–20, and 23–27 of the ’156 patent. NuVasive appealed and
`
`14
`
`in late 2016, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decision relating to
`
`15
`
`claims 16 and 17 of the ’334 patent and vacated the PTAB’s decision relating to’156
`
`16
`
`patent for additional narrow findings regarding the motivation to combine prior art
`
`17
`
`references. The IPRs were subsequently terminated in 2017 pursuant to the parties
`
`18
`
`settling the litigation.
`
`19
`
`Because of the large, public lawsuit, the development team for the Battalion
`
`20
`
`lateral system was specifically instructed not to copy any competitor’s intellectual
`
`21
`
`property. Costabile Dep. Tr. 67:24–68:21. Indeed, no one on the development team
`
`22
`
`suggested it. Id.
`
`23
`
`There are several different non-infringing, clinically and commercially viable
`
`24
`
`design alternatives to Alphatec’s Battalion™ Lateral Spacers. For instance, alternative
`
`25
`
`designs in the prior art and/or on the market include different numbers, types, and/or
`
`26
`
`placements of the radiopaque markers that do not infringe one or more of the following
`
`27
`
`claim elements: (1) “first radiopaque marker [that] extends into said first sidewall at a
`
`28
`
`position proximate to said medial plane” as required by claim 1 of the ’156 Patent; (2)
`171
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NUVASIVE, INC.’S
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, AND 17)
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MD
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 20 - PAGE 352
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 307-21 Filed 02/16/21 PageID.30019 Page 6 of
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Confidential – Outside Counsel Only
`
`“second radiopaque marker [that] extends into the second sidewall at a position
`
`proximate to said medial plane” as required by claim 1 of the ’156 Patent; (3) “a third
`
`of said at least three radiopaque markers [that] is at least partially positioned in said
`
`central region” as required by claim 1 of the ’334 Patent; and/or (4) “a fourth radiopaque
`
`marker in said central region at a position spaced apart from said third radiopaque
`
`marker,” as required by claim 16 of the ’334 Patent. Alphatec also incorporates by
`
`reference its responses to Interrogatory No. 17.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`
`Set forth Alphatec’s revenues, costs, and profits associated with the Accused
`
`10
`
`Products, including without limitation the revenues, costs, and profits for both the
`
`11
`
`Accused Products as well as other components used in conjunction with the Accused
`
`12
`
`Products during lateral spinal fusion surgery, since January 1, 2015.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`
`In addition to the General Objections, Defendants object to this Interrogatory as
`
`15
`
`compound and as containing multiple discrete subparts, which in the aggregate exceed
`
`16
`
`the number of interrogatories permissible under the CivLR 33.1(a).
`
`17
`
`Defendants further object to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly
`
`18
`
`burdensome in seeking information “since January 1, 2015,” when, as stated in the
`
`19
`
`Complaint, Defendants did not launch the Accused Alphatec Components until April
`
`20
`
`2017. Defendants further object to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome,
`
`21
`
`not relevant to the claims or defenses of this case, and not proportional to the needs of
`
`22
`
`the case to the extent that it requests information about products other than the Accused
`
`23
`
`Alphatec Components. Defendants further object to the extent this Interrogatory seeks
`
`24
`
`information protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the work product
`
`25
`
`doctrine, or any other privilege or immunity. Defendants further object to this
`
`26
`
`Interrogatory as seeking disclosure of private, confidential, trade secret, proprietary, or
`
`27
`
`commercially and competitively sensitive information, the disclosure of which would
`
`28
`
`result in substantial competitive injury to Defendants.
`172
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NUVASIVE, INC.’S
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, AND 17)
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MD
`
`
`EXHIBIT 20 - PAGE 353
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 307-21 Filed 02/16/21 PageID.30020 Page 7 of
`16
`
`
`
`Confidential – Outside Counsel Only
`
`documents and exhibits cited therein from the following witnesses: Dr. Barton Sachs,
`
`Blake Inglish, Brad Anderson, Bryan Larsen, Carl McMillin, Dr. Charles Branch, Chris
`
`Burton, Eric Finley, Dr. Jim Youssef, John English, Jonathan Costabile, Dr. Keith
`
`Ugone, Kelli Howell, Kevin Neels, Kyle Malone, Matthew Link, Mike Aleali, Dr.
`
`Neville Alleyne, Patrick Miles, Dr. Payam Moazzaz, Robert Judd, Rory Schermerhorn,
`
`Scott Robinson, Frank Chang, Greg Lucier, and Stephen Kunin.
`
`
`
`Alphatec incorporates by reference the expert reports and the documents cited
`
`therein of: Dr. Jim Youssef, Dr. Barton Sachs, Dr. Charles Branch, Blake Inglish, Dr.
`
`Keith Ugone, and Stephen Kunin.
`
`FIFTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`
`Subject to and without waiver of all previously asserted General and Specific
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`objections regarding this Interrogatory, Alphatec supplements its previous response as
`
`13
`
`follows: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), the burden of deriving or ascertaining the
`
`14
`
`answer to this interrogatory related to financial data maintained in database format is
`
`15
`
`substantially the same for either party, as the information sought may be determined by
`
`16
`
`examining: ATEC_LLIF000965879 - ATEC_LLIF000965883.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
`
`Separately and for each and every Patents-in-Suit, identify and describe in detail
`
`19
`
`any past, present or prospective alternative design or alternative method that You
`
`20
`
`contend to be an acceptable, non-infringing alternative to the Accused Products. Such
`
`21
`
`identification and description shall include an explanation of whether such alternative
`
`22
`
`design actually exists and is currently or has been used by Alphatec or others, a detailed
`
`23
`
`explanation of all steps Alphatec has taken to develop any alternative design (including,
`
`24
`
`but not limited to the timeline for such development, all costs and cost estimates related
`
`25
`
`to such development, and the people involved in such development), an explanation of
`
`26
`
`the availability of the alleged non-infringing alternative, and a detailed explanation of
`
`27
`
`whether and the extent to which Alphatec has taken any steps to implement any
`
`28
`
`alternative design, and to the extent Alphatec has not implemented a non-infringing
`175
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NUVASIVE, INC.’S
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, AND 17)
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MD
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 20 - PAGE 354
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 307-21 Filed 02/16/21 PageID.30021 Page 8 of
`16
`
`
`
`Confidential – Outside Counsel Only
`
`alternative described in response to this Interrogatory a detailed explanation of the
`
`reasons Alphatec decided not to implement such non-infringing alternatives, including
`
`an identification of all persons with knowledge of such facts and all documents relating
`
`to the foregoing.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
`
`In addition to the General Objections, Defendants object to this Interrogatory as
`
`compound and as containing multiple discrete subparts, which in the aggregate exceed
`
`the number of interrogatories permissible under the CivLR 33.1(a). For the same
`
`reasons, this Interrogatory is unduly burdensome and overbroad. Defendants further
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`object to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, not relevant to the claims
`
`11
`
`or defenses of this case, and not proportional to the needs of the case in requesting
`
`12
`
`information regarding “all steps” and seeking identification of “all persons with
`
`13
`
`knowledge” and “all documents relating to the foregoing.” Defendants further object
`
`14
`
`to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome because the Interrogatory requests separate
`
`15
`
`identification for each patent-in-suit. Defendants further object to the extent this
`
`16
`
`Interrogatory seeks information protected from discovery by the attorney-client
`
`17
`
`privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other privilege or immunity. Defendants
`
`18
`
`further object to this Interrogatory as seeking disclosure of private, confidential, trade
`
`19
`
`secret, proprietary, or commercially and competitively sensitive information, the
`
`20
`
`disclosure of which would result in substantial competitive injury to Defendants.
`
`21
`
`Defendants further object to this Interrogatory as seeking to elicit premature expert
`
`22
`
`discovery. Defendants further object that this Interrogatory calls for legal conclusions.
`
`23
`
`Defendants object to this Interrogatory as duplicative of Interrogatory No. 7.
`
`24
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and Specific Objections,
`
`25
`
`Defendants respond: Alphatec’s LLIF Squadron Retractor, Dilators, K-Wire,
`
`26
`
`Intradiscal Shim and Shim Inserter Tool, Battalion Lateral Spacer, 4th Blade, and Light
`
`27
`
`Cable/Light Source Connector do not infringe any valid claim of any asserted patent-
`
`28
`
`in-suit. In addition to Alphatec’s products, the following products constitute non-
`176
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NUVASIVE, INC.’S
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, AND 17)
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MD
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 20 - PAGE 355
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 307-21 Filed 02/16/21 PageID.30022 Page 9 of
`16
`
`
`
`Confidential – Outside Counsel Only
`
`than a three-bladed retractor, while still providing full functionality in order to conduct
`
`a safe and successful lateral surgery.
`
`The market’s acceptance of a two-bladed retractor is beyond dispute—there are
`
`currently several commercially successful two-bladed retractors on the market.
`
`
`
`Alphatec incorporates by reference the deposition testimonies and documents and
`
`exhibits cited therein from the following witnesses: Dr. Barton Sachs, Blake Inglish,
`
`Brad Anderson, Bryan Larsen, Carl McMillin, Dr. Charles Branch, Chris Burton, Eric
`
`Finley, Dr. Jim Youssef, John English, Jonathan Costabile, Dr. Keith Ugone, Kelli
`
`Howell, Kevin Neels, Kyle Malone, Matthew Link, Mike Aleali, Dr. Neville Alleyne,
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Patrick Miles, Dr. Payam Moazzaz, Robert Judd, Rory Schermerhorn, Scott Robinson,
`
`11
`
`Frank Chang, Greg Lucier.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Alphatec incorporates by reference the expert reports and the documents cited
`
`13
`
`therein of: Dr. Jim Youssef, Dr. Barton Sachs, Dr. Charles Branch, Blake Inglish, Dr.
`
`14
`
`Keith Ugone, and Stephen Kunin.
`
`15
`
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
`
`16
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and Specific Objections,
`
`17
`
`Defendants respond: Alphatec’s LLIF Battalion Lateral Spacer does not infringe any
`
`18
`
`valid claim of the ’156 and ’334 patents. In addition, the following products constitute
`
`19
`
`non-infringing alternatives:
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`• Alphatec’s IdentTi™ implant;
`
`(See, e.g., https://atecspine.com/lif-identiti-lif/)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,192,327 (Brantigan);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,860,973 (Michelson);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 2002/0165550 (Frey);
`
`• U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0028249 (Baccelli);
`
`• J.L. Berry et al., A Morphometric Study of Human Lumbar and Selected
`
`Thoracic Vertebrae, Spine, Vol. 12, No. 4, 363 (1987);
`
`• Medtronic implants, including without limitation CLYDESDALE®
`179
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NUVASIVE, INC.’S
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, AND 17)
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MD
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 20 - PAGE 356
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Spinal System;
`
`Confidential – Outside Counsel Only
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 307-21 Filed 02/16/21 PageID.30023 Page 10 of
`16
`
`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
`
`(See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`https://www.medtronic.com/us-en/healthcare-
`
`professionals/therapies-procedures/spinal-orthopaedic/olif/indications-
`
`safety-warnings/clydesdale-spinal-system.html;
`
`http://www.thespinemarketgroup.com/wp-
`
`content/uploads/2014/09/Direct-Lateral-Surgical-Technique.pdf)
`
`• DePuy-Synthes implants, including without limitation the Oracle Cage,
`
`PROTI 360°™ Ti Integrated Technology, CONCORDE Interbody System
`
`and Cougar LS Lateral Cage System;
`
`(See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`https://www.jnjmedicaldevices.com/en-US/product/proti-
`
`360degtm-ti-integrated-technology;
`
`http://www.spinaldeformity.com/Educational/Surgical%20Technique%2
`
`0Guides/Depuy/MIS%20Lateral%20Platform%20STG.pdf;
`
`http://synthes.vo.llnwd.net/o16/LLNWMB8/INT%20Mobile/Synthes%2
`
`0International/Product%20Support%20Material/legacy_Synthes_PDF/09
`
`8052-180831_LR.pdf;
`
`http://synthes.vo.llnwd.net/o16/LLNWMB8/US%20Mobile/Synthes%20
`
`North%20America/Product%20Support%20Materials/Catalogs/DSUSSP
`
`N06140231_Spine_MIS_Lateral_Platform_Product_Catalog.pdf)
`
`• Globus Medical
`
`implants,
`
`including without
`
`limitation
`
`the
`
`TransContinental® Spacer System and Caliber-L®;
`
`(See, e.g., https://www.globusmedical.com/products/transcontinental-
`
`lateral-lumbar-interbody-spacer/;
`
`https://www.globusmedical.com/expandabletechnology/caliber-l/)
`
`• Stryker Spine implants, including without limitation Cascadia;
`
`(See, e.g., https://www.stryker.com/us/en/portfolios/orthopaedics/spine--
`
`ortho-.html)
`
`• Zimmer Biomet implants, including without limitation Timberline;
`180
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NUVASIVE, INC.’S
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, AND 17)
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MD
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 20 - PAGE 357
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 307-21 Filed 02/16/21 PageID.30024 Page 11 of
`16
`
`Confidential – Outside Counsel Only
`
`(See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`https://www.zimmerbiomet.com/content/dam/zimmer-
`
`biomet/medical-professionals/000-surgical-techniques/spine/timberline-
`
`lateral-fusion-system-surgical-technique.pdf;
`
`http://www.thespinemarketgroup.com/wp-
`
`content/uploads/2020/07/Timberline-Lateral.SGT-Zimmer-Biomet.pdf)
`
`• SeaSpine implants, including without limitation Regatta®; (See e.g.
`
`https://www.seaspine.com/products/regatta/)
`
`• CoreLink implants, including without limitation the CL5 LATERAL
`
`INTERBODY;
`
`(See, e.g., https://corelinksurgical.com/product/cl5-lateral/)
`
`• GSMedical implants, including without limitation the AnyPlus® Direct
`
`Lateral Interbody Fusion implant;
`
`(See, e.g., https://gsmedicalusa.com/anyplus-dlif-interbody-system/)
`
`• Neuro Structures implants, including the Pinnacle Lateral Cage; (See e.g.
`
`https://neurostructures.com/product/pinnacle-lateral/)
`
`• SpineWave implants, including without limitation the Abacus® Lateral
`
`Spacer System.
`
`(See, e.g., http://www.spinewave.com/abacus-lateral-spacer-system.html)
`
`• Surgalign implants, including without limitation the Fortilink®-L IBF
`
`System.
`
`(See, e.g., https://www.surgalign.com/product/fortilink-l-ibf-system-with-
`
`tetrafuse-3d-technology/)
`
`• Pinnacle Spine Group implants, including without limitation the InFill V2
`
`Lateral Implants.
`
`(See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`http://www.pinnaclespinegroup.com/wp-
`
`content/uploads/2016/09/PSG_InFill_Lateral_Overview_Digital_Print.pd
`
`f)
`
`• LnK implants, including without limitation the DLIF Cage System.
`181
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NUVASIVE, INC.’S
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, AND 17)
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MD
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 20 - PAGE 358
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 307-21 Filed 02/16/21 PageID.30025 Page 12 of
`16
`
`Confidential – Outside Counsel Only
`
`(See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`http://www.thespinemarketgroup.com/wp-
`
`content/uploads/2014/09/LnK-Lateral-Cage-Brochure.pdf)
`
`• RTI Surgical, including without limitation the Cross-Fuse® II Lateral
`
`Fusion System.
`
`(See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`https://myspineteam.com/wp-
`
`content/uploads/2019/07/Crossfuse-ST.pdf)
`
`• OsteoMed implants, including without limitation the PrimaLIF™ LLIF
`
`Unitary PEEK Implant.
`
`(See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`http://www.thespinemarketgroup.com/wp-
`
`content/uploads/2014/02/OsteoMed-primaLIF-Surgical.pdf)
`
`• Astura Medical implants, including without limitation the Sirion Lateral
`
`Lumbar Interbody Spacers.
`
`(See, e.g., https://asturamedical.com/product/sirion-llif-system/)
`
`• Life Spine implants, including without limitation the PLATEAU®-X
`
`spacer system.
`
`(See, e.g., https://lifespine.com/plateau-x/)
`
`• AltusSpine, including without limitation the Imola Lateral IBF System;
`
`(See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`http://www.thespinemarketgroup.com/wp-
`
`content/uploads/2013/06/Imola-Lateral-IBF-System-Surgical-
`
`Technique.pdf)
`
`• ChoiceSpine implants, including without limitation the VEO® Lateral
`
`System.
`
`(See, e.g., https://choicespine.com/products/lateral-system/veo/)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`182
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NUVASIVE, INC.’S
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, AND 17)
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MD
`
`
`EXHIBIT 20 - PAGE 359
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 307-21 Filed 02/16/21 PageID.30026 Page 13 of
`16
`
`
`
`Confidential – Outside Counsel Only
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`
`
`By: /s/ Nimalka R. Wickramasekera
`
`NIMALKA R. WICKRAMASEKERA
`GEORGE C. LOMBARDI
`BRIAN J. NISBET
`DAVID P. DALKE
`SARANYA RAGHAVAN
`CORINNE STONE HOCKMAN
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC. AND
`ALPHATEC SPINE, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 18, 2020
`
`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
`
`183
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NUVASIVE, INC.’S
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, AND 17)
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MD
`
`
`EXHIBIT 20 - PAGE 360
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 307-21 Filed 02/16/21 PageID.30027 Page 14 of
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`United States District Court for the Southern District of California
`
`Case No. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`I am a resident of the State of Illinois, over the age of eighteen years, and not a
`
`party to the within action. My business address is Winston & Strawn LLP, 35 W.
`
`Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703. On September 18, 2020, I served the following
`
`document:
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF
`NUVASIVE, INC.’S INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, AND 17)
`
`
`
`
`by electronically transmitting copy(ies) of the document(s) listed above via
`email to the addressees as set forth below, in accordance with the parties’
`agreement to be served electronically pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, or
`Local Rule of Court, or court order. No error messages were received after
`said transmission.
`
`SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
`
`15
`
`America that the above is true and correct.
`
`
`
`Signed: /s/ Saranya Raghavan
`Saranya Raghavan
`
`
`Dated: September 18, 2020
`
`
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`EXHIBIT 20 - PAGE 361
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 307-21 Filed 02/16/21 PageID.30028 Page 15 of
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`SERVICE LIST
`
`
`Paul D. Tripodi II, Esq.
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati P.C.
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (323) 210-2900
`Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
`Email: ptripodi@wsgr.com
`Email: nuva/atec@wsgr.com
`Email: NUVA_ATEC-IP@list.wsgr.com
`
`Wendy L. Devine, Esq.
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati P.C.
`One Market Plaza
`Spear Tower, Suite 3300
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: (415) 947-2000
`Facsimile: (415) 947-2099
`Email: wdevine@wsgr.com
`
`Natalie J. Morgan, Esq.
`Christina Elizabeth Dashe, Esq.
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati P.C.
`12235 El Camino Real, Suite 200
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Telephone: (858) 350-2363
`Facsimile: (858) 350-2399
`Email: nmorgan@wsgr.com
`Email: cdashe@wsgr.com
`
`Sara L. Tolbert, Esq.
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
`Email: stolbert@wsgr.com
`
`Hilgers Graben PLLC
`Michael T. Hilgers (Pro Hac Vice)
`mhilgers@hilgersgraben.com
`J. Bub Windle (Pro Hac Vice)
`bwindle@hilgersgraben.com
`Trenton T. Tanner (Pro Hac Vice)
`ttanner@hilgersgraben.com
`575 Fallbrook Blvd, Suite 202
`Lincoln, NE 68521
`Telephone: 402-260-2106
`Fax: 402-413-1880
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`EXHIBIT 20 - PAGE 362
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 307-21 Filed 02/16/21 PageID.30029 Page 16 of
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Andrew R. Graben (Pro Hac Vice)
`agraben@hilgersgraben.com
`10000 N. Central Expy, Suite 400
`Dallas, TX 75231
`Telephone: 214-842-6828
`Fax: 402-413-1880
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff NuVasive, Inc.
`
`
`
`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
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`EXHIBIT 20 - PAGE 363
`
`