Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 321 Filed 04/22/21 PageID.30517 Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI P.C.
`WENDY L. DEVINE (SBN 246337)
`wdevine@wsgr.com
`NATALIE J. MORGAN (SBN 211143)
`nmorgan@wsgr.com
`One Market Plaza
`Spear Tower, Suite 3300
`San Francisco, California 94105-1126
`Telephone: 415-947-2000
`Fax: 415-947-2099
`
`MORRIS FODEMAN (Pro Hac Vice)
`mfodeman@wsgr.com
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
`New York, NY 10019-6022
`Telephone: 212-999-5800
`Fax: 212-999-5899
`
`Hilgers Graben PLLC
`MICHAEL T. HILGERS (Pro Hac Vice)
`mhilgers@hilgersgraben.com
`575 Fallbrook Blvd, Suite 202
`Lincoln, NE 68521
`Telephone: 402-218-2106
`Fax: 402-413-1880
`Attorneys for Plaintiff NuVasive, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN DIEGO DIVISION
`NUVASIVE, INC., a Delaware
`)
`CASE NO.: 18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`corporation,
`)
`
`
`)
`
`NUVASIVE, INC.’S BENCH
`)
`MEMORANDUM REGARDING
`
`)
`PRIORITY DATE
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC., a
`)
`Delaware corporation, and ALPHATEC
`)
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`SPINE, INC., a California corporation,
`)
`Magistrate Judge: Mitchell D. Dembin
`
`)
`Defendants.
`)
`
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`NUVASIVE’S BENCH MEMORANDUM RE
`PRIORITY DATE
`
`
`
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`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 321 Filed 04/22/21 PageID.30518 Page 2 of 7
`
`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 the April 8, 2021 telephonic status conference in this case, the Court asked
`the parties to submit bench memoranda, not to exceed five pages, on whether
`determining the appropriate priority date for the Implant Patents presents a question
`of law or of fact. NuVasive submits this bench memorandum to address this issue.
`While entitlement to a priority date depends on the factual question of whether
`the priority document adequately discloses the claimed invention, where there is no
`genuine dispute of fact that the priority document discloses the claimed invention, the
`inquiry is a legal one and appropriate for resolution by the Court at summary
`judgment. That is the case here.
`It is Federal Circuit law that “[d]etermination of a priority date is purely a
`question of law if the facts underlying that determination are undisputed.” Bradford
`Co. v. Conteyor N. Am., Inc., 603 F.3d 1262, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Nat. Alts.
`Int’l, Inc. v. Iancu, 904 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Entitlement to priority
`under § 120 is a legal determination based on underlying fact findings. When the
`underlying facts are undisputed, priority date determination is purely a legal
`question.” (cleaned up)); PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299,
`1307 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Compliance with the written description requirement is a
`question of fact but is amenable to summary judgment in cases where no reasonable
`fact finder could return a verdict for the non-moving party.”).
`As detailed in NuVasive’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support
`of NuVasive’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 303-1), the Implant
`Patents are entitled to the March 29, 2004 priority date because the provisional
`application “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
`possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v.
`Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Indeed, it is undisputed that
`the provisional application discloses the exact same implant claimed in the Implant
`Patents. This is shown at least by the fact that the implant depicted in Figures 1
`
`NUVASIVE’S BENCH MEMORANDUM RE
`PRIORITY DATE
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 321 Filed 04/22/21 PageID.30519 Page 3 of 7
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`through 6 of the Implant Patents (which Alphatec admits is an embodiment of the
`claimed implant) is identical to the implant depicted in Figures 1 through 6 of the
`provisional application:
`Figs. 2 and 3 from Provisional Application (Doc. No. 296-3, Ex. A at 33-34)
`
`
`Figs. 2 and 3 from Implant Patents (Doc. Nos. 110-38, 110-48 at 6-7)
`
`
`The provisional and the Implant Patents also describe the claimed implant in nearly
`identical terms. For example, both the provisional and the Implant Patents refer to
`the elements labeled as 7, 8, and 9 in the figures above as “radiopaque” “spike
`elements.” These radiopaque spike elements are positioned precisely where the
`claims require: in the “distal wall,” the “proximal wall,” and the “central region.”
`Doc. No. 110-48 at 30-31 (12:65-13:4). And as Alphatec concedes, the sole purpose
`for making the spike elements radiopaque is to facilitate radiographic visualization.
`Doc. No. 303-1 at 40-41 (noting opinions in Dr. Sachs’ expert report acknowledging
`that making spike elements radiopaque allows for radiographic visualization after
`implantation). Additionally, both the provisional and the Implant Patents indisputably
`disclose an implant with a proximal-to-distal dimension that is longer than its
`sidewall-to-sidewall dimension. This is enough for the Court to conclude as a matter
`
`NUVASIVE’S BENCH MEMORANDUM RE
`PRIORITY DATE
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 321 Filed 04/22/21 PageID.30520 Page 4 of 7
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`of law that the Implant Patents are entitled to a priority date of March 29, 2004.
`Cooper Cameron Corp. v. Kvaerner Oilfield Prods., Inc., 291 F.3d 1317, 1322-23
`(Fed. Cir. 2002) (relying on figure from priority document, also found in later patent
`application, to conclude that “[the figure] clearly provides a written description” of
`the claimed invention).
`Analogous Federal Circuit precedent supports this result. For example, in Yeda
`Rsch. & Dev. Co. Ltd. v. Abbott GmbH & Co. KG, 837 F.3d 1341, 1344 (Fed. Cir.
`2016), the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
`favor of the patentee on the priority date issue even though the later patent disclosed
`more information than was explicitly contained in the priority application. Id. at 1346.
`As the Court explained, “when a specification describes an invention that has certain
`undisclosed yet inherent properties, that specification serves as adequate written
`description to support a subsequent patent application that explicitly recites the
`invention’s inherent properties.” Id. at 1345. It was undisputed that the elements of
`the claimed invention were necessarily and inherently part of the invention disclosed
`in the priority application, thus the patentee was entitled to the earlier priority date as
`a matter of law. Id. So too here. As noted above, Alphatec concedes that a
`radiopaque spike inherently serves as a radiopaque marker used for radiographic
`visualization. Doc. No. 303-1 at 40-41. Thus, NuVasive’s provisional application
`disclosed an implant with radiopaque markers in the claimed configuration on an
`implant with the claimed dimensions.
`Alphatec’s attempts to gin up a factual dispute to avoid summary judgment
`regarding the priority date should be rejected. For instance, Alphatec relies heavily
`on extrinsic evidence (e.g., a NuVasive premarket submission to FDA). This is
`irrelevant to the priority date analysis. Ariad Pharm., 598 F.3d at 1351 (“[T]he
`[written description] test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the
`specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” (emphasis
`added)); Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 796 F.3d 1293, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`- 3 -
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`NUVASIVE’S BENCH MEMORANDUM RE
`PRIORITY DATE
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 321 Filed 04/22/21 PageID.30521 Page 5 of 7
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`(concluding that district court erred by relying on evidence extrinsic to the patent
`specification, and holding that such extrinsic evidence “should not form the basis of
`the written description inquiry”).
`It is similarly irrelevant that the non-provisional applications leading to the
`Implant Patents added some details in the written description regarding the purpose
`of the radiopaque markers disclosed in the provisional application. Star Sci., Inc. v.
`R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 655 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (faulting district
`court’s conclusion that information added to later-filed application prevented
`application of priority date of provisional application). Disputes over irrelevant facts
`do not require a jury. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
`This is a case where no relevant facts are in dispute. Therefore, determining
`the proper priority date of the Implant Patents is “purely a legal question” for the
`Court to resolve. Iancu, 904 F.3d at 1379.
`
`
`
`
`
`NUVASIVE’S BENCH MEMORANDUM RE
`PRIORITY DATE
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 321 Filed 04/22/21 PageID.30522 Page 6 of 7
`
`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
`
`
`Dated: April 22, 2021 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`By: /s/ Wendy L. Devine
`
`
`Wendy L. Devine (SBN 246337)
`Natalie J. Morgan (SBN 211143)
`One Market Plaza
`Spear Tower, Suite 3300
`San Francisco, California 94105-1126
`Tel: 415-947-2000
`
`Morris Fodeman, pro hac vice
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
`New York, NY 10019-6022
`Tel: 212-999-5800
`
`HILGERS GRABEN PLLC
`Michael T. Hilgers, pro hac vice
`575 Fallbrook Blvd., Suite 202
`Lincoln, NE 68521
`Tel: 402-218-2106
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff NuVasive, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NUVASIVE’S BENCH MEMORANDUM RE
`PRIORITY DATE
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 321 Filed 04/22/21 PageID.30523 Page 7 of 7
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`document has been served on this date to all current and/or opposing counsel of
`record, if any to date, who are deemed to have consented to electronic service via
`the Court’s CM/ECF system per Civ.L.R. 5.4(d). Any other counsel of record will
`be served by electronic mail, facsimile and/or overnight delivery.
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
`America that the above is true and correct. Executed this 22nd day of April 2021 at
`San Diego, California.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Arlene Apodaca
`ARLENE APODACA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`-1-
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`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
`
`
`