Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 323 Filed 04/28/21 PageID.30530 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`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
`LEV TSUKERMAN (SBN: 319184)
`ltsukerman@winston.com
`WILLIAM M. WARDLAW (SBN: 328555)
`wwardlaw@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. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`NUVASIVE, INC., a Delaware
`
`corporation,
`DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO
`
`NUVASIVE’S BENCH
`MEMORANDUM REGARDING
`
`PRIORITY DATE RAISING NEW
`v.
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`ARGUMENTS
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC., a
`
`Delaware corporation and
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`ALPHATEC SPINE, INC., a
`Courtroom: 4C
`California corporation,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO NUVASIVE’S BENCH MEMORANDUM
`
`REGARDING PRIORITY DATE RAISING NEW SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARGUMENTS
`
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 323 Filed 04/28/21 PageID.30531 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`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
`
`In its memorandum to the Court, NuVasive introduced a new theory in support
`of its motion for summary judgment—that the provisional application “inherently”
`discloses adequate written description to support the claimed inventions of the implant
`patents. Doc. No. 321 at 4. NuVasive also raised new case law on the merits of
`summary judgment. Because these arguments are new, Alphatec respectfully requests
`the Court strike NuVasive’s new argument and case law for the following reasons.
`First, NuVasive did not raise this new theory on summary judgment, and it is
`therefore now waived. Second, NuVasive’s new theory, rooted in “undisclosed yet
`inherent properties” contained in the provisional application, id., contradicts its old
`argument that “the provisional application discloses the claimed implant.” Doc. No.
`303-1 at 36–37. Third, NuVasive’s new theory is inconsistent with NuVasive’s
`statements to the patent office, which Alphatec outlined at Doc. No. 306 at 31–32.
`Fourth, Alphatec has never conceded that the “radiopaque markers” claimed in the
`implant patents are disclosed the provisional application. Doc. No. 306 at 29–30.
`Nor do NuVasive’s newly cited cases compel summary judgment here. For
`example, in Yeda Rsch. & Dev. Co. v. Abbott GMBH & Co. KG, 837 F.3d 1341 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016), unlike here, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences resolved factual
`disputes as the trier of fact in an interference proceeding, which were reviewed for
`substantial evidence and affirmed on appeal. Id. at 1344, 1346. Critically, in Yeda, the
`parties did not dispute that the claimed protein was the “only protein” that could have
`the partial amino acid sequence and additional traits disclosed in the earlier application.
`Id. at 1345. Finally, the Court held that the undisclosed but inherent limitations were
`not material to patentability. Id. This is not analogous because, as set out in Alphatec’s
`opposition, the provisional application discloses the opposite implant dimensions as
`ultimately claimed and does not at all disclose radiopaque markers. See Doc. No. 306
`at 25–32.1
`
`
`1 NuVasive’s remaining cases are similarly inapposite. Cooper Cameron Corp. v.
`
`
`1
`DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO NUVASIVE’S BENCH MEMORANDUM
`
`REGARDING PRIORITY DATE RAISING NEW SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARGUMENTS
`
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 323 Filed 04/28/21 PageID.30532 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`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
`
`In sum, the Court should strike and disregard NuVasive’s new theory and added
`case law in support of its motion for summary judgment.
`
`Dated: April 28, 2021 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Nimalka R. Wickramasekera
`NIMALKA R. WICKRAMASEKERA
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC. AND
`ALPHATEC SPINE, INC.
`
`
`Kvaerner Oilfield Prods., Inc., 291 F.3d 1317, 1320, 1322–23 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (earlier
`application shared “identical written description” with patent); Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz
`Inc., 796 F.3d 1293, 1302–03, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (extrinsic clinical protocol could
`not be used to show inventors had “possession of the claimed invention” before filing
`date); Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 655 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`(district court improperly “narrowed the scope of the provisional application based on
`an added example in the later-filed non-provisional application”).
`2
`DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO NUVASIVE’S BENCH MEMORANDUM
`
`REGARDING PRIORITY DATE RAISING NEW SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARGUMENTS
`
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 323 Filed 04/28/21 PageID.30533 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that the foregoing document was filed with the Court’s CM/ECF
`system which will provide notice to all counsel deemed to have consented to electronic
`service. All other counsel of record not deemed to have consented to electronic service
`were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by mail on this day.
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the United States of America
`that the above is true and correct. Executed this 28th day of April 2021 at Los Angeles,
`California.
`
`Dated: April 28, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`WINSTON& STRAWN LLP
`
`By: /s/ Nimalka R. Wickramasekera
`
`NIMALKA R. WICKRAMASEKERA
`
`
`
`
`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
`
` DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO NUVASIVE’S BENCH MEMORANDUM
`
`REGARDING PRIORITY DATE RAISING NEW SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARGUMENTS
`
`CASE NO. 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`