Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 324 Filed 04/29/21 PageID.30534 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`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 RESPONSE
`)
`TO DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION
`
`)
`TO NUVASIVE’S BENCH
`)
`MEMORANDUM REGARDING
`
`)
`PRIORITY DATE RAISING NEW
`)
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC., a
`)
`ARGUMENTS [DOC. NO. 323]
`Delaware corporation, and ALPHATEC
`)
`SPINE, INC., a California corporation,
`)
`
`
`)
`
`
`Defendants.
`)
`
`)
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`)
`Magistrate Judge: Mitchell D. Dembin
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`NUVA’S RESPONSE TO ATEC’S OBJECTION TO
`
`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 324 Filed 04/29/21 PageID.30535 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`
`Alphatec’s request that the Court “strike NuVasive’s new argument and case
`law” from NuVasive’s Bench Memorandum should be denied. Doc. No. 323 at 2.
`NuVasive’s Bench Memorandum does not put forward any new theories in support
`of its motion for summary judgment and all of the cases NuVasive cites in the
`Bench Memorandum are directly related to the question the Court asked the parties
`to address: whether the Court or a jury should decide which priority date to apply
`to the Implant Patents.
`As discussed in NuVasive’s Bench Memorandum the Federal Circuit’s
`decision in Yeda Rsch. & Dev. Co. Ltd. v. Abbott GmbH & Co. KG, 837 F.3d 1341
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) is consistent with NuVasive’s summary judgment contentions. In
`addressing the priority date for a patent that contained more information about a
`particular limitation than was described in the priority application, the Court
`concluded that the priority date applied as a matter of law because the limitation in
`question was disclosed in the priority application. Id. at 1345. NuVasive noted
`that similar logic applies here to support the conclusion that the Court should
`decide the priority date question as a matter of law. Doc. No. 321 at 4. Alphatec’s
`flyspecking notwithstanding, this is not a “new” legal theory, but instead is the
`same theory NuVasive put forward in summary judgment. Doc. No. 303-1 at 40
`(“[B]ecause the Provisional Application describes the spike elements 7, 8, 9 as
`preferably being made of ‘radiopaque’ material, a skilled artisan would
`immediately recognize that the spike elements would serve the dual purpose of
`facilitating radiographic visualization.”); id. at 40-41 (citing testimony from
`Alphatec’s expert witness confirming that the sole purpose for making spikes
`“radiopaque” is to facilitate radiographic visualization); id. at 41 (“Radiopaque
`materials are, by definition, visible in an x-ray.”); Doc. No. 311 at 12-13.1
`
`1 To be clear, NuVasive never argued, as Alphatec’s Objection incorrectly
`claims, that the claimed implant’s “radiopaque markers” are an “undisclosed yet
`(continued...)
`1
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`NUVA’S RESPONSE TO ATEC’S OBJECTION TO
`
`BENCH MEMORANDUM RE PRIORITY DATE
`
`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 324 Filed 04/29/21 PageID.30536 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`
`As for Alphatec’s charge that NuVasive’s Bench Memorandum cites “new
`case law on the merits of summary judgment,” it is not clear what Alphatec is
`complaining about. NuVasive addressed the Court’s question about whether
`priority date is a legal question amenable to summary judgment. Indeed, Alphatec
`itself cites numerous cases in its own Bench Memorandum not previously raised in
`its summary judgment submissions. Doc. No. 322 at 2-4.
`In any case, the Court need not trouble itself with Alphatec’s objections.
`NuVasive’s arguments and legal theory in support of its motion for summary
`judgment on the issue of priority date remain unchanged: there can be no genuine
`dispute of fact that the provisional application discloses the claimed implant and
`therefore NuVasive is entitled to the March 29, 2004 priority date as a matter of
`law.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inherent propert[y]” in the provisional application. Doc. No. 323 at 2. Rather, it has
`always been NuVasive’s position that by disclosing “spike elements” made of
`“radiopaque” material, the provisional application indisputably disclosed the
`“radiopaque marker” limitation. Doc. No. 303-1 at 40-41.
`2
`
`NUVA’S RESPONSE TO ATEC’S OBJECTION TO
`
`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 324 Filed 04/29/21 PageID.30537 Page 4 of 5
`
`Dated: April 29, 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
`mhilgers@hilgersgraben.com
`575 Fallbrook Blvd., Suite 202
`Lincoln, NE 68521
`Tel: 402-218-2106
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`NUVA’S RESPONSE TO ATEC’S OBJECTION TO
`
`BENCH MEMORANDUM RE PRIORITY DATE
`
`3
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 324 Filed 04/29/21 PageID.30538 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`
`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 29th 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
`
`
`