Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31260 Page 1 of 35
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI P.C.
`MORRIS FODEMAN (pro hac vice)
`mfodeman@wsgr.com
`WENDY L. DEVINE (SBN 246337)
`wdevine@wsgr.com
`NATALIE J. MORGAN (SBN 211143)
`nmorgan@wsgr.com
`12235 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`(858) 350-2300
`
`HILGERS GRABEN PLLC
`MICHAEL T. HILGERS (pro hac vice)
`mhilgers@hilgersgraben.com
`575 Fallbrook Blvd, Suite 202
`Lincoln, NE 68521
`(402) 218-2106
`
`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 COMBINED
`
`
`) MOTIONS IN LIMINE
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`)
`v.
`)
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`
`)
`
`
`)
`Courtroom: 15A
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC., a
`)
`
`Delaware corporation, and ALPHATEC
`)
`PER CHAMBERS RULES, NO
`SPINE, INC., a California corporation,
`)
`ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS
`
`)
`SEPARATELY ORDERED BY THE
` Defendants.
`)
`COURT
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`Trial: December 8, 2021
`)
`
`NUVASIVE’S COMBINED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31261 Page 2 of 35
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`2.
`
`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
`
`
`I.
`
`MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1: PRECLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED
`TO UNASSERTED PATENTS ...................................................................... 2
`A.
`Factual Background .............................................................................. 2
`B.
`Argument ............................................................................................... 3
`1.
`Alphatec should not be allowed to rely on the Unrelated
`NuVasive PTO Proceedings to prove invalidity ........................ 3
`Alphatec should not be allowed to present evidence of the
`Unrelated NuVasive PTO Proceedings to prove good faith ....... 6
`The Court should preclude reference to the Medtronic IPR ...... 8
`3.
`II. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO
`WARSAW LITIGATION AND GLOBUS LITIGATION ............................ 9
`A.
`Factual Background .............................................................................. 9
`B.
`Argument ............................................................................................. 10
`1.
`The Warsaw Litigation is not relevant to validity .................... 11
`2.
`The Warsaw Litigation is not relevant to willfulness ............... 13
`3.
`The Warsaw Litigation is not relevant to damages .................. 14
`4.
`Alphatec intends to taint the jury with the Warsaw
`Litigation ................................................................................... 15
`The Globus Litigation should be excluded ............................... 15
`5.
`III. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3: PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO
`UNRELATED LITIGATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND TO
`NUVASIVE’S MOTIVES FOR FILING SUIT ........................................... 16
`A.
`Factual Background ............................................................................ 17
`B.
`Argument ............................................................................................. 18
`IV. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4: PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO
`IRRELEVANT AND UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS OF
`MISCONDUCT ............................................................................................. 20
`A.
`Factual Background ............................................................................ 20
`B.
`Argument ............................................................................................. 21
`
`NUVASIVE’S COMBINED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`i
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31262 Page 3 of 35
`
`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
`
`
`
`V. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5: PRECLUDE ARGUMENTS
`REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF “PIVOT” CLAIM TERMS ............ 22
`A.
`Factual Background ............................................................................ 22
`B.
`Argument ............................................................................................. 23
`VI. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6: PRECLUDE EVIDENCE
`REGARDING EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DEFENSE ................................. 23
`A.
`Factual Background ............................................................................ 23
`B.
`Argument ............................................................................................. 23
`VII. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7: PRECLUDE ARGUMENT THAT
`BLEWETT IS PRIOR ART TO THE ’832 PATENT .................................. 24
`A.
`Factual Background and Argument .................................................... 24
`VIII. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8: PRECLUDE ALPHATEC WITNESSES
`FROM TESTIFYING BEYOND SCOPE OF RULE 26
`DISCLOSURES ............................................................................................ 25
`A.
`Factual Background and Argument .................................................... 25
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`
`
`NUVASIVE’S COMBINED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`ii
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31263 Page 4 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`CASES
`ATEN Int’l Co. v. Uniclass Tech. Co.,
`932 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ....................................................................... 23
`Bio-Rad Lab’s, Inc. v. 10X Genomics, Inc., No. 15-cv-152-RGA,
`2018 WL 6629705 (D. Del. Oct. 12, 2018) .............................................. 3, 5, 6
`Bonin v. Calderon,
`59 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 1995) ............................................................................. 21
`City of Long Beach v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal.,
`46 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 1995) ....................................................................... 21, 22
`Crane Sec. Techs., Inc. v. Rolling Optics AB,
`337 F. Supp. 3d 48 (D. Mass. 2018), aff’d, 784 F. App’x 782
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................. 7, 8
`EagleView Techs., Inc. v. Xactware Sols., Inc.,
`522 F. Supp. 3d 40 (D.N.J. 2021) ..................................................................... 8
`Forest Lab’s, LLC v. Sigmapharm Lab’s, LLC,
`918 F.3d 928 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................................... 4
`Grace v. Apple, Inc., No. 17-CV-00551-LHK,
`2020 WL 227404 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2020) ................................................... 12
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ......................................................................... 4
`In re Homestore.com, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 01-11115,
`2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10677 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2011) ............................... 19
`Interdigital Commc’ns Inc. v. Nokia Corp., No. 13-10-RGA,
`2014 WL 8104167 (D. Del. Sept. 19, 2014) ..................................................... 6
`Kolcraft Enters. v. Chicco USA, Inc., No. 09 C 03339,
`2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236740 (N.D. Ill. July 16, 2018) ..................... 3, 4, 5, 6
`Medeiros v. Choy,
`142 Haw. 233, 418 P.3d 574 (2018) ............................................................... 18
`Nat’l Presto Indus., Inc. v. West Bend Co.,
`76 F.3d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................... 11, 12
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................................................................... 23
`Polara Eng’g, Inc v. Campbell Co.,
`894 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................................................................... 6
`
`NUVASIVE’S COMBINED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`ii
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31264 Page 5 of 35
`
`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
`
`
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 08-309-LPS,
`2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186021 (D. Del. Oct. 31, 2018) .................................. 8
`Precision Fabrics Grp., Inc. v. Tietex Int’l, Ltd.,
`367 F. Supp. 3d 487 (D.S.C. 2019), aff’d, 790 F. App’x 208
`(Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................... 18
`Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. 13-cv-02024-RMW,
`2016 WL 590121 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2016) ................................................... 15
`Ricks v. Matayoshi, No. 16-00044,
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56248 (D. Haw. Apr. 12, 2017) ................................ 19
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 3:14cv757,
`2016 WL 754547 (E.D. Va. Feb. 24, 2016) .............................................. 18, 19
`Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings Inc., No. 14-1330-WCB,
`2017 WL 5633204 (D. Del. Nov. 21, 2017) ................................................... 13
`SSL Servs., LLC v. Citrix Sys., Inc.,
`769 F.3d 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 8
`Tinnus Enters., LLC v. Telebrands Corp.,
`369 F. Supp. 3d 704 (E.D. Tex. 2019) .......................................................... 3, 6
`TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................... 11
`Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00220-MLH,
`2020 WL 978731 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2020) ..................................................... 6
`Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc.,
`778 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................. 10, 11
`Wisconsin Alumni Rsch. Found. v. Apple, Inc.,
`135 F. Supp. 3d 865 (W.D. Wis. 2015) ............................................................. 6
`Wonderland NurseryGoods Co. v. Thorley Indus., LLC, No. 12-196,
`2014 WL 289446 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2014) .................................................... 12
`Zimmer Surgical, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., No. 16-679-RGA,
`2019 WL 9171205 (D. Del. Mar. 13, 2019) .................................................... 15
`
`
`
`NUVASIVE’S COMBINED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`iii
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31265 Page 6 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`
`
`PAGE(S)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 ........................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ..................................................................................................... 25
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 25
`35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1) ................................................................................................ 25
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ....................................................................................................... 4
`RULES
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 ....................................................................................................... 18
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i) .................................................................................... 25
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) .............................................................................................. 25
`Fed. R. Evid. 401 ......................................................................................... 5, 9, 15, 22
`Fed. R. Evid. 402 ................................................................................................. 15, 19
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 ................................................................................................ passim
`Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1) .............................................................................................. 21
`Fed. R. Evid. 608(b) .................................................................................................. 21
`Patent L.R. 3.7.b .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`NUVASIVE’S COMBINED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`iv
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31266 Page 7 of 35
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`Exhibits to Declaration of Trent Tanner in support of
`NuVasive’s Combined Motions in Limine
`Motions in Limine
`NuVasive, Inc.
`Alphatec Holdings, Inc. and Alphatec Spine, Inc.
`Defendants’ Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff
`NuVasive, Inc.’s Interrogatory Nos. 2, 7, 11, and 17
`(11/6/2020)
`International Publication No. WO 03/005887, entitled
`"Systems and Methods for Determining Nerve
`Proximity, Direction, and Pathology During Surgery,"
`by Blewett, dated 01/23/2003
`U.S. Patent 6,945,933 entitled “Instruments and
`Methods for Minimally Invasive Tissue Retraction and
`Surgery,” by Branch et al., dated 09/20/2005
`Corrected Opening Expert Report of Dr. Charles L.
`Branch, Jr., M.D. (11/1/2019)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Ryan Donahoe
`(11/6/2020)
`Transcript of the Deposition of John English
`(11/5/2020)
`NuVasive Inc. v. Globus Medical Inc., 1:10-cv-00849-
`LPS (D. Del.).
`Inter Partes Review
`Transcript of the Deposition of Matthew Link
`(12/3/2019)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Matthew Link’s
`30(b)(6) (10/29/2020)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Gregory Lucier
`(1/17/2020)
`Alphatec Amended Preliminary Trial Exhibit List
`“Prelim. Trial Exhibit
`(Excel) (10/22/2021)
`List”
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`“PTO”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`“PTAB”
`“Robinson 11/4 Dep.” Transcript of the 30(b)(6) Deposition of Scott
`Robinson’s (11/4/2020)
`
`Transcript of the 30(b)(6) Deposition of Scott
`“Robinson 10/29
`Dep.”
`Robinson’s (10/29/2019)
`NUVASIVE’S COMBINED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`v
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`“Ex.”
`
`“MILs”
`“NuVasive”
`“Alphatec”
`“Alphatec Supp.
`Resp.”
`
`“Blewett”
`
`“Branch ’933 patent”
`
`“Branch Opening
`Rep.”
`“Donahoe Dep.”
`
`“English 11/5 Dep.”
`
`“Globus Litigation”
`
`“IPR”
`“Link 12/3 Dep.”
`
`“Link 10/29 Dep.”
`
`“Lucier Dep.”
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31267 Page 8 of 35
`
`“Sachs Damages
`Rep.”
`
`“Sachs 11/22 Rep.”
`
`“Ugone Rebut. Rep.”
`
`“Ugone Supp. Rep.”
`
`“Unrelated NuVasive
`PTO Proceedings”
`
`Rebuttal Expert Report of Barton L. Sachs, M.D.,
`M.B.A., F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E. (Damages)
`(12/4/2019)
`
`Rebuttal Report of Barton L. Sachs, M.D., M.B.A.,
`F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E. (11/22/2019)
`Rebuttal Expert Report of Keith R. Ugone, Ph.D.
`(12/4/2019)
`Supplemental Rebuttal Expert Report of Keith R.
`Ugone, Ph.D. (12/18/2020)
`
`Patent Office proceedings regarding NuVasive patents
`that are not—and have never been—asserted in this
`litigation
`“Warsaw Litigation” Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc.,
`No. 3:08-cv-1512 CAB (MDD) (S.D. Cal.) and
`Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive Inc., No. 3:12-
`cv-02738-CAB (S.D. Cal.)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Jim A. Youssef, M.D.
`(4/27/2018)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`“Youssef 4/27 Dep.”
`
`NUVASIVE’S COMBINED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`vi
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31268 Page 9 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`This is—or should be—a straightforward patent infringement case.
`Beginning in the early 2000s, NuVasive invented technology and pioneered a new
`approach to performing spine surgery called “eXtreme Lateral Interbody Fusion”
`or “XLIF.” On the shoulders of XLIF and its related intellectual property,
`NuVasive would eventually become a leader in the spine surgery device industry.
`In 2017, however, after years of financial and managerial turmoil, and in a last-
`ditch attempt to stave off bankruptcy, Alphatec launched an XLIF copycat and
`began aggressively targeting spine surgeons who used NuVasive equipment, with
`the aid of many former NuVasive employees, executives, and sales reps. In early
`2018, NuVasive sued Alphatec for infringing several of NuVasive’s patents.
`In this Combined Motions in Limine, NuVasive asks the Court to preclude
`reference, evidence, and/or argument along eight categories. For the most part, the
`purpose of these MILs is to prevent Alphatec from attempting to make this
`something other than a straightforward patent case. For example, in MIL Nos. 1
`and 2 below, NuVasive asks the Court to preclude evidence regarding unasserted
`patents and unrelated prior patent office proceedings or litigations. MIL No. 3
`similarly seeks to preclude evidence about any other litigations between NuVasive
`and Alphatec (or Alphatec-related persons or entities) and about NuVasive’s
`purported motives for bringing this patent infringement suit. MIL No. 4 urges the
`Court to preclude unproven accusations that NuVasive or its representatives have
`engaged in misconduct that has nothing to do with the issues in dispute in this case.
`MIL Nos. 5 and 6 address some of Alphatec’s improper claim construction and
`equitable estoppel defenses that will be tried separately to the Court, MIL No. 7
`asks the Court to preclude argument that Blewett is prior art to the ’832 patent,
`because it is not, and MIL No. 8 asks the Court to preclude testimony by Alphatec
`witnesses that were not properly disclosed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26.
`For the below reasons, NuVasive asks the Court to grant its MILs.
`
`
`NUVASIVE’S COMBINED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`1
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31269 Page 10 of 35
`
`
`I. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1: PRECLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO
`UNASSERTED PATENTS
`The Court should preclude Alphatec from introducing any evidence or
`argument related to patent office proceedings involving either unasserted
`NuVasive patents or patents of an unrelated third party, Medtronic.
`A.
`Factual Background
`In its expert reports and interrogatory responses, Alphatec relies heavily on
`patent office proceedings regarding NuVasive patents that are not—and have never
`been—asserted in this litigation (the “Unrelated NuVasive PTO Proceedings”).
`Alphatec claims these proceedings: (a) show that the Asserted Patents are invalid
`as obvious; and (b) rebut NuVasive’s claim of willful infringement because the
`proceedings purportedly confirmed Alphatec’s good faith belief that the Asserted
`Patents were invalid. Ex. 1 (Branch Opening Rep.) ¶¶ 53, 54, 91, 92, 136-167;
`Ex. 2 (Alphatec Supp. Resp. ROG 7) at 17-21.
`Alphatec also relies on an IPR petition NuVasive filed against a patent
`owned by an unrelated third party (Medtronic), and asserts that statements
`NuVasive made in that petition regarding a certain prior art procedure are relevant
`to obviousness here. Ex. 1 (Branch Opening Rep.) ¶ 66 (citing NuVasive’s
`statements during IPR2013-00206 involving Medtronic’s U.S. Pat. No. 8,251,997
`(“Medtronic IPR”) that the prior art Jacobson procedure constituted a “direct
`lateral” procedure as recited in the Medtronic ’997 patent).1
`
`
`1 In its Prelim. Trial Exhibit List, Alphatec includes numerous documents
`related to both the Unrelated NuVasive PTO Proceedings and the Medtronic IPR,
`including IPR petitions and briefs filed in the proceedings, witness declarations
`from the proceedings, Federal Circuit opinions related to the proceedings, and
`news publications reporting on the proceedings. Ex. 3 (Prelim. Trial Exhibit List)
`(citing DTX 110-120, 124-131, 139-141, 144-152, 159-163, 165-168). This
`confirms Alphatec intends to present large amounts of evidence about these
`irrelevant proceedings to the jury.
`NUVASIVE’S COMBINED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`2
`
`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 342 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31270 Page 11 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`B. Argument
`The Court should not permit evidence or argument regarding the Unrelated
`NuVasive PTO Proceedings or the Medtronic IPR. The probative value of such
`evidence (if any) is outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice and jury confusion.
`1.
`Alphatec should not be allowed to rely on the Unrelated
`NuVasive PTO Proceedings to prove invalidity
`
`For at least the following reasons evidence regarding the Unrelated
`NuVasive PTO Proceedings is not probative of Alphatec’s argument that the
`Asserted Patents are invalid as obvious.
`First, the Unrelated NuVasive PTO Proceedings dealt with claims in
`unasserted patents that are different—and broader—in scope than the claims in the
`Asserted Patents. Kolcraft Enters. v. Chicco USA, Inc., No. 09 C 03339, 2018 U.S.
`Dist. LEXIS 236740, at *5-6 (N.D. Ill. July 16, 2018) (“Validity is evaluated on a
`claim-by-claim basis, [] so it is not clear why the validity of the unasserted claims
`would be relevant to [the] invalidity arguments in this case”); Bio-Rad Lab’s, Inc.
`v. 10X Genomics, Inc., No. 15-cv-152-RGA, 2018 WL 6629705, at *1 (D. Del.
`Oct. 12, 2018) (“[L]itigations and IPRs involving unrelated patents [] are not
`relevant to this case”); Tinnus Enters., LLC v. Telebrands Corp., 369 F. Supp. 3d
`704, 739 (E.D. Tex. 2019) (same). For example, each of challenged claims of the
`unasserted patents requires a retractor with a generic “plurality of blades.” In
`contrast, each of the claims of the Asserted Patents requires a three-bladed retractor
`where each of the blades is capable of a specific movement. Notably, one of the
`Asserted Patents (the ’801 patent) was the subject of a reexamination that resulted
`in the PTO and PTAB confirming patentability of precisely such a three-bladed
`retractor over much of the same prior art that Alphatec relies on in this case.
`Second, the Unrelated NuVasive PTO Proceedings involved different prior
`art combinations than what Alphatec plans to argue at trial. For example, the
`Unrelated NuVasive PTO Proceedings involved combinations of prior art that
`
`NUVASIVE’S COMBINED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`3
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31271 Page 12 of 35
`
`
`included several references that are not included in Alphatec’s obviousness
`combinations, including: Obenchain, Kossmann, Michelson, Smith, Rose,
`Mathews, Neubardt, Cistac, and Onimus.
`Third, the PTO applied different legal standards than those that apply in this
`case. For example, instead of the Phillips claim construction standard that this
`Court uses, the PTO applied the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard in
`the NuVasive proceedings. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
`(Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The ‘broadest reasonable construction’ rule applies to
`reexaminations… .”); Fed. Reg. 51340, 51341 (Oct. 11, 2018) (explaining that the
`broadest reasonable construction standard applied to IPRs filed before November
`2018). Additionally, the PTO determines invalidity using the “preponderance”
`standard instead of the higher “clear and convincing evidence” burden of proof that
`Alphatec must meet at trial. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1. Thus, even
`though some of the claims in the Unrelated NuVasive PTO Proceedings were
`found invalid, this does not mean they would have been found invalid under the
`more stringent standards applicable here—and yet, Alphatec intends to suggest to
`the jury that because those unasserted claims were found invalid, the Asserted
`Patents must be invalid as well.
`Finally, Alphatec has never attempted to explain how any of the Unrelated
`NuVasive PTO Proceedings prove that the Asserted Patents are invalid as obvious.
`Instead, all Alphatec has done is have its expert provide a bare summary of the
`proceedings, along with his observations that the PTO found certain individual
`claim elements in the prior art. Ex. 1 (Branch Opening Rep.) ¶¶ 53, 54, 91, 92,
`136-167. This is legally insufficient. Forest Lab’s, LLC v. Sigmapharm Lab's,
`LLC, 918 F.3d 928, 934 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“An invention is not obvious simply
`because all of the claimed limitations were known in the prior art at the time of the
`invention”); Kolcraft, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236740, at *5-6 (excluding evidence
`regarding invalidity of unasserted claims where defendant “d[id] not explain how
`
`NUVASIVE’S COMBINED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`4
`
`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 342 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31272 Page 13 of 35
`
`
`[the evidence is] relevant.”).
`Thus, because the Unrelated NuVasive PTO Proceedings have no relevance
`to obviousness (Alphatec’s only invalidity defense), and because Alphatec has
`failed to identify how they may be relevant to any other issue in this case, these
`proceedings should be excluded as irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402.
`Further, even if the Unrelated NuVasive PTO Proceedings had some
`probative value, it is outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, juror confusion,
`and waste of time. As an initial matter, any reference to these proceedings would
`improperly invite the jury to conclude that because claims in unasserted patents
`were invalidated, the Asserted Patents must be invalid too. Ex. 4 (Trading Techs.
`Int’l, Inc. v. BCG Partners, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-00715 (N.D. Ill. July 29, 2021) (Dkt.
`1992)) (“Reference to the fact that unasserted patents have been invalidated is
`more prejudicial than probative, as the jury may conclude the asserted patents are
`invalid because other patents were invalidated.”). This is especially unfair given
`that the PTO did not universally invalidate these other NuVasive patents, as
`Alphatec’s assertions would suggest. For example: (a) the PTAB declined to
`institute IPR for two claims of the (unasserted) ’356 patent; (b) the Federal Circuit
`vacated the PTAB’s findings on obviousness for the (unasserted) ’767 patent; and
`(c) while the original claims of the (unasserted) ’058 patent were canceled during
`reexamination, NuVasive added new claims that were confirmed to be patentable
`by both the PTAB and the Federal Circuit.
`Allowing Alphatec to point to these Unrelated NuVasive PTO Proceedings
`would also require instructing the jury regarding the different legal standards, facts,
`purposes and outcomes between the Unrelated NuVasive PTO Proceedings and
`this litigation. It would waste significant time to explain issues of little to no
`probative value while still potentially misleading and confusing the jury. Courts
`routinely recognize that precisely such considerations justify exclusion of prior
`PTO proceedings. E.g., Bio-Rad Lab’s, 2018 WL 6629705, at *1 (excluding IPRs
`
`NUVASIVE’S COMBINED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`5
`
`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 342 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31273 Page 14 of 35
`
`
`involving unasserted patents because they “have marginal probative value [and]
`that value is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the issues,
`misleading the jury, and wasting time by needlessly presenting evidence of little or
`no value”); Interdigital Commc'ns Inc. v. Nokia Corp., No. 13-10-RGA, 2014 WL
`8104167, at *1 (D. Del. Sept. 19, 2014) (same); Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-00220-MLH (KSx), 2020 WL 978731, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2020)
`(same); Wisconsin Alumni Rsch. Found. v. Apple, Inc., 135 F. Supp. 3d 865, 874
`(W.D. Wis. 2015) (same). The same result should apply here, and the Unrelated
`NuVasive PTO Proceedings should be excluded. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`2.
`Alphatec should not be allowed to present evidence of the
`Unrelated NuVasive PTO Proceedings to prove good faith
`
`Alphatec’s interrogatory response indicates that it intends to introduce
`evidence about the Unrelated NuVasive PTO Proceedings to support Alphatec’s
`argument that it believed in good faith the Asserted Patents were invalid. Alphatec
`should be precluded from doing so for several reasons.
`First, as noted above, the Unrelated NuVasive PTO Proceedings have no
`bearing on the validity of the Asserted Patents—those proceedings examined
`different patent claims with different (and broader) scope, different prior art, under
`different legal standards. Polara Eng'g, Inc v. Campbell Co., 894 F.3d 1339, 1354
`(Fed. Cir. 2018) (opinion regarding invalidity of unasserted claim “offers little, if
`any, support for the contention that [infringer] acted in good faith or had a
`reasonable basis to believe that the asserted claims are invalid or would not be
`infringed”); Kolcraft, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236740, at *5-6 (“[G]ood-faith belief
`that [infringer] was not infringing other claims is not relevant to whether
`[infringer] willfully infringed the asserted claims”); Tinnus, 369 F. Supp. 3d at
`739.
`
`Second, Alphatec’s reliance on the Unrelated NuVasive PTO Proceedings
`appears to be an improper attempt to backdoor an advice-of-counsel defense while
`NUVASIVE’S COMBINED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`6
`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 342 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31274 Page 15 of 35
`
`
`at the same time refusing to waive privilege over its attorney-client
`communications regarding such advice. Under the Scheduling Order in this case—
`had Alphatec decided to rely on an opinion of counsel that the asserted claims were
`invalid and/or not infringed—Alphatec needed to disclose such reliance by
`September 5, 2019. Doc. No. 183 at 1. Had Alphatec disclosed such reliance by
`that date, then it would have been required to produce any advice “for which the
`attorney-client…[privilege] have been waived.” Patent L.R. 3.7.b. Alphatec did
`not disclose any such reliance, and accordingly did not produce any privileged
`communications to NuVasive regarding its purported “good faith belief” of
`invalidity. Additionally, when NuVasive questioned Alphatec’s corporate witness
`regarding the specific details of its good faith belief of invalidity, including any
`reliance on the Unrelated NuVasive PTO Proceedings, Alphatec instructed the
`witness not to answer on the grounds of attorney-client privilege. Ex. 5 (Robinson
`11/4 Dep.) 20:5-22:12; Ex. 6 (Robinson 10/29 Dep.) 38:21-24. That corporate
`witness testified that he had no idea how the Unrelated NuVasive PTO
`Proceedings bore on the validity of the Asserted Patents. Ex. 5 (Robinson 11/4
`Dep.) 17:4-24, 20:5-22:12 (stating in response to questions about Alphatec’s good-
`faith belief of invalidity based on the PTO proceedings: “My personal knowledge
`of this is limited…I would not be able to make . . . any kind of, like, legal
`judgment on this…I’m not a lawyer…Alphatec was aware of the final PTAB
`ruling. I would have been unable to give you a complete answer as to exactly what
`that meant for our accused products.”).
`The mere fact that Alphatec knew of the prior PTO proceedings alone
`cannot support a finding of good faith belief of invalidity for willfulness. Crane
`Sec. Techs., Inc. v. Rolling Optics AB, 337 F. Supp. 3d 48, 57–58 (D. Mass. 2018),
`aff'd, 784 F. App’x 782 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (concluding that invalidity and non-
`infringement opinions of infringer’s representative “who is not a lawyer and has no
`expertise in U.S. patent law, alone could not have supported a good faith belief by
`
`NUVASIVE’S COMBINED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`7
`
`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