Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-10 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31443 Page 1 of
`13
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 9
`TO TRENT TANNER DECLARATION ISO
`NUVASIVE’S COMBINED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-10 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31444 Page 2 of
`13
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN DIEGO DIVISION
`
`NUVASIVE, INC.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CASE NO. 18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC. and
`ALPHATEC SPINE, INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF KEITH R. UGONE, PH.D.
`
`December 4, 2019
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`EXHIBIT 9, Page 135 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-10 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31445 Page 3 of
`13
`
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF KEITH R. UGONE, PH.D.
`
`December 4, 2019
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF ASSIGNMENT ................................................................................... 1
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ............................................................................................ 3
`A. Evaluation Of NuVasive’s Claimed Lost Profits Damages As Presented In The
`Inglish Damages Report ................................................................................................ 4
`
`B. Reasonable Royalty For A License To The Patents-In-Suit ......................................... 7
`
`C. Monetary Damages Are Adequate To Compensate NuVasive For Alphatec’s
`Alleged Infringement .................................................................................................... 8
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE .................................................................... 9
`
`FACTS, DATA, AND INFORMATION RECEIVED................................................. 10
`
`OVERVIEW OF PARTIES ........................................................................................... 13
`A. NuVasive..................................................................................................................... 13
`
`B. Alphatec ...................................................................................................................... 13
`
`VI.
`
`OVERVIEW OF PATENTS-IN-SUIT ......................................................................... 14
`
`VII. MARKET AND PRODUCT OVERVIEW .................................................................. 16
`A. Overview Of Spinal Fusion Surgery And Market For Lateral Lumbar Interbody
`Fusion Products ........................................................................................................... 16
`
`1. Spinal Fusion Surgery ........................................................................................... 16
`
`2. Market For Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Products ....................................... 20
`
`B. NuVasive’s MAS Platform And Embodying Products .............................................. 22
`
`1. Description Of NuVasive’s MAS Platform And XLIF Offerings ........................ 22
`
`2. NuVasive’s Sales Associated With Its MAS Platform/XLIF Procedure .............. 24
`
`C. Alphatec’s Battalion Lateral System And Accused Products ..................................... 25
`
`1. Description Of Alphatec’s Battalion Lateral System And Accused Products ...... 25
`
`2. Alphatec’s Sales Associated With Its At-Issue Battalion Lateral System ............ 29
`
`VIII. SUMMARY OF NUVASIVE’S CLAIMED DAMAGES AS PRESENTED BY MR.
`INGLISH ......................................................................................................................... 32
`A. Mr. Inglish’s Claimed Lost Profits Opinion ............................................................... 33
`
`1. Mr. Inglish’s Claimed Lost Profits On Lost Implant Units .................................. 33
`
`2. Mr. Inglish’s Claimed Reasonable Royalty On Remaining Implant Units .......... 39
`
`3. Mr. Inglish’s Total Claimed Lost Profits .............................................................. 40
`
`B. Mr. Inglish’s Claimed Reasonable Royalty Opinion .................................................. 41
`
`1. Hypothetical Negotiation Dates ............................................................................ 41
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`- i -
`
`EXHIBIT 9, Page 136 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-10 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31446 Page 4 of
`13
`
`2. Claimed Royalty Rate ........................................................................................... 41
`
`3. Claimed Royalty Base........................................................................................... 42
`
`4. Claimed Royalty Damages ................................................................................... 43
`
`IX.
`
`EVALUATION OF NUVASIVE’S CLAIMED LOST PROFITS DAMAGES AS
`PRESENTED IN THE INGLISH DAMAGES REPORT .......................................... 43
`A. Alphatec Had Acceptable Non-Infringing Alternatives ............................................. 44
`
`B. Alphatec’s Sales Of The Battalion Lateral System Are Attributable To Factors
`Unrelated To The Patents-In-Suit ............................................................................... 47
`
`1. Safety And Reproducibility Are Not Unique To The Patented Technology ........ 48
`
`2. Experienced Sales Representatives And Strong Relationships With Surgeons
`Are Key Drivers Of Demand For Lateral Spine Surgery Products/Platforms ...... 49
`
`3. Non-Accused Lateral Spine Surgery Products Have Been Commercially
`Successful Without Using The Asserted Claims Of The Patents-In-Suit ............. 57
`
`C. Lack Of Evidence That NuVasive Would Have Made Alphatec’s At-Issue Sales
`Absent The Alleged Infringement .............................................................................. 61
`
`1. Mr. Inglish Misrepresents The Degree Of Overlap Between Alphatec’s And
`NuVasive’s Customer Bases ................................................................................. 62
`
`2. Mr. Inglish Inappropriately Assumes NuVasive Would Have Made All Of
`Alphatec’s Alleged “Diverted Sales” (In One Scenario) ...................................... 63
`
`3. NuVasive Does Not Identify Alphatec As A “Significant Competitor” ............... 66
`
`4. Alphatec’s At-Issue Battalion Lateral System Is Differentiated From
`NuVasive’s MAS Platform/XLIF Offerings ......................................................... 67
`
`D. Excluding Implants From NuVasive’s Claimed Lost Profits ..................................... 69
`
`E. Conclusion Relating To NuVasive’s Lost Profits Claim ............................................ 74
`
`X.
`
`REASONABLE ROYALTY FOR A LICENSE TO THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT ...... 76
`A. Patent Infringement Royalty Damages ....................................................................... 77
`
`1. Hypothetical Negotiation Framework And The Georgia-Pacific Factors ............ 78
`
`2. Hypothetical Negotiation Date And Parties .......................................................... 80
`
`3. Hypothetical Negotiation Predicates..................................................................... 81
`
`B. NuVasive’s Negotiating Position ................................................................................ 82
`
`1. Claimed Benefits Of The Patents-In-Suit ............................................................. 82
`
`2. The Significant Investment To Develop The Patented Products And MAS
`Platform / XLIF Procedure ................................................................................... 86
`
`3. NuVasive Would Acknowledge That The Sales Of Its Embodying Products Is
`Attributable To Factors Unrelated To The Patents-In-Suit................................... 87
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`- ii -
`
`EXHIBIT 9, Page 137 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-10 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31447 Page 5 of
`13
`
`4. NuVasive Would Assert That Alphatec Would Be A Competitor With Respect
`To NuVasive’s MAS Platform/XLIF Offerings ................................................... 93
`
`C. Alphatec’s Negotiating Position ................................................................................. 94
`
`1. Alphatec Would Have Had Acceptable Non-Infringing Alternatives To The
`Patents-In-Suit....................................................................................................... 95
`
`2. Sales Of Alphatec’s At-Issue Battalion Lateral System Are Not Attributable To
`The Patents-In-Suit ............................................................................................... 95
`
`3. Alphatec Was Under Significant Financial Stress At The Time Of The
`Hypothetical Negotiation ...................................................................................... 96
`
`4. Alphatec Would Stress That There Are Numerous Competitors In The Lateral
`Surgery Market ..................................................................................................... 98
`
`D. Value Indicators For A License To The Patents-In-Suit ............................................ 99
`
`1. NuVasive’s License Agreements .......................................................................... 99
`
`2. Alphatec’s Agreements ....................................................................................... 102
`
`E. Outcome Of The Hypothetical Negotiation .............................................................. 110
`
`XI. MONETARY DAMAGES ARE ADEQUATE TO COMPENSATE NUVASIVE
`FOR ALPHATEC’S ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT ................................................ 112
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`- iii -
`
`EXHIBIT 9, Page 138 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-10 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31448 Page 6 of
`13
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF KEITH R. UGONE, PH.D.
`
`December 4, 2019
`
`OVERVIEW OF ASSIGNMENT
`
`I have been retained as an economics and damages expert for Alphatec Holdings, Inc. and
`
`Alphatec Spine, Inc. (“Alphatec” or “Defendants”) in the matter of NuVasive, Inc. v.
`
`Alphatec Holdings, Inc. and Alphatec Spine, Inc.0F
`
`1 I understand that NuVasive, Inc.
`
`(“NuVasive” or “Plaintiff”) alleges that Alphatec has infringed the asserted claims of the
`
`seven patents contained in Table 1 (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”) by providing
`
`various components of Alphatec’s Battalion Lateral System (“Accused Products”).
`
`Table 1
`Patents-In-Suit1F
`
`2
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`Issuance Date
`
`Expiration Date Accused Products2F
`
`3
`
`7,819,801
`(’801 Patent)
`
`8,355,780
`(’780 Patent)
`
`8,439,832
`(’832 Patent)
`
`8,753,270
`(’270 Patent)
`
`9,833,227
`(’227 Patent)
`
`9,924,859
`(’859 Patent)
`
`9,974,531
`(’531 Patent)
`
`1, 2, 6, 15-17, 19-
`21, 23, 26, 28, 29
`
`10/26/2010
`
`9/12/2028
`
`Retractor, Dilators,
`Intradiscal Shim
`
`21, 22, 24-28
`
`01/15/2013
`
`5/25/2025
`
`Retractor, Dilators
`
`1-4, 6-10, 12-14,
`16, 17, 19
`
`05/14/2013
`
`1/18/2025
`
`Retractor, Dilators,
`K-Wire
`
`1-4, 6, 12
`
`06/17/2014
`
`1/16/2024
`
`Intradiscal Shim
`
`1, 2, 6, 13, 15-17,
`22, 28
`
`12/5/2017
`
`6/26/2023
`
`Retractor, Dilators
`
`1-26, 28-36
`
`03/27/2018
`
`8/23/2031
`
`Retractor, 4th Blade,
`4th Blade Crossbar
`
`1-20, 26-34, 39
`
`05/22/2018
`
`9/27/2024
`
`Retractor, Dilators
`
`1 Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement dated September 13, 2018 (“Amended Complaint”).
`
`2 Expert Report of Blake Inglish dated November 8, 2019 (“Inglish Damages Report”), pp. 11 – 34 and Schedule 4,
`p. 7. In its Amended Complaint, NuVasive also asserted that Alphatec infringed certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
`8,361,156 and 8,187,334. (Amended Complaint, p, 1.) However, I understand that litigation regarding these two
`patents currently is stayed. (Plaintiff NuVasive, Inc.’s Second Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions dated September 5, 2019, p. 1.)
`
`3 Based upon the notes in Schedule 4 of the Inglish Damages Report, the Accused Products presented in this table
`represent the components of Alphatec’s at-issue Battalion Lateral System that, when used together, constitute alleged
`infringement of the respective Patent-in-Suit.
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`- 1 -
`
`EXHIBIT 9, Page 139 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-10 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31449 Page 7 of
`13
`
`Rebuttal Expert Report of Keith R. Ugone, Ph.D.
`December 4, 2019
`_____________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`products. As a result, without investigating why surgeons purchased Alphatec’s Battalion
`
`Lateral System, Mr. Inglish cannot conclude that NuVasive would have made Alphatec’s
`
`sales in the but-for world.
`
`82.
`
`In a scenario where Alphatec’s Accused Products are unavailable, it is likely that surgeons
`
`would have instead used alternatives with the most similar features and functionalities.
`
`Therefore, Mr. Inglish’s approach based solely upon market shares (with no investigation
`
`into the differentiating features and functionalities of each product/platform sold in the
`
`market) likely would overstate the share of sales NuVasive could capture in the but-for
`
`world. In other words, the market share based approach employed by Mr. Inglish in this
`
`matter fails to account for the fact that surgeons would be more likely to switch to products
`
`with features and functionalities that are more similar to Alphatec’s product. Given that
`
`Alphatec’s Battalion Lateral System has numerous features and functionalities that
`
`differentiate its products from NuVasive’s MAS Platform/XLIF offerings (according to
`
`Dr. Sachs), there is a lack of evidence that NuVasive would capture sales at a rate equal to
`
`its existing market share.285 F
`
`286
`
`D. Excluding Implants From NuVasive’s Claimed Lost Profits
`
`83.
`
`As summarized in Table 1, Mr. Inglish identified the components of Alphatec’s Battalion
`
`Lateral System that “when used together, constitute infringement” of each Patent-in-
`
`Suit.286F
`
`287 Mr. Inglish utilized these allegedly infringing combinations to calculate
`
`286 In addition, Mr. Inglish calculated claimed lost profits damages across multiple damages scenarios depending upon
`whether NuVasive’s claimed market share was based upon the LLIF market, LLIF and OLIF market, or MIS market.
`According to Mr. Link, NuVasive’s XLIF procedure competes with other, non-lateral procedures, including ALIF,
`TLIF, PLIF, and OLIF. (Link Deposition (12/3/2019), p. 210.) Thus, based upon Mr. Link’s deposition testimony, it
`appears that the larger market (i.e., MIS market) is the most appropriate and relevant market for the purposes of
`determining NuVasive’s market share under Mr. Inglish’s damages framework.
`
`287 See also Inglish Damages Report, Schedule 4, p. 7.
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`- 69 -
`
`EXHIBIT 9, Page 140 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-10 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31450 Page 8 of
`13
`
`Rebuttal Expert Report of Keith R. Ugone, Ph.D.
`December 4, 2019
`_____________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`NuVasive’s claimed lost profits damages specific to each Patent-in-Suit.287F
`
`288 However, for
`
`each Patent-in-Suit, Mr. Inglish did not restrict his calculation of claimed lost profits to
`
`only the products identified as part of the allegedly infringing combination. Instead, Mr.
`
`Inglish opined to NuVasive lost profits that include those associated with implants and
`
`other disposables not identified in the allegedly infringing combinations.288F
`
`289
`
`84.
`
`I understand that Alphatec’s technical expert, Dr. Barton Sachs, has opined that Alphatec’s
`
`implants are not functionally related to the products identified in Mr. Inglish’s allegedly
`
`infringing combinations.289F
`
`290 In addition, based upon a discussion with Alphatec’s
`
`personnel, I understand that the implants and other components are sold together in
`
`Alphatec’s Battalion Lateral System out of convenience for Alphatec’s customers and
`
`business strategy (and not because these components are functionally related).2 90F
`
`291
`
`Consequently, I understand the trier-of-fact may determine that Alphatec’s sales of
`
`implants cannot be claimed as lost sales by NuVasive in this matter.
`
`85.
`
`For example, in a similarly situated matter between Warsaw and NuVasive, the United
`
`States Court of Appeals found that Warsaw could not recover lost profits attributable to
`
`288 See Section VIII.A.
`
`289 See Inglish Damages Report, Schedule 1.
`
`290 Sachs Rebuttal Report (12/4/2019), ¶¶ 14 – 28. Also based upon a discussion with Dr. Barton Sachs. In addition,
`according to the declaration of Ms. Howell, lateral spine surgery products generally are interchangeable. Ms. Howell
`noted that “[f]rom a technological and clinical standpoint, one company’s retractor can be used to perform a surgery
`using another company’s implant.” Ms. Howell further noted that while manufacturers “do not favor this approach,”
`mixing products is “technologically feasible, clinically possible, and entirely within the discretion of the operating
`surgeon.” (Howell Declaration, p. 3.) I understand that Ms. Howell’s statements support Alphatec’s position that its
`implants and other components to the Battalion Lateral System are not functionally related.
`
`291 Based upon a discussion with Mike Aleali. In addition, I understand from Mr. Aleali that Alphatec has sold
`implants to surgeons without loaning or selling any other products, as well as lending and selling other disposables
`without selling implants. In fact, Alphatec’s sales data shows that orders have been made where only implants are
`sold to the surgeon. (See Alphatec Sales Data. (ATEC_LLIF000854525_Highly Confidential - Attorney's Eyes
`Only.xlsx, “By Case” tab.)) I understand that this further demonstrates the lack of a functional relationship between
`the implants and other components of Alphatec’s Battalion Lateral System.
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`- 70 -
`
`EXHIBIT 9, Page 141 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-10 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31451 Page 9 of
`13
`
`Rebuttal Expert Report of Keith R. Ugone, Ph.D.
`December 4, 2019
`_____________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`unpatented components because there was not a functional relationship between the
`
`unpatented components and the accused products.291F
`
`292 In the Warsaw v. NuVasive matter,
`
`Warsaw accused NuVasive of infringing patent claims relating to spinal implants, methods
`
`and devices for retracting tissue to create a corridor for minimally invasive spinal surgery,
`
`and neuromonitoring.2 92 F
`
`293 I understand that Warsaw pointed to its marketing material
`
`touting a “comprehensive set” of implants, access tools, integrated neuromonitoring, and
`
`fixations as evidence that fixations should be recoverable as lost profits. In response to
`
`Warsaw’s contentions, NuVasive argued that the sale of fixations are not recoverable as
`
`“convoyed sales” because there is “no functional relationship between the alleged
`
`convoyed sales and the patented products.”293 F
`
`294 The United States Court of Appeals sided
`
`with NuVasive, ordering that fixations were “not convoyed sales recoverable as lost
`
`profits.”294 F
`
`295 In particular, the United States Court of Appeals noted that Warsaw’s use of
`
`marketing material touting a “comprehensive set” of components “does not establish a
`
`functional relationship” and “is the precise sort of convenience or business strategy
`
`excluded by American Seating.”295F
`
`296
`
`86.
`
`Deposition testimony from spine surgeons that have utilized lateral techniques in surgery
`
`and NuVasive and Alphatec personnel further demonstrate the lack of a functional
`
`relationship between the products used in lateral spine surgery procedures.
`
`292 Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., 778 F.3d 1365 (2015).
`
`293 Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., 778 F.3d 1365 (2015), p. 5. Warsaw accused NuVasive of infringing
`certain claims of the following patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,860,973, 6,945,933, and 7,470,236.
`
`294 Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., 778 F.3d 1365 (2015), p. 10.
`
`295 Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., 778 F.3d 1365 (2015), p. 10.
`
`296 Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., 778 F.3d 1365 (2015), p. 10.
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`- 71 -
`
`EXHIBIT 9, Page 142 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-10 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31452 Page 10 of
`13
`
`Rebuttal Expert Report of Keith R. Ugone, Ph.D.
`December 4, 2019
`_____________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`a. Dr. Neville Alleyne. Dr. Alleyne testified to using (i) retractors from Biomet,
`297
`Medtronic, and NuVasive and (ii) fixations from K2, Stryker, J&J, and Alphatec.296 F
`
`b. Dr. Payam Moazzaz. Dr. Moazzaz testified to specifically using a Biomet retractor to
`298 Dr. Moazzaz also
`place K2M implants when performing lateral spine surgery.297 F
`299
`testified to having used lateral offerings from NuVasive, Medtronic, and Globus.298F
`
`c. Mr. Scott Robinson. Mr. Robinson, an engineering manager at Alphatec involved in
`creating the Battalion platform, testified to having seen surgeons “use the Battalion
`platform to do transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion” without using Alphatec’s
`300 Mr. Robinson also testified that it is possible to “mix and
`shim and/or 4th blade. 299F
`match different aspects of spinal surgery and come up with something successful,”
`stating that “you can take components and ideas from – from different areas of spine
`301
`surgery.”3 00F
`
`d. Mr. Eric Finley. Mr. Finley, VP of Development at NuVasive, acknowledged during
`his deposition the following practice, which demonstrates the lack of a functional
`relationship between the products used in lateral spine surgeries.
`
`There’s a surgical technique that is written that demonstrates the best
`practices for how to use the access system incorporating some of the
`other systems, such as neuromonitoring. That’s how we recommend it
`to be used. Surgeons are free to use the device as they see fit, as they’re
`the practicing physician. We cannot restrict them from using it how
`they see fit, as they-re the practicing physician. We cannot restrict them
`302
`from using it how they see fit.301F
`
`e. Mr. Matthew Link. Mr. Link, NuVasive’s President, testified that surgeons could use
`303 Mr. Link
`components from different manufactures together in the same procedure.3 02F
`further testified that surgeons “can ultimately prescribe whatever technology they
`304 Moreover, as an example, Mr. Link testified that he was “not aware of a
`choose.”30 3F
`
`297 Deposition transcript of Neville Alleyne, M.D. taken on November 4, 2019 (“Alleyne Deposition”), pp. 66 – 67
`and 151 – 153.
`
`298 Moazzaz Deposition, p. 18.
`
`299 Moazzaz Deposition, p. 17.
`
`300 Deposition Transcript of Scott Robinson taken on October 29, 2019 (“Robinson Deposition”), pp. 151 – 152.
`
`301 Robinson Deposition, p. 216.
`
`302 Deposition Transcript of Eric Finley taken on November 15, 2019 (“Finley Deposition”), pp. 165 – 166.
`
`303 Link Deposition (4/19/2018), p. 16.
`
`304 Link Deposition (4/19/2018), p. 17.
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`- 72 -
`
`EXHIBIT 9, Page 143 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-10 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31453 Page 11 of
`13
`
`Rebuttal Expert Report of Keith R. Ugone, Ph.D.
`December 4, 2019
`_____________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`reason why clinically” a surgeon could not use NuVasive’s retractor to insert a Stryker
`305
`implant.304F
`
`87.
`
`In light of the evidence discussed above, I have been asked by counsel for Alphatec to
`
`provide adjusted lost profits damages that exclude implants (based upon Mr. Inglish’s
`
`framework) in the event that the trier-of-fact determines that Alphatec’s sales of implants
`
`do not constitute lost sales by NuVasive. NuVasive’s claimed lost profits as calculated by
`
`Mr. Inglish but adjusted to exclude implants are presented in Table 18 (below) and
`
`Exhibit 10. These adjusted lost profits damages do not account or adjust for any other
`
`flaws in Mr. Inglish’s framework, including his inappropriate and unsupported assumption
`
`that NuVasive would have made all of Alphatec’s “diverted” sales.30 5F
`
`306 In addition,
`
`following Mr. Inglish’s framework, the adjusted lost profits damages are calculated for
`
`each Patent-in-Suit and are not additive in the event that more than one Patent-in-Suit is
`
`found to be valid, enforceable, and infringed by Alphatec.
`
`305 Link Deposition (4/19/2018), p. 18.
`
`306 In addition, the adjusted lost profits damages include all non-implant lost profits claimed by Mr. Inglish, which
`include other non-infringing disposables not identified as part of the allegedly infringing combinations summarized
`in Table 1.
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`- 73 -
`
`EXHIBIT 9, Page 144 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-10 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31454 Page 12 of
`13
`
`Rebuttal Expert Report of Keith R. Ugone, Ph.D.
`December 4, 2019
`_____________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`Table 18
`Adjusted Claimed Lost Profits Damages
`Excluding Implants From Mr. Inglish’s Calculations
`February 17, 2017 – September 30, 2019
`
`Patent-In-Suit
`
`Adjusted
`Lost Profits
`
`Reasonable Royalty On Remaining
`Allegedly Infringing Sales
`
`Total Adjusted Lost
`Profits Damages
`
`’801 Patent
`
`$64,437 – $329,295
`
`$66,900 – $262,781
`
`$327,218 – $396,195
`
`’780 Patent
`
`$64,437 – $329,295
`
`$133,675 – $328,304
`
`$392,741 – $462,970
`
`’832 Patent
`
`$47,602 – $253,385
`
`$62,441 – $213,846
`
`$261,448 – $315,826
`
`’227 Patent
`
`$56,955 – $300,041
`
`$104,457 – $282,431
`
`$339,386 – $404,498
`
`’859 Patent
`
`$38,637 – $202,468
`
`$99,532 – $220,992
`
`$259,629 – $302,000
`
`’531 Patent
`
`$38,637 – $202,468
`
`$85,489 – $205,949
`
`$244,586 – $287,957
`
`’270 Patent
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`E. Conclusion Relating To NuVasive’s Lost Profits Claim
`
`88.
`
`Given the totality of the economic considerations discussed throughout my report,
`
`including, inter alia, the presence of acceptable non-infringing alternatives, demand
`
`drivers unrelated to the Patents-in-Suit, and numerous non-accused competitors in the
`
`market, NuVasive has not demonstrated that lost profits are an appropriate remedy in this
`
`matter. However, should the trier-of-fact determine that lost profits are an appropriate
`
`remedy, the damages figures least susceptible to flaws within Mr. Inglish’s framework are
`
`those based upon (a) Mr. Inglish’s “Interbody Device Unit Market Share Only” approach
`
`and (b) NuVasive’s market share as determined within the larger MIS market.
`
`a. Mr. Inglish’s Diverted Surgeons Approach Is Unreliable And Inconsistent With The
`Evidence In This Matter. Mr. Inglish calculates claimed lost profits damages under
`two approaches for allocating Alphatec’s allegedly infringing functional unit sales to
`NuVasive.
`
`i. Diverted Surgeons And Market Share Approach. In the first approach, Mr. Inglish
`assumes (i) 100% of Alphatec’s allegedly infringing functional unit sales made to
`claimed “diverted” surgeons would have been made by NuVasive in the but-for
`world and (ii) a share of the remaining allegedly infringing functional unit sales
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`- 74 -
`
`EXHIBIT 9, Page 145 of 146
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-10 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31455 Page 13 of
`13
`
`Rebuttal Expert Report of Keith R. Ugone, Ph.D.
`December 4, 2019
`_____________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`* * * * * *
`
`140. My analyses and opinions contained in this report are based upon information available to
`
`date. I reserve the ability to review documents, deposition transcripts, or other information
`
`still to be produced by the parties to this dispute and to supplement my opinions based upon
`
`that review.
`
`__________________
`Keith R. Ugone, Ph.D.
`December 4, 2019
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`- 116 -
`
`EXHIBIT 9, Page 146 of 146
`
`