Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-6 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31405 Page 1 of 12
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`TO TRENT TANNER DECLARATION ISO
`NUVASIVE’S COMBINED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-6 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31406 Page 2 of 12
`
`· · · · · · · · ·UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`· · · · · · · · SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · SAN DIEGO DIVISION
`
`·
`
`· · ·NUVASIVE, INC., a Delaware
`· · ·corporation,
`·
`· · · · · · · ·Plaintiff,
`·
`· · · · · · · ·v.· · · · ·Case No. 3:18-CV-00347
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·-CAB-MDD
`· · ·ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC., a
`· · ·Delaware corporation and
`· · ·ALPHATEC SPINE, INC., a
`· · ·California corporation,
`
`· · · · · · · ·Defendants.
`
`· · ·_______________________________________________________
`
`· · · · · HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`· · · · · · VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SCOTT ROBINSON
`
`· · · · ALPHATEC’S HOLDINGS, INC. RULE 30(b)(6) WITNESS
`
`· · · · · · · · · · ·SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · ·NOVEMBER 4, 2020
`
`·
`
`· · ·Reported By:
`· · ·PATRICIA Y. SCHULER
`· · ·CSR No. 11949
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`EXHIBIT 5, Page 101 of 111
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-6 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31407 Page 3 of 12
`
`·1· · · · · · · ·UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`·2· · · · · · · SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · SAN DIEGO DIVISION
`
`Page 2
`
`·4
`
`·5· ·NUVASIVE, INC., a Delaware
`
`· · ·corporation,
`
`·6
`
`· · · · · · · ·Plaintiff,
`
`·7
`
`· · · · · · · ·v.· · · · · · ·Case No. 3:18-CV-00347
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·-CAB-MDD
`
`· · ·ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC., a
`
`·9· ·Delaware corporation and
`
`· · ·ALPHATEC SPINE, INC., a
`
`10· ·California corporation,
`
`11· · · · · · ·Defendants.
`
`12· ·_______________________________________________________
`
`13· · · · Videotaped deposition of SCOTT ROBINSON, taken
`
`14· ·on behalf of the Plaintiffs via ZOOM, San Diego,
`
`15· ·California, at 10:04 a.m. and ending at 1:58 p.m.,
`
`16· ·on November 4, 2020, before PATRICIA Y. SCHULER,
`
`17· ·Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 11949.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 4
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · ·I-N-D-E-X
`·2· ·WITNESS:· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION
`·3· ·SCOTT ROBINSON· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`·4· ·MS. DEVINE· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·7
`·5
`·6
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · E-X-H-I-B-I-T-S
`·8· ·PLAINTIFF'S· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`·9· ·Exhibit 1· · ·NuVasive's 3rd Amended Notice of· · 11
`· · · · · · · · · ·Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition
`10
`· · ·Exhibit 2· · ·Defendants' Supplemental· · · · · · 17
`11· · · · · · · · ·Responses to Plaintiff NuVasive,
`· · · · · · · · · ·Inc.'s Interrogatories (Nos.
`12· · · · · · · · ·1,2,3,7,8, and 17)
`13· ·Exhibit 3· · ·Zimmer Biomet Timberline Lateral· · 47
`· · · · · · · · · ·Fusion System Surgical Technique
`14· · · · · · · · ·Guide Bates-stamped
`· · · · · · · · · ·ATEC_LLIF000965436 through 487
`15
`· · ·Exhibit 4· · ·Alphatec Spine Management· · · · · ·59
`16· · · · · · · · ·Presentation Bates-stamped
`· · · · · · · · · ·ATEC_LLIF000854436 through 524
`17
`· · ·Exhibit 5· · ·Battalion Lateral Implant Guide· · ·64
`18· · · · · · · · ·Bates-stamped ATEC_LLIF000004935
`· · · · · · · · · ·through 942
`19
`· · ·Exhibit 6· · ·Battalion LLIF Design Team· · · · · 76
`20· · · · · · · · ·Feedback Analysis dated 6.26.15
`· · · · · · · · · ·Bates-stamped ATEC_LLIF000854919
`21· · · · · · · · ·through 956
`22· ·Exhibit 7· · ·Battalion LLIF Implant System· · · ·79
`· · · · · · · · · ·Project Memo Project No. 15-004
`23· · · · · · · · ·dated 12.16.16 Bates-stamped
`· · · · · · · · · ·ATEC_LLIF000292275 through 295
`24
`25
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 5
`
`·1· ·APPEARANCES:
`·2· ·FOR PLAINTIFF:
`·3· · · · · · ·WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`·4· · · · · · ·BY:· WENDY L. DEVINE, ESQ.
`·5· · · · · · ·BY:· CHRISTINA DASHE, ESQ.
`·6· · · · · · ·One Market Plaza, Spear Tower
`·7· · · · · · ·Suite 3300
`·8· · · · · · ·San Francisco, California· 94105
`·9· · · · · · ·wdevine@wsgr.com
`10· ·FOR DEFENDANTS:
`11· · · · · · ·WINSTON STRAWN LLP
`12· · · · · · ·BY:· SARANYA RAGHAVAN, ESQ.
`13· · · · · · ·BY:· NIMALKA R. WICKRAMASEKERA, ESQ.
`14· · · · · · ·333 South Grand Avenue
`15· · · · · · ·Los Angeles, California 90071-1543
`16· · · · · · ·nwickramasekera@winston.com
`17
`18· ·Also Present:
`19· · · · · · ·Jason Hamilton
`20· ·Videographer:
`21· · · · · · ·Michael Spade
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`·1· · · · · · · · E-X-H-I-B-I-T-S (CONTINUED)
`·2· ·PLAINTIFF'S· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`·3· ·Exhibit 8· · ·Product Development Agreement· · · ·83
`· · · · · · · · · ·dated 3.14.13 Bates-stamped
`·4· · · · · · · · ·ATEC_LLIF000895078 through 166
`·5· ·Exhibit 9· · ·Alphatec Direct Lateral Cage· · · · 84
`· · · · · · · · · ·Concepts & Key Features dated
`·6· · · · · · · · ·2.4.13 Bates-stamped
`· · · · · · · · · ·ATEC_LLIF000004530 through 573
`·7
`· · ·Exhibit 10· · Alphatec Protocol: Evaluation of· · 87
`·8· · · · · · · · ·Tyber Medical & In'Tech Medical
`· · · · · · · · · ·Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion
`·9· · · · · · · · ·Systems Doc No. TP100505
`· · · · · · · · · ·Bates-stamped ATEC_LLIF000855575
`10· · · · · · · · ·through 604
`11· ·Exhibit 11· · Transcend LIF Lateral Approach· · · 95
`· · · · · · · · · ·Implant Guide Bates-stamped
`12· · · · · · · · ·ATEC_LLIF000964710 through 717
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`EXHIBIT 5, Page 102 of 111
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-6 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31408 Page 4 of 12
`
`Page 6
`·1· ·SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2020
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · 10:04 a.m.
`·3· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We are now on the
`·4· ·record.· Participants should be aware that this
`·5· ·proceeding is being recorded, and as such, all
`·6· ·conversations held will be recorded unless there is
`·7· ·a request and agreement to go off the record.
`·8· ·Private conversations and/or attorney-client
`·9· ·interactions should be held outside the presence of
`10· ·the remote interface.
`11· · · · · · ·For the purpose of creating a
`12· ·witness-only video, the witness has been
`13· ·spotlighted on your video screen.· We ask that the
`14· ·witness not be removed from the spotlight as it may
`15· ·cause other people to appear in the final video.
`16· · · · · · ·For anyone who does not want the witness
`17· ·to take up a large part of your screen, you may
`18· ·click the "gallery view" button in the upper right
`19· ·corner.
`20· · · · · · ·This is the remote videorecorded
`21· ·deposition of Scott Robinson being taken by counsel
`22· ·for the Defendant.· Today is Wednesday, November 4,
`23· ·2020, and the time now is 10:04 a.m. in the Pacific
`24· ·time zone.· We are here in the matter of NuVasive
`25· ·against Alphatec Holdings.· My name Michael Spade,
`
`Page 8
`
`·1· ·address?· Work or home is fine.
`·2· · · · A.· ·1281 -- 1-2-8-1, -2 Crest Drive,
`·3· ·Encinitas, California 92024.
`·4· · · · Q.· ·Do you recall that you were deposed just
`·5· ·about a year ago in this same matter?
`·6· · · · A.· ·I recall being deposed.· I believe the
`·7· ·topics of that deposition were different than the
`·8· ·topics to be discussed today.
`·9· · · · Q.· ·Do you have an understanding of what
`10· ·matter you're here to be deposed about today?
`11· · · · A.· ·I believe it's the nonprivileged
`12· ·testimony related to implant development.
`13· · · · Q.· ·Do you have an understanding of -- well,
`14· ·do you understand that I represent NuVasive?· You
`15· ·know that?
`16· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`17· · · · Q.· ·And do you understand that NuVasive has
`18· ·sued Alphatec for patent infringement?
`19· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`20· · · · Q.· ·And do you understand that your
`21· ·deposition here today is related to that lawsuit?
`22· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`23· · · · Q.· ·Since your deposition last October, have
`24· ·you been deposed, other than sitting here today?
`25· · · · A.· ·No.· This is, thankfully, my first time
`
`Page 7
`·1· ·remote video technician with U.S. Legal Support. I
`·2· ·am not related to any party in this action.
`·3· · · · · · ·At this time, will the reporter,
`·4· ·Patricia Schuler, with U.S. Legal Support please
`·5· ·swear in the witness.
`·6
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · SCOTT ROBINSON,
`·8· · having been administered an oath, was examined and
`·9· · · · · · · · · ·testified as follows:
`10
`11· · · · · · · · · · · · EXAMINATION
`12· ·BY MS. DEVINE:
`13· · · · Q.· ·Good morning, Mr. Robinson.
`14· · · · A.· ·Good morning, Wendy.
`15· · · · Q.· ·Can you hear me?
`16· · · · A.· ·I can hear you just fine, thanks.
`17· · · · Q.· ·Great.· If you can't hear me at any
`18· ·point, would you please just let me know?
`19· · · · A.· ·Will do, yes.
`20· · · · Q.· ·Sure.
`21· · · · · · ·Would you please state and spell your
`22· ·name for the record?
`23· · · · A.· ·Scott Robinson, S-C-O-T-T,
`24· ·R-O-B-I-N-S-O-N.
`25· · · · Q.· ·And would you please state your current
`
`Page 9
`
`·1· ·back.
`·2· · · · Q.· ·And since your deposition last year, has
`·3· ·your job changed?
`·4· · · · A.· ·No.· My job is the same.
`·5· · · · Q.· ·So your title is the same?
`·6· · · · A.· ·Yes, Manager, Research and Development,
`·7· ·Alphatec Spine.
`·8· · · · Q.· ·Got it.
`·9· · · · · · ·And your job responsibilities, would you
`10· ·say they are the same as they were in October of
`11· ·last year?
`12· · · · A.· ·Generally the same, yes.
`13· · · · Q.· ·So I won't spend a bunch of time going
`14· ·over logistics for today because we just did this
`15· ·last year.· But just briefly, do you understand
`16· ·that you need to give a verbal answer to questions?
`17· · · · A.· ·Yes, I do.
`18· · · · Q.· ·And if you don't understand my question,
`19· ·would you please let me know?
`20· · · · A.· ·Yes, I will.
`21· · · · Q.· ·And do you understand that if you do not
`22· ·let me know that you do not understand the
`23· ·question, that I will accept that you did
`24· ·understand the question?
`25· · · · · · ·Does that make sense?
`
`EXHIBIT 5, Page 103 of 111
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-6 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31409 Page 5 of 12
`
`Page 10
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·I understand that, yes.
`·2· · · · Q.· ·And do you understand that you are
`·3· ·providing testimony under oath today?
`·4· · · · A.· ·Yes, I do.
`·5· · · · Q.· ·And do you understand that I am entitled
`·6· ·to the complete truth, to the best of your
`·7· ·recollection?
`·8· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`·9· · · · Q.· ·Is there any reason why you cannot give
`10· ·your most truthful, accurate, and complete
`11· ·testimony today?
`12· · · · A.· ·I don't see any reason that that should
`13· ·not be the case.
`14· · · · Q.· ·Do you understand that you are testifying
`15· ·as a corporate representative of Alphatec today?
`16· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`17· · · · Q.· ·And do you have -- we shipped you some
`18· ·documents.· Do you have a box of documents?
`19· · · · A.· ·I do.· I have it here.
`20· · · · Q.· ·Great.· Have you opened that box yet?
`21· · · · A.· ·I have not, no.
`22· · · · Q.· ·Would you please just go ahead and open
`23· ·the box?
`24· · · · A.· ·(Witness complies.)
`25· · · · Q.· ·Thank you.
`
`Page 12
`·1· · · · Q.· ·Could you tell me what it is, please?
`·2· · · · A.· ·I believe it's the district court filing
`·3· ·that is accusing Alphatec of patent infringement on
`·4· ·accused implant products.
`·5· · · · Q.· ·Sure.
`·6· · · · · · ·If you go to Page 5 of this document.
`·7· · · · A.· ·Um-hmm.
`·8· · · · Q.· ·It actually -- It's No. 5 at the bottom.
`·9· ·It's actually more than Page 5 because there is a
`10· ·big introductory page.
`11· · · · A.· ·Page 5 of the --
`12· · · · Q.· ·Do you see --
`13· · · · A.· ·Page 5 of the document --
`14· · · · Q.· ·Well --
`15· · · · A.· ·-- or Page 5 of the PDF?
`16· · · · Q.· ·It's going to be Page 8 of the PDF which
`17· ·has a No. 5 at the bottom.· It says "Matters for
`18· ·Examination," at the top.
`19· · · · A.· ·Got it.
`20· · · · Q.· ·There are a number of topics here.· And
`21· ·I'm just going to walk you through the topics that
`22· ·I understand that you are designated to testify on
`23· ·behalf of Alphatec about; is that all right?
`24· · · · · · ·MS. RAGHAVAN:· And for the record I'll
`25· ·state that all of Mr. Robinson's testimony today
`
`Page 11
`·1· · · · · · ·Mr. Robinson, do you see that there are a
`·2· ·number of sealed, numbered envelopes there?
`·3· · · · A.· ·I do, yes.
`·4· · · · Q.· ·So when we go through documents today, I
`·5· ·will let you know which envelope has the document I
`·6· ·am referencing so you will have it in hard copy.
`·7· ·We're also going to put it up on a shared Box
`·8· ·folder that will allow you to pull it up on your
`·9· ·screen, if that's your preference.
`10· · · · · · ·Is that all right?
`11· · · · A.· ·Yes, I like that option.
`12· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· You prefer looking at it on the
`13· ·computer?
`14· · · · A.· ·Probably.· Just probably a little quicker
`15· ·than digging through the stack here.
`16· · · · · · ·(Exhibit 1 was marked for identification.)
`17· ·BY MS. DEVINE:
`18· · · · Q.· ·Sure.· Makes sense.
`19· · · · · · ·We're going to mark Tab 1 as Exhibit 1.
`20· ·Let's see if we can get it pulled up here.· It
`21· ·should show up in the Box.
`22· · · · A.· ·I've got it here.
`23· · · · Q.· ·There it is.
`24· · · · · · ·Mr. Robinson, do you recognize Exhibit 1?
`25· · · · A.· ·I believe -- I believe so.
`
`Page 13
`·1· ·will be subject to Alphatec's objections and
`·2· ·responses to NuVasive's --
`·3· · · · · · ·MS. DEVINE:· Fine.
`·4· ·BY MS. DEVINE:
`·5· · · · · · ·Starting with Topic 1, which reads, "When
`·6· ·and under what circumstances Alphatec first became
`·7· ·aware of each of the implant patents in suit and
`·8· ·what actions Alphatec took upon becoming aware of
`·9· ·the implant patents in suit."
`10· · · · · · ·Do you understand that you're designated
`11· ·to testify on behalf of Alphatec regarding that
`12· ·topic?
`13· · · · A.· ·Yes, I do.
`14· · · · Q.· ·And regarding that topic, what can you
`15· ·tell me?
`16· · · · · · ·MS. RAGHAVAN:· Objection.· Vague.
`17· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Could you restate the
`18· ·request?
`19· ·BY MS. DEVINE:
`20· · · · Q.· ·Sure.
`21· · · · · · ·So I understand that you're designated to
`22· ·testify on behalf of Alphatec regarding when
`23· ·Alphatec first became aware of each of the implant
`24· ·patents in suit.
`25· · · · · · ·Can you tell me when that was?
`
`EXHIBIT 5, Page 104 of 111
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-6 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31410 Page 6 of 12
`
`Page 14
`·1· · · · A.· ·I believe Alphatec became generally aware
`·2· ·of the patents in suit in the 2014 time frame.· We
`·3· ·started our development of a lateral program in
`·4· ·late 2013.· I became aware of the project in early
`·5· ·2014, and, you know, as part of our -- as part of
`·6· ·our development effort we start to research the,
`·7· ·you know, competitive landscape.· We search -- we
`·8· ·do Google searches, we look for competitive
`·9· ·literature, and gradually, you know, over time we
`10· ·build up kind of a competitive matrix of, you know,
`11· ·who the major players are, you know, in a
`12· ·particular space, in this case, the lateral market.
`13· · · · · · ·Fairly quickly we learned that there were
`14· ·really three major players at the time:· Globus,
`15· ·Medtronic, and NuVasive.· And you really couldn't
`16· ·avoid finding stories about a couple of lawsuits
`17· ·that were taking place at that time.· So we became
`18· ·generally aware of, like, a -- you know, of quite a
`19· ·bit of IP in the space and some lawsuits, some
`20· ·active lawsuits in that space.
`21· · · · · · ·And so as we continued to develop, you
`22· ·know, we would meet as a team and these things
`23· ·would occasionally come across our radar, but
`24· ·mostly we were focused on the design.· We were
`25· ·developing a product based off of a set of clinical
`
`Page 16
`·1· ·you know, confirmation that these were valid
`·2· ·patents.· I think Medtronic had challenged that
`·3· ·they were valid, and they, you know, initiated an
`·4· ·action to review those -- to review those patents
`·5· ·for validity.
`·6· · · · Q.· ·Are you aware of what the outcome of that
`·7· ·proceeding was?
`·8· · · · A.· ·I believe -- I believe that many of the
`·9· ·patents were initially invalidated.· And I believe
`10· ·that there would be -- the ruling was that the
`11· ·patents were invalidated.· That there was an appeal
`12· ·to that, and there was a -- some additional review
`13· ·at some point, but my general impression of that
`14· ·was that the majority of those patents were
`15· ·invalidated.· But some in, I want to say the early
`16· ·2015 time frame -- that several of these patents
`17· ·ended up invalidated.
`18· · · · Q.· ·And are you aware that that finding was
`19· ·overturned by an appeals court?
`20· · · · A.· ·I am not specifically aware of the extent
`21· ·of that.
`22· · · · Q.· ·Do you understand that with respect to
`23· ·Topic 2 you were designate to testify on behalf of
`24· ·Alphatec regarding whether Alphatec formed a good
`25· ·faith belief that the implant patents in suit were
`
`Page 15
`·1· ·requirements, you know, and we would learn more
`·2· ·about, you know, the ongoing litigation between
`·3· ·Medtronic and NuVasive from -- I mean, there
`·4· ·were -- there were press releases in, you know,
`·5· ·orthopedic magazines.· Like, there were -- you
`·6· ·know, there were news stories about it.· We would
`·7· ·always read all the, you know, financial, like,
`·8· ·annual reports from a lot of our competitors like
`·9· ·SeaSpine, Globus, NuVasive, so we would see
`10· ·commentary about that.
`11· · · · · · ·You know, and we eventually had found out
`12· ·that PTAB had also taken some action in there.· So
`13· ·we were -- in that 2014 time frame, we became, you
`14· ·know, generally aware of a number of patents.
`15· ·Beyond that, a specific date, I don't think I would
`16· ·be able to give you for the accused patents.
`17· · · · Q.· ·I believe you said PTAB had taken some
`18· ·action.· What's PTAB?
`19· · · · A.· ·The patent -- Patent and Trademark Appeal
`20· ·Board, I believe.
`21· · · · Q.· ·And what action were you referring to
`22· ·that PTAB took?
`23· · · · A.· ·They had issued an ITR, I believe, in --
`24· ·I want to say it was late 2015, which is a -- they
`25· ·were looking for, like, additional -- additional,
`
`Page 17
`
`·1· ·invalid?
`·2· · · · A.· ·Could you repeat that statement?
`·3· · · · Q.· ·Sure.
`·4· · · · · · ·Do you understand that with respect to
`·5· ·Topic 2, you are designated to testify on behalf of
`·6· ·Alphatec regarding whether Alphatec formed a good
`·7· ·faith belief that the implant patents in suit were
`·8· ·invalid?
`·9· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`10· · · · Q.· ·And regarding that, whether such a good
`11· ·faith belief existed, and regarding the appeal
`12· ·where the invalidity determination was overturned,
`13· ·following that appeal, did Alphatec have a good
`14· ·faith belief that the patents in suit were invalid?
`15· · · · · · ·MS. RAGHAVAN:· I'll caution the witness
`16· ·at this time not to reveal any privileged
`17· ·information.
`18· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah, I'm not a, I guess --
`19· ·a legal expert.· You know, at the time that any
`20· ·development was taking place, it was my impression
`21· ·that the patents in suit had been invalidated in
`22· ·the early 2015 time frame.· And we were carrying
`23· ·forward with development activities on this project
`24· ·so...
`25· · · · · · ·(Exhibit 2 was marked for identification.)
`
`EXHIBIT 5, Page 105 of 111
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-6 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31411 Page 7 of 12
`
`Page 18
`
`·1· ·BY MS. DEVINE:
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Exhibit 2 should be in the Box, if you
`·3· ·want to pull it up.· And just let me know when you
`·4· ·are there.
`·5· · · · A.· ·Yep.
`·6· · · · Q.· ·Do you recognize Exhibit 2?
`·7· · · · A.· ·"Defendants Supplemental Responses to
`·8· ·Plaintiff Interrogatories."
`·9· · · · Q.· ·Have you seen this document before?
`10· · · · A.· ·I do not believe so.
`11· · · · Q.· ·So if you go to --
`12· · · · A.· ·Can I have a moment to review, please?
`13· · · · Q.· ·Take as long as you like.
`14· · · · A.· ·These look like interrogatory responses
`15· ·around retractor and shim and dilator.
`16· · · · Q.· ·I'll direct you to Page 171 of the
`17· ·document, which I believe is 172 of the PDF.
`18· · · · A.· ·Okay.
`19· · · · Q.· ·Let me know when you're there.
`20· · · · · · ·Do you see the paragraph that begins,
`21· ·"Alphatec had knowledge of the patents in suit"?
`22· · · · A.· ·I see, "Alphatec became aware of the
`23· ·asserted patents for NuVasive's claim as the
`24· ·plaintiff complaint in this action, February 13,
`25· ·2008."· Are we looking for a different one?
`
`Page 20
`·1· ·'334 and '156 patents are the implant-related
`·2· ·patents that NuVasive is asserting against Alphatec
`·3· ·in this litigation?
`·4· · · · A.· ·I do, yes.
`·5· · · · Q.· ·So can you tell me, did Alphatec have a
`·6· ·good faith belief that the claims of the '334 and
`·7· ·'156 patents were invalid following that 2016
`·8· ·Federal Circuit decision?
`·9· · · · · · ·MS. RAGHAVAN:· Again, I'll caution the
`10· ·witness not to reveal any privileged communication
`11· ·or information.
`12· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Um, I --
`13· · · · · · ·MS. DEVINE:· Just to be clear, for the
`14· ·record -- I just want to make sure, sorry, with
`15· ·your counsel real quick.
`16· · · · · · ·Is Alphatec claiming privilege as to
`17· ·whether or not they had a good faith belief
`18· ·following the 2016 Federal Circuit decision?
`19· ·Because if you're going to claim privilege, I just
`20· ·won't ask him.
`21· · · · · · ·MS. RAGHAVAN:· No.· We are letting him
`22· ·testify as to any nonprivileged information that he
`23· ·has personal knowledge of.
`24· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah.· My personal
`25· ·knowledge of this is limited.· I would -- I was not
`
`Page 19
`·1· · · · Q.· ·Are you on the page that is 171 at the
`·2· ·bottom?
`·3· · · · A.· ·171 at the bottom?
`·4· · · · Q.· ·Um-hmm.· And do you see --
`·5· · · · A.· ·171.
`·6· · · · Q.· ·-- the header "Third Supplemental
`·7· ·Response to Interrogatory No. 7."
`·8· · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`·9· · · · A.· ·"Third Supplemental Response," yes.
`10· · · · Q.· ·And do you see the second paragraph
`11· ·begins, "Alphatec had knowledge"?
`12· · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`13· · · · A.· ·I do, yes.
`14· · · · Q.· ·And do you see -- feel free to read the
`15· ·whole paragraph.
`16· · · · · · ·But my question is going to be:· In this
`17· ·paragraph it states that NuVasive appealed in late
`18· ·2016.· The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the
`19· ·PTAB's decision relating to claims of the implant
`20· ·patents --
`21· · · · A.· ·Um-hmm.
`22· · · · Q.· ·-- and then the IPRs were terminated.
`23· · · · · · ·Does that match your understanding?
`24· · · · A.· ·I believe so, yes.
`25· · · · Q.· ·And do you have an understanding that the
`
`Page 21
`·1· ·a -- I would not be able to make a, you know, any
`·2· ·kind of, like, legal judgment on this.· I'm not a
`·3· ·lawyer.· I believed at the time that the products
`·4· ·that we were developing were not -- were not, you
`·5· ·know, in any way copied or in any way in --
`·6· ·infringing on NuVasive's patents.· Like, we had
`·7· ·been told specifically to avoid -- you know, avoid
`·8· ·copying, like, don't look to the competition to
`·9· ·develop your products.· We were looking to the
`10· ·clinical requirements.
`11· · · · · · ·The -- we could go into -- Alphatec was
`12· ·aware of the final PTAB ruling.· I would have been
`13· ·unable to give you a complete answer as to exactly
`14· ·what that meant for our accused products.
`15· ·BY MS. DEVINE:
`16· · · · Q.· ·So just to make my record clear, other
`17· ·than what you told me, can you tell me anything
`18· ·about -- other than what you've just told me, is
`19· ·there anything else you have to tell me about
`20· ·whether or not Alphatec had a good faith belief
`21· ·that the claims of the '334 and '156 patents were
`22· ·invalid following the 2016 Federal Circuit
`23· ·decision?
`24· · · · A.· ·Could you restate that?
`25· · · · · · ·MS. RAGHAVAN:· Objection.· Form.
`
`EXHIBIT 5, Page 106 of 111
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-6 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31412 Page 8 of 12
`
`Page 22
`
`Page 24
`
`·1· ·BY MS. DEVINE:
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Sure.
`·3· · · · · · ·So I understand what you just told me
`·4· ·about your personal knowledge and your personal
`·5· ·view.· Aside from that, is there anything that you
`·6· ·can tell me about whether or not Alphatec had a
`·7· ·good faith belief that the claims of the '334 and
`·8· ·'156 patents were invalid following the 2016
`·9· ·Federal Circuit decision?
`10· · · · · · ·MS. RAGHAVAN:· Same objection.
`11· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· No, I don't think I have
`12· ·anything to add.
`13· ·BY MS. DEVINE:
`14· · · · Q.· ·Okay.
`15· · · · · · ·I can go back to the topics if you would
`16· ·like, Mr. Robinson, but it might be easier to just
`17· ·ask you.
`18· · · · · · ·Do you understand that you are designated
`19· ·to testify on behalf of Alphatec regarding the
`20· ·development of Alphatec's Battalion lateral spacers
`21· ·and Transcend PEEK spacers?
`22· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`23· · · · Q.· ·Starting with the Battalion lateral
`24· ·spacers, can you tell me -- when did that
`25· ·development begin?
`
`·1· ·BY MS. DEVINE:
`·2· · · · Q.· ·What do you mean by "instruments"?
`·3· · · · A.· ·Any instrument that supports.· So an
`·4· ·incomplete list would be, you know, cobs, curettes,
`·5· ·rongeurs, the inserter, you know, various --
`·6· ·various, I guess, tools that the surgeon would use
`·7· ·during a surgery to help with the implantation of
`·8· ·the interbody device.
`·9· · · · Q.· ·So you -- were you responsible for the
`10· ·design of the Battalion lateral implant itself, or
`11· ·just these tools that go along with the implants?
`12· · · · A.· ·I personally was involved in only the
`13· ·instruments that supported the implantation of the
`14· ·interbody device, but we were -- it was a team,
`15· ·so...
`16· · · · Q.· ·Who was responsible for the design of the
`17· ·Battalion lateral implants themselves?
`18· · · · A.· ·Some -- an incomplete list would be Yung
`19· ·Chiang, Jon Costabile.
`20· · · · Q.· ·What was Yung Chiang's role in designing
`21· ·the Battalion lateral implants?
`22· · · · A.· ·He was a designer -- Yung was a designer,
`23· ·a good one, and he would have been responsible for
`24· ·the actual 3D modeling of the interbody and
`25· ·drafting of the drawings that we used to support
`
`Page 23
`
`Page 25
`
`·1· · · · · · ·MS. RAGHAVAN:· Objection.· Form.
`·2· · · · · · ·MS. DEVINE:· I'm sorry.· I did not hear
`·3· ·that.· What?
`·4· · · · · · ·MS. RAGHAVAN:· Me?· I just said,
`·5· ·"Objection.· Form."
`·6· ·BY MS. DEVINE:
`·7· · · · Q.· ·Okay.
`·8· · · · A.· ·The development started in late 2013. I
`·9· ·was made aware of the project in 2014, early 2014.
`10· ·We probably had first prototypes by August of 2014.
`11· · · · Q.· ·Do you know who was working on
`12· ·development of the Battalion lateral spacers prior
`13· ·to your involvement in 2014?
`14· · · · A.· ·It wouldn't be a complete list, but Jon
`15· ·Costabile and Yung Chiang, but there was -- we
`16· ·were -- I joined fairly early in the development
`17· ·process.
`18· · · · Q.· ·Were you responsible for the design of
`19· ·the Battalion lateral implant?
`20· · · · · · ·MS. RAGHAVAN:· Objection.· Form.
`21· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· My responsibilities were
`22· ·mostly for instruments.· Instruments, some
`23· ·instrument testing and validation, you know,
`24· ·inserter designs, tray designs and kind of general
`25· ·project management activities.
`
`·1· ·manufacturing.
`·2· · · · · · ·And, you know, Jon would have played a --
`·3· ·more of a supervisory role in providing guidance on
`·4· ·the design itself.
`·5· · · · Q.· ·Did Yung Chiang make any decisions about
`·6· ·how to design the implant?
`·7· · · · · · ·MS. RAGHAVAN:· Objection.· Form.
`·8· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yung would have provided
`·9· ·feedback, and there would be decisions around --
`10· ·from different -- like, manufacturing decisions,
`11· ·really.· It's kind of hard to split the hair
`12· ·because there are hundreds of small decisions that
`13· ·go into, you know, exactly how a feature is cut
`14· ·onto the interbody.· You know, the way a tool path
`15· ·is set, you know, like, how a feature is cut, which
`16· ·tool would be used to manufacture it.· Like, do
`17· ·we -- are there tradeoffs that make manufacturing
`18· ·just a little bit faster, a little bit less
`19· ·expensive.
`20· · · · · · ·So Yung would have made many of those
`21· ·decisions on his own.· The -- there are multiple,
`22· ·you know, input sources of feedback on an implant
`23· ·design, not just from the research and development
`24· ·team, but then also potentially marketing,
`25· ·potentially our manufacturing group that we had at
`
`EXHIBIT 5, Page 107 of 111
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-6 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31413 Page 9 of 12
`
`Page 98
`·1· · · · · · ·MS. DEVINE:· Okay.· Thank you for your
`·2· ·time, Mr. Robinson.
`·3· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yep.· Thank you, Wendy.
`·4· ·Good to see you.
`·5· · · · · · ·MS. DEVINE:· Good to see you, too.
`·6· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Would you like to go
`·7· ·off the record, counsel?
`·8· · · · · · ·Okay.· Going off the record.· The time is
`·9· ·1:58 p.m. Pacific.· We are now off the record.
`10· · · · · · ·(The videotaped deposition of
`11· · · · · · ·SCOTT ROBINSON concluded at 1:58 p.m.)
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`·1· · · · · · ·I, PATRICIA Y. SCHULER, a Certified
`
`·2· ·Shorthand Reporter of the State of California, do
`
`·3· ·hereby certify:
`
`Page 100
`
`·4· · · · · · ·That the foregoing proceedings were taken
`
`·5· ·before me at the time and place herein set forth;
`
`·6· ·that any witnesses in the foregoing proceedings,
`
`·7· ·prior to testifying, were duly sworn; that a
`
`·8· ·verbatim record of the proceedings was made by me
`
`·9· ·using machine shorthand which was thereafter
`
`10· ·transcribed under my direction; that the foregoing
`
`11· ·transcript is a true record of the testimony given.
`
`12· · · · · · ·Further, that if the foregoing pertains
`
`13· ·to the original transcript of a deposition in a
`
`14· ·Federal Case, before completion of the proceedings,
`
`15· ·review of the transcript [X] was [ ] was not
`
`16· ·requested.
`
`17· · · · · · ·I further certify I am neither
`
`18· ·financially interested in the action nor a relative
`
`19· ·or employee of any attorney of party to this
`
`20· ·action.
`
`21· · · · · · ·IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have this date
`
`22· ·subscribed my name.
`
`23· ·Dated:· November 8, 2020
`
`24· · · · · · · · · · · · · _________________________
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · PATRICIA Y. SCHULER
`
`25· · · · · · · · · · · · · CSR NO. 11949
`
`·1
`
`·2
`
`·3
`
`·4
`
`·5
`
`·6
`
`·7
`
`·8
`
`·9· ·I, SCOTT ROBINSON, do hereby declare under the
`
`10· ·penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing
`
`11· ·transcript; that I have made any corrections as
`
`12· ·appear noted, in ink, initialed by me, or attached
`
`13· ·hereto; that my testimony as contained herein, as
`
`14· ·corrected, is true and correct.
`
`15· · · · EXECUTED this _____ day of _________________,
`
`16· ·20____, at _____________________, _______________.
`
`17· · · · · · · · · · · (City)· · · · · · · · (State)
`
`18
`
`19· · · · · · · · · · · · ____________________________
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · SCOTT ROBINSON
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 99
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET
`
`·2· ·CASE NAME:· NUVASIVE V. ALPHATEC
`
`· · ·DEPOSITION DATE:· NOVEMBER 4, 2020
`
`·3· ·WITNESS NAME:· · ·SCOTT ROBINSON
`
`·4· ·Reason Codes:· 1. To clarify the record.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · 2. To conform to the facts.
`
`Page 101
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · 3. To correct transcription errors.
`
`·7· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason Code ______
`
`·8· ·From _______________________ to ____________________
`
`·9· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason Code ______
`
`10· ·From _______________________ to ____________________
`
`11· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason Code ______
`
`12· ·From _______________________ to ____________________
`
`13· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason Code ______
`
`14· ·From _______________________ to ____________________
`
`15· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason Code ______
`
`16· ·From _______________________ to ____________________
`
`17· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason Code ______
`
`18· ·From _______________________ to ____________________
`
`19· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason Code ______
`
`20· ·From _______________________ to ____________________
`
`21· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason Code ______
`
`22· ·From _______________________ to ____________________
`
`23· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason Code ______
`
`24· ·From _______________________ to ____________________
`
`25· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason Code ______
`
`EXHIBIT 5, Page 108 of 111
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 342-6 Filed 10/29/21 PageID.31414 Page 10 of
`12
`
`Page 102
`·1· ·From _______________________ to ____________________
`
`·2· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason Code ______
`
`·3· ·From _______________________ to ____________________
`
`·4· ·Page __