Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 349 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.31984 Page 1 of 35
`
`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 OPPOSITION
`TO ALPHATEC’S MOTIONS IN
` Plaintiff,
`LIMINE NOS. 1-10
`v.
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`Courtroom: 15A
`PER CHAMBERS RULES, NO
`ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS
`SEPARATELY ORDERED BY THE
`COURT
`Hearing: November 12, 2021
`Trial: December 8, 2021
`
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation, and ALPHATEC
`SPINE, INC., a California corporation,
` Defendants.
`
`))))))))))))))))))
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPPOSITION TO ALPHATEC’S
`MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1-10
`
`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 349 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.31985 Page 2 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 CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1: .......................................... 1
`I.
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: .......................................... 4
`II.
`III. OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3: .......................................... 8
`IV. OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4: ........................................ 11
`V.
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5: ........................................ 13
`VI. OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6: ........................................ 15
`VII. OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7: ........................................ 20
`VIII. OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8: ........................................ 22
`IX. OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9: ........................................ 24
`X.
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10: ...................................... 25
`XI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 25
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPPOSITION TO ALPHATEC’S
`MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1-10
`
`i
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 349 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.31986 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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`Ah Quin v. Cnty. of Kauai DOT,
`733 F.3d 267 (9th Cir. 2013) ........................................................................... 23
`Am. Seating Co. v. USSC Grp., Inc.,
`514 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................................................................... 13
`Apple v. Samsung, Dkt. 1622 ....................................................................................... 2
`Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`435 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ......................................................................... 3
`AVM Techs., LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`2013 WL 126233 (D. Del. Jan. 4, 2013) ......................................................... 15
`AVM Techs., Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Intel Corp.,
`927 F. Supp. 2d 139 (D. Del. 2013) .................................................................. 8
`Baltazar v. Target Corp.,
`2014 WL 12599626 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2014) ............................................... 21
`Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Barnes-Hind/Hydrocurve, Inc.,
`796 F.2d 443 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ......................................................................... 24
`Bio-Rad Lab’ys, Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc.,
`967 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................................. 14, 15
`Cardinal v. Buchnoff,
`2010 WL 3339509 (S.D. Cal Aug. 23, 2010) ................................................... 4
`Cardpool, Inc. v. Plastic Jungle Inc.,
`817 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................... 23
`Celebrity Cruises, Inc. v. Essef Corp.,
`434 F. Supp. 2d 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ............................................................... 8
`Coleman Motor Co. v. Chrysler Corp.,
`525 F.2d 1338 (3d Cir. 1975) ............................................................................ 4
`Elbit Sys. Land & C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Sys., LLC,
`927 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ....................................................................... 15
`Grace v. Apple, Inc.,
`2020 WL 227404 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2020) ..................................................... 4
`Hilsley v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.,
`2019 WL 2579793 (S.D. Cal. June 24, 2019) ................................................. 22
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPPOSITION TO ALPHATEC’S
`MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1-10
`
`i
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 349 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.31987 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
`
`In re Google AdWords Litig.,
`2012 WL 28068 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2012) ....................................................... 22
`Johns Hopkins Univ. v. CellPro, Inc.,
`152 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..................................................................... 1, 3
`Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc.,
`382 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ......................................................................... 9
`Kaufman v. Lantech, Inc.,
`926 F.2d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ......................................................... 7, 8, 11, 13
`L.A. Times Commc’ns, LLC v. Dep’t of Army,
`442 F. Supp. 2d 880 (C.D. Cal. 2006) ....................................................... 21, 22
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ....................................................................... 13
`Meyer Intell. Props. Ltd. v. Bodum, Inc.,
`2010 WL 5764775 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 16, 2010) .................................................... 2
`NetFuel, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.,
`2020 WL 1274985 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2020) .................................................. 8
`Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp.,
`185 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ......................................................................... 3
`Omega Patents, LLC v. CalAmp Corp.,
`2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27805 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 14, 2021) ................................ 15
`Padilla v. Beard,
`2017 WL 1354565 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2017) ................................................. 19
`Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc.,
`66 F.3d 1211 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ........................................................................... 3
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l Inc.,
`2018 WL 5292544 (D. Del. Oct. 25, 2018) ...................................................... 4
`Promega Corp. v. Life Techs. Corp.,
`875 F.3d 651 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................................................... 13
`RCRV Inc. v. J L J Inc.,
`2013 WL 12149239 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2013) ................................................ 18
`Rivera v. City of Merced,
`2006 WL 3349576 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2006) ................................................ 21
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ......................................................................... 3
`Syneron Med. Ltd. v. Invasix, Inc.,
`2018 WL 4696969 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2018) ................................................ 15
`SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc.,
`709 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ......................................................................... 3
`NUVASIVE’S OPPOSITION TO ALPHATEC’S
`ii
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1-10
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 349 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.31988 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
`
`Transclean Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc.,
`474 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ....................................................................... 23
`Trell v. Marlee Elecs. Corp.,
`912 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ....................................................................... 15
`United States v. Hickey,
`917 F.2d 901 (6th Cir. 1990) ........................................................................... 21
`Univ. of Pittsburgh v. Varian Med. Sus., Inc., Dkt. 569 .............................................. 2
`Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc.,
`2020 WL 978731 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2020) ..................................................... 4
`Vectura Ltd. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC et al.,
`981 F.3d 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ....................................................................... 15
`VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`324 F. Supp. 3d 836 (E.D. Tex. 2017) .............................................................. 3
`Ward v. Smith,
`2015 WL 1499053 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 1, 2015) ................................................... 4
`WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp.,
`791 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................................... 2
`Wilson v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest,
`2011 WL 2670199 (W.D. Wash. July 7, 2011) ................................................ 4
`Wyler Summit Pshp. v. Turner Broad. Sys.,
`235 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2000) ......................................................................... 23
`Yue v. Chordiant Software, Inc.,
`2010 WL 11575579 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2010) .............................................. 18
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 271 .......................................................................................................... 13
`RULES
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A) ........................................................................................ 17
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) .............................................................................................. 18
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1) .............................................................................................. 19
`L.R. 5.4(d) .................................................................................................................... 1
`L.R. 7.1.h ..................................................................................................................... 6
`Rule 26 ........................................................................................................... 16, 17, 18
`Rule 26(a) and (e) ...................................................................................................... 18
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPPOSITION TO ALPHATEC’S
`MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1-10
`
`iii
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 349 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.31989 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
`
`Rule 602 ............................................................................................................... 18, 21
`Rule 701 ..................................................................................................................... 22
`Rule 702 ............................................................................................................... 20, 22
`OTHER
`6 Moore’s Federal Practice - Civil § 26.22[4][a][iii] (2021) .................................... 16
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPPOSITION TO ALPHATEC’S
`MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1-10
`
`iv
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 349 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.31990 Page 7 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
`
`“Ex.”
`
`“MILs”
`“Mot.”
`“NuVasive”
`“Alphatec”
`“Friedman”
`
`“Inglish 1/18 Dep.”
`
`“Inglish 11/8 Rep.”
`“Inglish 11/20 Rep.”
`
`“Inglish 1/11 Rep.”
`
`“IPR”
`“Judd 11/5 Dep.”
`
`“Malone 11/8 Dep.”
`
`“PTO”
`“PTAB”
`“Robinson 10/29
`Dep.”
`“Sachs 11/22 Rep.”
`
`“Ugone 12/18 Rep.”
`
`“Youssef 11/1 Rep.”
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`Exhibits to Declaration of Trent Tanner in support of
`NuVasive’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motions in
`Limine Nos. 1-10
`Motions in Limine
`NuVasive’s Combined MILs [342]
`NuVasive, Inc.
`Alphatec Holdings, Inc. and Alphatec Spine, Inc.
`W. A. Friedman and S. L. Kanter, The lateral
`percutaneous approach to discectomy, Int’l Radiology
`in Bone & Joint, 149-154 (1988)
`(ATEC_LLIF000004901-ATEC_LLIF000004906)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Blake Inglish
`(1/18/2021)
`Expert Report of Blake Inglish (11/8/2019)
`Supplemental Expert Report of Blake Inglish
`(11/20/2020)
`Supplemental Expert Report of Blake Inglish—Update
`(1/11/2021)
`Inter Partes Review
`Transcript of the 30(b)(6) Deposition of Robert Judd
`(11/5/2019)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Kyle Malone
`(11/8/2019)
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`Transcript of the 30(b)(6) Deposition of Scott
`Robinson’s (10/29/2019)
`Rebuttal REport of Barton L. Sachs, M.D., M.B.A.,
`F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E. (11/22/2019)
`Supplemental Rebuttal Expert Report of Keith R.
`Ugone, Ph.D. (12/18/2020)
`Corrected Opening Expert Report of Jim Youssef
`(11/1/2019)
`
`“Youssef 11/8 Rep.”
`
`Expert Report of Jim Yousef re Damages (11/8/2019)
`
`“Youssef 11/20 Rep.” Corrected Opening Expert Report of Jim Youssef, MD
`re U.S. Patent Nos. ’156 and ’334 (11/20/2020)
`“Youssef 1st Supp.
`Supplemental to Expert Reports of Jim Youssef
`NUVASIVE’S OPPOSITION TO ALPHATEC’S
`v
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1-10
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 349 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.31991 Page 8 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
`
`Rep.”
`“Youssef 2nd Supp.
`Rep.”
`
`(1/8/2020)
`Second Supplemental to Expert Reports of Jim Youssef
`(1/27/2020)
`
`***ALL EMPHASES ARE ADDED AND INTERNAL CITATIONS OMITTED
`UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPPOSITION TO ALPHATEC’S
`MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1-10
`
`vi
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 349 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.31992 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
`
`I.
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1:
`Alphatec’s motion to exclude argument and testimony related to the Court’s
`summary judgment order regarding the ’832 patent should be denied.
`Factual Background. On April 10, 2020, the Court granted NuVasive’s
`motion for summary adjudication, concluding that Alphatec’s accused products
`infringe the ’832 patent. Doc. No. 281. In granting the motion, the Court
`explicitly rejected Alphatec’s arguments that (a) its accused products did not meet
`the “distraction assembly” limitation because Alphatec instructs surgeons to first
`use a finger to dissect the tissue and guide the initial dilator to the psoas muscle;
`and (b) its accused products did not meet the “electrodes that output electrical
`stimulation” limitation because the accused products do not include a source of
`electrical stimulation. Id. at 5-6.
`Argument. Alphatec’s seeks to prevent the jury from hearing the truth –
`that it infringed NuVasive’s asserted claims – under the pretense that this truth is
`somehow irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. But just because Alphatec does not
`want the jury to know it is an adjudicated infringer does not mean this fact is
`irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial. Alphatec’s MIL No. 1 should be denied.
`Contrary to Alphatec’s assertions, the Court’s summary judgment ruling is
`relevant to several issues in this case. First, even Alphatec recognizes that the jury
`needs to be informed regarding the Court’s decision on the ’832 patent in some
`capacity. Ex. 1 (Alphatec’s Position re Pretrial Order) at 1. Yet Alphatec wants to
`tell the jury something directly at odds with reality – that it simply “will not be
`asked to decide” infringement of the ’832 patent – even though the Court already
`decided that Alphatec infringes. Id. Alphatec’s proposal is also at odds with the
`weight of the case law, as numerous courts, including the Federal Circuit, have
`repeatedly held that the jury is entitled to know if the Court has already found
`infringement. See, e.g., Johns Hopkins Univ. v. CellPro, Inc., 152 F.3d 1342, 1363
`(Fed. Cir. 1998) (“no error” in instructing the jury regarding Court’s finding of
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPPOSITION TO ALPHATEC’S
`MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1-10
`
`1
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 349 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.31993 Page 10 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
`
`infringement); WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp., 791 F.3d 1340,
`1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015), (jury “was entitled to be advised” that the district court
`found infringement); Meyer Intell. Props. Ltd. v. Bodum, Inc., 2010 WL 5764775
`(N.D. Ill. Nov. 16, 2010) (instructing jury that “I have determined…that
`Defendant’s [accused products] directly infringe [the asserted claims]”); Ex. 2
`(Apple v. Samsung, Doc. No. 1622 Trial Tr.) 293:19-25 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2014)
`(same); Ex. 3 (Univ. of Pittsburgh v. Varian Med. Sus., Inc., Doc. No. 569, Trial
`Tr.) 14:22-25 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2012) (same). Alphatec has not cited any authority
`that the jury should not be informed that the Court already found that Alphatec
`infringed the asserted claims of the ’832 patent (because it cannot).
`The Court’s summary judgment order is also relevant to infringement of the
`other asserted patents in this case, to the credibility of Alphatec’s non-infringement
`expert, and to the issue of willful infringement. Alphatec concedes that the
`asserted claims of the two other patents in this case (the ’801 and ’531 patents)
`contain substantively identical “distraction assembly” and “electrode” limitations
`as those in the ’832 patent. Doc. No. 260 at 15, 18. Yet Alphatec apparently
`intends to make the exact same non-infringement arguments that were rejected for
`the ’832 patent.1 NuVasive should be permitted to tell the jury the Court has
`already concluded these non-infringement positions are meritless. This
`information is vital not only to rebutting Alphatec’s non-infringement arguments,
`but also to allowing the jury to assess the credibility of any of Alphatec’s witnesses
`who put forward such baseless non-infringement arguments.
`For willfulness, Alphatec has asserted it had a good faith belief of non-
`infringement as one defense to this claim. Ex. 4 (Robinson 10/29 Dep.) 35:11-
`38:10, 41:3-43:1. Thus, the Court’s order rejecting Alphatec’s non-infringement
`positions provides direct evidence that any belief Alphatec may have had regarding
`
`1 Alphatec refused to stipulate in the proposed Pretrial Order that it would not
`raise these non-infringement arguments as to the ’801 and ’531 patents.
`NUVASIVE’S OPPOSITION TO ALPHATEC’S
`2
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1-10
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 349 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.31994 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
`
`non-infringement was not actually in good faith. Moreover, this Court held
`Alphatec infringed NuVasive’s ’832 patent over a year and a half ago, yet
`Alphatec has continued to sell its infringing products to this day, showing
`Alphatec’s ongoing willful disregard of NuVasive’s patent rights.
`Alphatec attempts to rebut the relevance of the Court’s order to willfulness
`by asserting that “[u]nder Federal Circuit law, culpability is generally measured
`against the knowledge of the actor at the time of the challenged conduct,” which
`(per Alphatec) is only when it first began infringing the asserted claims. Doc. No.
`341-1 at 10. Alphatec is wrong. The Federal Circuit has explicitly recognized that
`“patent infringement is a continuing tort, and an action even if innocently begun
`does not automatically retain its purity as circumstances change.” Pall Corp. v.
`Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1221-22 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Courts have
`thus recognized that post-judgment conduct like Alphatec’s – continuing to sell an
`infringing product despite a judgment of infringement – is relevant to willfulness.
`SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 709 F.3d 1365, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Applied
`Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 435 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006);
`VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., 324 F. Supp. 3d 836, 861-862 (E.D. Tex. 2017).2 Thus,
`the fact that this Court held Alphatec’s products infringe the ’832 patent and yet
`Alphatec continues infringing is clearly relevant and should not be excluded.
`Alphatec’s only remaining argument for exclusion of the Court’s
`infringement determination is that it is somehow unfairly prejudicial. None of
`Alphatec’s cited cases are on point, since they either have nothing to do with
`
`2 The law Alphatec cites as to why the Court’s order is irrelevant to willfulness
`is also inapposite. See Doc. No. 341-1 at 10-11 (citing SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,
`Inc., 930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Johns Hopkins Univ. v. CellPro, Inc., 152
`F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1998); and Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d
`1259, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). SRI Int’l did not involve a prior adjudication of
`infringement at all, 903 F.3d at 1309. and Johns Hopkins and Odetics simply
`excluded reference to prior, vacated verdicts that defendant did not infringe, 152
`F.3d at 1363; 185 F.3d at 1276. Alphatec’s law also shows that the jury should be
`informed of the determination of infringement. Johns Hopkins, 152 F.3d at 1363
`(affirming jury instruction that defendant was found to infringe.)
`NUVASIVE’S OPPOSITION TO ALPHATEC’S
`3
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1-10
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 349 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.31995 Page 12 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
`
`patents or patent litigation, Ward v. Smith, 2015 WL 1499053, at *5 (W.D. Mo.
`Apr. 1, 2015) (qualified immunity); Cardinal v. Buchnoff, 2010 WL 3339509, at
`*2 (S.D. Cal Aug. 23, 2010) (§ 1983); Coleman Motor Co. v. Chrysler Corp., 525
`F.2d 1338, 1351 (3d Cir. 1975) (antitrust); Wilson v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the
`Midwest, 2011 WL 2670199, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 7, 2011) (insurance claim),
`or they do not involve the situation here, where the Court determined that the
`accused products infringe the asserted claims, Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc., 2020
`WL 978731, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2020) (Daubert and § 101 rulings); Grace
`v. Apple, Inc., 2020 WL 227404, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2020) (verdicts from
`unrelated cases regarding unasserted patents); Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild
`Semiconductor Int’l Inc., 2018 WL 5292544, at *1 (D. Del. Oct. 25, 2018) (same).
`Alphatec cannot overcome the wealth of authority showing that this Court’s
`determination of infringement is relevant and should not be excluded.3 NuVasive
`respectfully requests that Alphatec’s motion be denied.
`II. OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2:
`NuVasive opposes Alphatec’s MIL No. 2 to exclude the diverted surgeon
`opinion of Mr. Blake Inglish, NuVasive’s damages expert. This MIL is an
`untimely Daubert challenge. Furthermore, Alphatec’s motion fails as Mr. Inglish’s
`opinions are based on a faithful application of the well-accepted four-factor
`Panduit test.
`Factual Background. Mr. Inglish performed a comprehensive analysis of
`all four Panduit factors, relying on NuVasive’s technical expert, Dr. Youssef for
`
`3 If the Court is persuaded by Alphatec’s arguments that the infringement order
`should be excluded, this same logic must apply with even greater force to the
`evidence NuVasive seeks to exclude in its MILs 1 and 2. Alphatec intends to
`introduce prior Patent Office and district court proceedings regarding unasserted
`patents with significantly different claim scope in an attempt to distract the jury
`from the actual issues in this case: infringement, validity, and willfulness. Doc.
`No. 342 at 10-24. Yet, per Alphatec’s own arguments in its MIL No. 1, such
`evidence “is irrelevant to any issue the jury must decide [and as] such, its mention
`at trial will only prejudice [NuVasive] by confusing jurors and causing them to
`defer to [the prior proceedings] regardless of the evidence.” Doc. No. 341-1 at 10.
`NUVASIVE’S OPPOSITION TO ALPHATEC’S
`4
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1-10
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 349 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.31996 Page 13 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
`
`technical issues, and outlining in detail how he quantifies lost profits through a 15-
`step process. Ex. 5 (Inglish 11/20 Rep.) ¶ 75 (Steps 1-15), see also id. ¶¶ 58-76, ¶
`75 (Steps 1-15). Alphatec’s motion is directed to Mr. Inglish’s analysis under
`Panduit factor 4. Mr. Inglish analyzed both parties’ sales data to determine how
`much profit NuVasive would have made, as required by Panduit factor 4. Ex. 6
`(Inglish 1/11 Rep.) at Schedule 5. Mr. Inglish first considered whether each
`surgeon had bought lateral implants from both NuVasive and Alphatec, which Mr.
`Inglish referred to as an “[o]verlapping surgeon.” Id. at Schedule 5, n.5. Mr.
`Inglish then assessed whether each overlapping surgeon was a “diverted surgeon,”
`meaning that the surgeon had been purchasing from NuVasive, but then bought
`from Alphatec by applying four objective criteria. Ex. 5 (Inglish 11/20 Rep.) ¶ 70,
`Ex. 6 Inglish 1/11 Rep. at Schedule 5, n.5 (4 criteria).
`The first criterion to be considered a “diverted surgeon” is that the surgeon
`buys products from Alphatec that are substantially similar to NuVasive’s
`“functional unit”—essentially the three main components of an XLIF procedure.
`Ex. 5 (Inglish 11/20 Rep. ¶ 75 n.291; see also id. ¶¶ 49 (functional unit, according
`to Dr. Youssef, includes “three main components necessary for performance of an
`XLIF procedure – (1) access tools; (2) implants; and (3) neuromonitoring.”). The
`second criterion is that the surgeon must have previously purchased at least five
`implants from NuVasive, such that they may be considered repeat customers. The
`third criterion is that the surgeon started buying from Alphatec after previously
`buying from NuVasive. The fourth criterion is that the surgeons must not have had
`a “gap year” between when the surgeon stopped buying from NuVasive and started
`buying from Alphatec. If all of these objective criteria were met, Mr. Inglish
`determined that it was reasonable to conclude that sales to these surgeons
`represented lost sales for which NuVasive is entitled to lost profits. Thus, Mr.
`Inglish clearly identified his methodology.
`Argument. Alphatec’s MIL is an untimely Daubert motion seeking to
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPPOSITION TO ALPHATEC’S
`MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1-10
`
`5
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 349 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.31997 Page 14 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
`
`exclude a key portion of NuVasive’s damages model that it has known about for
`years and through multiple rounds of expert reports, expert depositions, and fully
`briefed and decided Daubert motions. See Doc. No. 183 at 2 (January 17, 2020
`access phase Daubert and dispositive motion deadline); Doc. No. 293 at 2 (January
`26, 2021 implant phase deadline). Alphatec chose to raise other damages issues by
`dispositive motion and Daubert in the access phase and elected to forego raising
`any damages issues in the implant phase. Thus, Alphatec elected not to bring a
`timely Daubert challenge on the issue raised here. Doc. No. 252-1 at 30–32; Doc.
`No. 252-1 at 30; Doc. No. 251-1 at 14–18. Moreover, the Court fully considered
`the damages issues Alphatec chose to raise and denied Alphatec’s motions. Doc.
`No. 282 at 17–18; Doc. No. 284 at 4–5. Accordingly, the Court should deny
`Alphatec’s MIL No. 2 as an untimely Daubert motion – a motion Alphatec could
`have brought 22 months ago. See Ex. 7 (Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. BCG
`Partners, Inc., Dkt. 2004 (N.D. Ill. July 29, 2021) Minute Entry)). Allowing
`Alphatec to bring Dauberts disguised as MILs also permits it to evade this Court’s
`page limits on briefing. L.R. 7.1.h. The Court should not entertain this untimely
`and improper Daubert motion a mere month before trial.4
`But even if the Court is inclined to reach the merits of Alphatec’s untimely
`Daubert motion, Alphatec’s motion still fails. After three expert reports totaling
`1,400 pages and two depositions, Alphatec now focuses on a single schedule (Ex.
`5 (Inglish 11/20 Rep. at Schedule 5) in one of Mr. Inglish’s three reports to
`incorrectly argue that Mr. Inglish’s lost profits calculations are “without any
`explanation whatsoever.” Doc. No. 341-1 at 11. Alphatec ignores Mr. Inglish’s
`extensive analysis of the drivers of demand (id. ¶¶ 54-55), reliance on expert
`opinions from Dr. Youssef (Id. ¶¶ 62, 65), a review of Alphatec’s own documents
`
`4 It would be especially inappropriate and unfair to grant Alphatec’s Daubert
`MILs since it would be effectively impossible for NuVasive to adequately respond
`to the numerous, high-technical issues raised in the MILs within the one-week, 25-
`page response limit that applies. L.R. 7.1.h; Doc. No. 335 at 2.
`NUVASIVE’S OPPOSITION TO ALPHATEC’S
`6
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1-10
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 349 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.31998 Page 15 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
`
`(Id. ¶ 123), the fact that Alphatec sourced 82% of its Accused Product sales from
`NuVasive XLIF-trained surgeons (Id. ¶ 69, Schedule 15), and an updated version
`of the schedule in question (Ex. 6 (Inglish 1/11 Rep. at Schedule 5)). Alphatec
`criticizes Mr. Inglish for “not speak[ing] to a single “diverted” surgeon to
`understand why they stopped purchasing NuVasive’s product but ignores that Mr.
`Inglish did discuss a list of overlapping surgeons with John English to determine if
`there could have been reasons other than Alphatec’s infringement for their switch.
`Ex. 5 (Inglish 11/20 Rep.) ¶ 75; Doc. No. 341-4 at 103:17-108:22.
`Alphatec ignores the rest of Mr. Inglish’s analysis and essentially argues that
`Mr. Inglish’s testimony is unreliable because he does not negate every possible
`reason other than Alphatec’s infringement that each NuVasive customer may have
`purchased from Alphatec. That argument fails as a matter of law because
`NuVasive need not “negative every possibility” but only “show that there was a
`reasonable probability that the sales would have been made ‘but for’ the
`infringement.” Kaufman v. Lantech, Inc., 926 F.2d 1136, 1141 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
`Once a patentee does so, the “onus is then placed on the infringer to show that it is
`unreasonable to infer that some or all of the infringing sales probably caused the
`patentee to suffer the loss of profits.” Id. at 1141-42. Ironically, Alphatec
`criticizes conservative objective criteria that Mr. Inglish has made to lower his lost
`profits calculations. For example, Mr. Inglish’s lost profits calculations do not
`include any diverted sales related to Dr. Saville, do not included any diverted sales
`related to Dr. Blanchard, and do not include any sales for surgeons who did not
`meet the four objective criteria summarized above. Ex. 6 (Inglish 1/11 Rep.) at
`Schedule 5; see also Ex. 5 (Inglish 11/20 Rep.) at Schedule 5.
`As shown above, Alphatec is incorrect that Mr. Inglish failed to offer a
`methodology for identifying a diverted surgeon – it was his four criteria, which are
`binary because a surgeon either meets each of the criteria or does not. Alphatec’s
`motion is premised on an assumption that this is not a methodology but has no
`
`NUVASIVE’S OPPOSITION TO ALPHATEC’S
`MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1-10
`
`7
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 349 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.31999 Page 16 of 35
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12