Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-25 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32589 Page 1 of
`11
`
`EXHIBIT 24
`
`DECLARATION OF TRENT D. TANNER
`IN SUPPORT OF
`NUVASIVE'S OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1-10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-25 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32590 Page 2 of
`11
`
`NIMALKA R. WICKRAMASEKERA (SBN: 268518)
`nwickramasekera@winston.com
`DAVID P. DALKE (SBN: 218161)
`ddalke@winston.com
`LEV TSUKERMAN (SBN: 319184)
`ltsukerman@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 S. Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
`Telephone: (213) 615-1700
`Facsimile:
`(213) 615-1750
`
`BRIAN J. NISBET (pro hac vice)
`bnisbet@winston.com
`SARANYA RAGHAVAN (pro hac vice)
`sraghavan@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601-9703
`Telephone: (312) 558-5600
`Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
`
`CORINNE STONE HOCKMAN (pro hac vice)
`chockman@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1111 Louisiana St., 25th Floor
`Houston, TX 770002-5242
`Telephone: (713) 651-2600
`Facsimile: (713) 651-2700
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC. and
`ALPHATEC SPINE, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN DIEGO DIVISION
`
`NUVASIVE, INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`Case No. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation and
`ALPHATEC SPINE, INC., a
`California corporation,
`
`[Assigned to Courtroom 4C – Honorable
`Cathy Ann Bencivengo]
`
`[Magistrate: Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin]
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
`ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`REBUTTAL REPORT OF BARTON L. SACHS, M.D., M.B.A.,
`F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E.
`
`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
`
`EXHIBIT 24
`Page 540
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-25 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32591 Page 3 of
`11
`
`Defendants.
`
`REBUTTAL REPORT OF BARTON L.
`SACHS, M.D., M.B.A., F.A.C.P.E.,
`F.A.C.H.E.
`
`Complaint Filed: February 13, 2018
`
`ii
`REBUTTAL REPORT OF BARTON L. SACHS, M.D., M.B.A.,
`F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E.
`
`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
`
`EXHIBIT 24
`Page 541
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-25 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32592 Page 4 of
`11
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................1
`
`QUALIFICATIONS.............................................................................................2
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED.............................................................................7
`
`IV. COMPENSATION...............................................................................................8
`
`V.
`
`PRIOR TESTIMONY ..........................................................................................8
`
`VI.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................................................8
`
`VII. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................................11
`
`VIII. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Anatomy of the Human Spine..................................................................13
`
`Interbody Spinal Fusion Procedures ........................................................15
`
`Overview of NuVasive’s XLIF................................................................22
`1.
`XLIF Development ........................................................................23
`2.
`XLIF Components .........................................................................27
`3.
`XLIF Surgical Guide .....................................................................30
`
`Overview of Alphatec’s LIF ....................................................................39
`1.
`LIF Components ............................................................................39
`2.
`LIF Surgical Guide ........................................................................43
`
`IX. ALPHATEC DOES NOT INFRINGE THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ................51
`
`A.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,819,801 .................................................................51
`1.
`Overview of the ’801 patent .......................................................... 52
`2.
`Accused instrumentalities .............................................................. 55
`3.
`Claim Construction ........................................................................55
`4.
`Independent Claim 1 of the ’801 Patent ........................................ 56
`5.
`Dependent Claims 2, 6, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26, 28,
`and 29.............................................................................................85
`Claims 17, 19, and 21 ....................................................................85
`Claim 20.........................................................................................86
`Claim 23.........................................................................................89
`
`6.
`7.
`8.
`
`B.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,355,780 .................................................................92
`
`iii
`REBUTTAL REPORT OF BARTON L. SACHS, M.D., M.B.A.,
`F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E.
`
`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
`
`EXHIBIT 24
`Page 542
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-25 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32593 Page 5 of
`11
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`
`Overview of the ’780 patent .......................................................... 92
`Accused instrumentalities .............................................................. 94
`Claim Construction ........................................................................94
`Independent Claim 21 ....................................................................95
`Dependent Claims 22 and 24–28 .................................................100
`Claim 25.......................................................................................100
`Claim 26.......................................................................................102
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,439,832 ...............................................................103
`1.
`Overview of the ’832 patent ........................................................103
`2.
`Accused instrumentalities ............................................................106
`3.
`Claim Construction ......................................................................106
`4.
`Independent Claim 1 of the ’832 patent ......................................106
`5.
`Dependent Claims 2–4 and 6–10 .................................................109
`6.
`Dependent Claim 6 ......................................................................109
`7.
`Dependent Claim 8 ......................................................................112
`8.
`Independent Claim 12 ..................................................................113
`9.
`Dependent Claims 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19....................................116
`10. Dependent Claim 13 ....................................................................116
`11. Dependent Claim 16 ....................................................................118
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,833,227 ...............................................................119
`1.
`Overview of the ’227 patent ........................................................120
`2.
`Accused instrumentalities ............................................................122
`3.
`Claim Construction ......................................................................122
`4.
`Independent Claim 1 ....................................................................123
`5.
`Dependent Claims 2, 6, 13, and 15..............................................127
`6.
`Claim 13.......................................................................................127
`7.
`Independent Claim 16 ..................................................................128
`8.
`Dependent Claims 17, 22, and 28................................................131
`9.
`Claim 28.......................................................................................132
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,753,270 ...............................................................132
`1.
`Overview of the ’270 patent ........................................................133
`2.
`Accused instrumentalities ............................................................134
`3.
`Claim Construction ......................................................................134
`4.
`Claim 1.........................................................................................135
`5.
`Dependent Claims 2–4, 6, and 12................................................138
`6.
`Dependent Claim 3 ......................................................................138
`
`iv
`REBUTTAL REPORT OF BARTON L. SACHS, M.D., M.B.A.,
`F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E.
`
`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
`
`EXHIBIT 24
`Page 543
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-25 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32594 Page 6 of
`11
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`7.
`
`Dependent Claim 4 ......................................................................139
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,924,859 ...............................................................140
`1.
`Overview of the ’859 patent ........................................................140
`2.
`Accused instrumentalities ............................................................142
`3.
`Claim Construction ......................................................................143
`4.
`Claim 1.........................................................................................143
`5.
`Dependent Claims 2–26, and 28–36............................................148
`6.
`Dependent Claims 2, 3, and 5–7 ..................................................149
`7.
`Dependent Claim 8 ......................................................................150
`8.
`Dependent Claim 10 ....................................................................150
`9.
`Dependent Claim 11 ....................................................................151
`10. Dependent Claim 12 ....................................................................152
`11. Dependent Claim 22 ....................................................................153
`12. Dependent Claim 24 ....................................................................154
`13. Dependent Claim 26 ....................................................................155
`14. Dependent Claim 29 ....................................................................156
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,974,531 ...............................................................157
`1.
`Overview of the ’531 patent ........................................................157
`2.
`Accused instrumentalities ............................................................159
`3.
`Claim Construction ......................................................................159
`4.
`Claim 1.........................................................................................160
`5.
`Dependent Claims 2–20, 26–34 and 39.......................................164
`6.
`Dependent Claims 3–5.................................................................164
`7.
`Dependent Claim 6 ......................................................................166
`8.
`Dependent Claim 9 ......................................................................166
`9.
`Dependent Claim 10 ....................................................................167
`10. Dependent Claims 13 and 14 .......................................................168
`11. Dependent Claim 32 ....................................................................168
`12. Dependent Claim 33 ....................................................................169
`13. Dependent Claim 34 ....................................................................170
`
`H.
`
`No Indirect Infringement........................................................................171
`1.
`No Induced Infringement.............................................................171
`2.
`No Contributory Infringement .....................................................172
`
`NUMEROUS NON-INFRINGING ALTERNATIVES EXIST......................174
`
`THE PUBLIC WOULD BE HARMED IF ALPHATEC’S PRODUCTS
`WERE ENJOINED ..........................................................................................195
`
`X.
`
`XI.
`
`v
`REBUTTAL REPORT OF BARTON L. SACHS, M.D., M.B.A.,
`F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E.
`
`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
`
`EXHIBIT 24
`Page 544
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-25 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32595 Page 7 of
`11
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am a practicing spine surgeon, specializing in minimally invasive
`
`surgery, spinal arthroplasty and spine deformities, spine reconstruction, and deformity
`
`surgery. Currently, I am Professor of Orthopedics at the Medical University of South
`
`Carolina. I also serve as an Adjunct Professor of Bioengineering at Clemson University,
`
`Department of Engineering and Biomechanics.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Alphatec Holdings, Inc. and Alphatec
`
`Spine, Inc. (collectively, “Alphatec”), defendants in the above-captioned litigation. I
`
`understand the plaintiff in this matter, NuVasive, Inc. (“NuVasive”), has filed a lawsuit
`
`against Alphatec on the basis that Alphatec’s Lateral Interbody Fusion (LLIF) of
`
`products allegedly infringes certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,819,801 (the “’801
`
`patent”); 8,355,780 (the “’780 patent”); 8,439,832 (the “’832 patent”); 9,833,227 (the
`
`“’227 patent”); 8,753,270 (the “’270 patent”); 9,924,859 (the “’859 patent”); and
`
`9,974,531 (the “’531 patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit” or “asserted patents”).
`
`3.
`
`In its Second Amended Infringement Contentions, Nuvasive identified the
`
`following claims of the asserted patents: claims 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26,
`
`28, and 29 of the ’801 patent; claims 21, 22, and 24–28 of the ’780 patent; claims 1–4,
`
`6–10, 12–14, 16, 17, and 19 of the ’832 patent; claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 13, 15–17, 19, 22, and
`
`28 of the ’227 patent; claims 1–4, 6, and 12 of the ’270 patent; claims 1–26, and 28–36
`
`of the ’859 patent; and claims 1–39 of the ’531 patent. Dr. Jim Youssef’s Opening
`
`Expert Report does not address claims 4 or 19 of the ’227 patent, or claims 21–25 and
`
`35-38 of the ’531 patent. To the extent that NuVasive later seeks to improperly include
`
`these claims, I reserve the right to address them.
`
`4.
`
`In its Second Amended Infringement Contentions, NuVasive identified the
`
`following products of allegedly infringing the asserted patents: Alphatec’s initial
`
`dilator, secondary dilator, Squadron™ lateral retractor body, Squadron™ lateral
`
`retractor right blade, Squadron™ lateral retractor posterior blade, Squadron™ lateral
`
`retractor right handle arm, Squadron™ lateral retractor left handle arm, K-wire,
`
`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
`
`REBUTTAL REPORT OF BARTON L. SACHS, M.D., M.B.A.,
`F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E.
`
`EXHIBIT 24
`Page 545
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-25 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32596 Page 8 of
`11
`
`(ATEC_LLIF000167294
`
`at
`
`167303, ATEC_LLIF000167230
`
`at
`
`167239,
`
`ATEC_LLIF000167276 at 167282.)
`
`180. Accordingly, it is my opinion that the Alphatec retractor blades do not
`
`“engage with” the outermost dilator.
`
`181. Dr. Youssef does not offer an opinion regarding infringement under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents for this limitation.
`
`(See, e.g., Youssef Rpt. at ¶¶ 176–80;
`
`Youssef Rpt. Appx. A at 29–33.) Nonetheless, the accused instrumentalities do not
`
`directly or indirectly infringe claim 1 of the ’801 patent literally or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents for at least the reasons described above.
`
`5.
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 6, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26, 28, and 29
`
`182. Claims 2, 6, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 32, 26, 28, and 29 depend from
`
`independent claim 1. The accused instrumentalities thus do not infringe these claims
`
`for at least the same reasons as set forth above with respect to independent claim 1. My
`
`analysis for each dependent claim incorporates by reference my opinions and
`
`conclusions for each claim from which it depends.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 17, 19, and 21
`
`183. Claims 17, 19, and 21 each depend from claim 1.
`
`184. Claim 17 recites “The system of claim 1, wherein the first retractor blade
`
`includes a groove formed along said generally concave inner-facing surface of the first
`
`85
`REBUTTAL REPORT OF BARTON L. SACHS, M.D., M.B.A.,
`F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E.
`
`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
`
`EXHIBIT 24
`Page 546
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-25 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32597 Page 9 of
`11
`
`deliver electrical stimulation for nerve monitoring when the stimulation electrode is
`
`positioned along the latera, trans-psoas path. I incorporate my opinion set forth above
`
`with respect
`
`to claim 21 of the ’780 patent here. Accordingly,
`
`the accused
`
`instrumentality does not directly or indirectly infringe claim1 of the ’832 patent literally
`
`or under the doctrine of equivalents for at least the reasons described above.
`
`5.
`
`Dependent Claims 2–4 and 6–10
`
`251. Claims 2–4 and 6–10 depend from independent claim 1. The accused
`
`instrumentalities do not infringe these claims for at least the same reasons as set forth
`
`above with respect to independent claim 1. My analysis for each dependent claim
`
`incorporates by reference my opinions and conclusions for each claim from which it
`
`depends.
`
`6.
`
`Dependent Claim 6
`
`252. Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites: “The system of claim 1, wherein
`
`when the three-bladed retractor tool defines the operative corridor, the posterior-most,
`
`cephalad-most, and caudal-most retractor blades are spaced apart and maintained
`
`generally parallel to one another.” The accused instrumentalities do not infringe these
`
`claims for at least the same reasons as set forth above with respect to independent claim
`
`1. I incorporate my opinion above with respect to claim 1 of the ’832 patent here.
`
`253. The ’832 patent does not describe defining the operative corridor, where
`
`the posterior-most, cephalad-most, and caudal-most retractor blades are spaced apart
`
`and maintained generally parallel to one another, nor does it describe why such
`
`configuration would be accomplished. Nevertheless, Dr. Youssef opines that the
`
`accused instrumentalities meet this limitation because, for example, “when the three-
`
`bladed retractor tool defines the operative corridor, the posterior-most, cephalad-most,
`
`and caudal-most retractor blades are spaced apart and maintained generally parallel to
`
`one another.” (Youssef Rpt. Appx. C at 42–44; see also Youssef Rpt. at ¶¶ 409–11.)
`
`254. To support his opinion, Dr. Youssef offers the following illustration.
`
`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
`
`109
`REBUTTAL REPORT OF BARTON L. SACHS, M.D., M.B.A.,
`F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E.
`
`EXHIBIT 24
`Page 547
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-25 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32598 Page 10 of
`11
`
`reasons described above.
`
`(d)
`
`“wherein the first arm pivots relative to the second arm
`and … the second arm pivots relative to the first arm”
`
`423.
`
`In pertinent part, limitation 1[E] recites “wherein the first arm pivots
`
`relative to the second arm and the third arm to move the first retractor blade away from
`
`the second and third retractor blades, the second arm pivots relative to the first arm and
`
`the third arm to move the second retractor blade away from the first and third retractor
`
`blades.”
`
`424. Dr. Youssef opines that
`
`the accused instrumentalities infringe this
`
`limitation because the first and second arms of the Squadron™ lateral retractor “can
`
`pivot relative to each other.
`
`If the blades were rotated, as claimed by Alphatec, the
`
`concavity of the blades would also change. However, when the arm members are
`
`pivoted, the concavity of the blades does not change.” (Youssef Rpt. at ¶¶ 1049–51;
`
`see also Youssef Rpt. Appx. F at 14–17.)
`
`425. As discussed above with regard to limitation 1[B] and 1[E] of claim 1 and
`
`claim 23 of the ’801 patent, each of the Squadron™ retractor arms has its own individual
`
`articulation point that allows the blades to move simultaneously in different planes as a
`
`result of Alphatec’s LevelToe™ technology. I incorporate my opinion set forth above
`
`with respect to claims 1 and 23 of the ’801 patent here. Accordingly, the accused
`
`instrumentality does not directly or indirectly infringe claim 1 of the ’531 patent literally
`
`or under the doctrine of equivalents for at least the reasons described above.
`
`5.
`
`Dependent Claims 2–20, 26–34 and 39
`
`426. Claims 2–20, 26–34 and 39 depend from independent claim 1. The accused
`
`instrumentalities do not infringe these claims for at least the same reasons as set forth
`
`with respect to independent claim 1. My analysis for each dependent claim incorporates
`
`by reference my opinions and conclusions for each claim from which it depends.
`
`6.
`
`Dependent Claims 3–5
`
`427. Claim 3 depends from claim 2, and recites: “The system of claim 2,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`164
`REBUTTAL REPORT OF BARTON L. SACHS, M.D., M.B.A.,
`F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E.
`
`EXHIBIT 24
`Page 548
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-25 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32599 Page 11 of
`11
`
`DATED: November 22, 2019
`
`By:__________________________
`Barton L. Sachs M.D., M.B.A.
`
`F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E.
`
`197
`REBUTTAL REPORT OF BARTON L. SACHS, M.D., M.B.A.,
`F.A.C.P.E., F.A.C.H.E.
`
`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
`
`EXHIBIT 24
`Page 549
`
`