Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-9 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32304 Page 1 of
`118
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`
`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 350-9 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32305 Page 2 of
`118
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN DIEGO DIVISION
`
`Case No. 18-cv-0347-CAB-MDD
`
`NuVasive, Inc.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Alphatec Holdings, Inc. and Alphatec
`Spine, Inc.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF BLAKE INGLISH
`CONFIDENTIAL
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`November 8, 2019
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`Page 271
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-9 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32306 Page 3 of
`118
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`I
`I.A Experience / Qualifications .................................................................................................................. 1
`I.B
`Compensation ...................................................................................................................................... 2
`I.C Assignment / Scope of Work ............................................................................................................... 2
`I.D. Basis for Opinions ................................................................................................................................. 2
`I.E
`Incomplete / Conflicting Information Provided by Alphatec ............................................................... 3
`
`II
`II.A
`II.B
`
`SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS ................................................................... 8
`Lost Profits ....................................................................................................................................... 8
`Reasonable Royalty ....................................................................................................................... 10
`
`BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 11
`III
`Dispute .......................................................................................................................................... 11
`III.A
`Asserted Patents ........................................................................................................................... 11
`III.B
`III.B.1
`The ‘801 Patent ..................................................................................................................... 11
`III.B.2
`The ‘780 Patent ..................................................................................................................... 14
`III.B.3
`The ‘832 Patent ..................................................................................................................... 16
`III.B.4
`The ‘227 Patent ..................................................................................................................... 20
`III.B.5
`The ‘270 Patent ..................................................................................................................... 22
`III.B.6
`The ‘859 Patent ..................................................................................................................... 24
`III.B.7
`The ‘531 Patent ..................................................................................................................... 30
`III.C
`Parties ............................................................................................................................................ 35
`III.C.1
`NuVasive Overview ............................................................................................................... 35
`III.C.1.a
`XLIF Procedure ................................................................................................................................ 40
`III.C.2
`Alphatec Overview ................................................................................................................ 44
`III.C.2.a
`Accused Products ........................................................................................................................... 45
`The Minimally Invasive Spinal Implant Market ............................................................................. 46
`III.D
`III.D.1
`Procedures / Platforms and Procedure-Based Revenue Generation ................................... 49
`III.D.1.a
`Procedures / Platforms ................................................................................................................... 49
`III.D.1.b
`Adoption of Procedures / Platforms ............................................................................................... 57
`III.D.1.c
`Procedure-Based Revenue Generation (“Razor / Razor blade”) .................................................... 74
`III.D.2
`Drivers of Demand ................................................................................................................ 77
`III.D.3
`Longevity of Customer Relationships ................................................................................. 101
`
`IV LOST PROFITS .............................................................................................................. 105
`IV.A
`Panduit Factor #1: Demand for Patented Product ...................................................................... 105
`IV.B
`Panduit Factor #2: Absence of Acceptable Non-Infringing Substitutes ....................................... 106
`IV.C
`Panduit Factor #3: Manufacturing and Marketing Capacity ....................................................... 110
`IV.D
`Panduit Factor #4: Quantification of Profits ................................................................................ 112
`
`REASONABLE ROYALTY ................................................................................................ 118
`V
`Factual Support for NuVasive’s Reasonable Royalty Damages ................................................... 120
`V.A
`BENEFITS OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT ........................................................................................ 121
`V.A.1
`V.A.1.a
`Benefits to Alphatec ..................................................................................................................... 124
`V.A.1.b
`Benefits to Surgeon-Customers and Patients ............................................................................... 131
`V.A.1.c
`Preliminary Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 136
`V.A.2
`LICENSING ............................................................................................................................... 137
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`Page 272
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-9 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32307 Page 4 of
`118
`
`No Basis for an Established Royalty .............................................................................................. 137
`V.A.2.a
`Rates Paid by Alphatec for Use of Comparable Patents ............................................................... 140
`V.A.2.b
`NuVasive Seeks to Exclude Others From Using Its Patent Rights ................................................. 164
`V.A.2.c
`Structure of the Hypothetical License .......................................................................................... 164
`V.A.2.d
`Preliminary Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 165
`V.A.2.e
`V.A.3
`PROFIT CONTRIBUTION ........................................................................................................... 165
`V.A.3.a
`Products Made Under the Patents-in-Suit Are Profitable ............................................................ 165
`V.A.3.b
`Products Made Under the Patents-in-Suit Are Commercially Successful and Popular ................ 167
`V.A.3.c
`Alphatec’s Contributions Related to Non-Patented Elements, the Manufacturing Process,
`Business Risks and Features / Improvements ................................................................................................. 167
`V.A.3.d
`Preliminary Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 168
`V.A.4
`RELATIVE BARGAINING POSITION / HYPOTHETICAL NEGOTIATION ....................................... 168
`V.A.4.a
`NuVasive and Alphatec Considered Each Other Competitors ...................................................... 169
`V.A.4.b
`Preliminary Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 183
`V.A.4.c
`Alphatec and NuVasive Recognized the Importance of Convoyed Sales, Also Known as Pull-
`through Revenue, on the Accused Products ................................................................................................... 184
`V.A.4.d
`Preliminary Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 199
`Preliminary Conclusion Regarding Reasonable Royalty .............................................................. 199
`
`V.B
`
`VI
`VI.A
`VI.B
`
`INADEQUACY OF MONETARY DAMAGES ...................................................................... 207
`Economic Considerations ............................................................................................................ 207
`Preliminary Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 211
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`Page 273
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-9 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32308 Page 5 of
`118
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`I
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.A
`
`Experience / Qualifications
`
`1.
`
`I am a founder and Senior Managing Director of InFact Experts LLC (“InFact”) and a
`
`related entity1 which provides intellectual property, financial, forensic, data analytics, and
`
`dispute advisory services to clients across the nation, as well as in other countries. I have
`
`approximately two decades of experience in providing litigation related and non-litigation
`
`related intellectual property services in areas such as economic damages, IP portfolio
`
`assessment management, licensing / settlement negotiations, licensing enforcement /
`
`compliance, strategy and commercialization, and valuation. I have analyzed and/or quantified
`
`the economic value of hundreds of intellectual property rights and/or assets, including patents,
`
`trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. I have assisted clients in efforts to monetize
`
`intellectual property outside of litigation through licensing, commercialization, and sales /
`
`acquisitions / mergers.
`
`2.
`
`I have testified at trial and been qualified as an expert in intellectual property damages
`
`in multiple district courts, including the Southern District of California, Central District of
`
`California, Northern District of California, District of Delaware, District of Nevada, and the
`
`Eastern District of Texas. I have authored multiple publications focused on intellectual property
`
`issues. I have been a featured speaker, lecturer, and instructor in a wide array of settings,
`
`including state and national conferences, business schools, law schools and engineering schools
`
`in major universities, global consulting firms, AM Law 100 firms, and corporations.
`
`1 My work in this matter is on behalf of Fact Synthesis LLC.
`Page 1 of 211
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`Page 274
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-9 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32309 Page 6 of
`118
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`Director of Medical Affairs). Exhibit 3 of this report identifies documents and other information
`
`I have considered when performing my analysis. I have been asked by counsel for NuVasive to
`
`assume that all of the case law and statutes identified in this report serve to provide the
`
`necessary legal structure for my economic analysis. I do not plan to offer any legal opinions as
`
`to whether the information contained within this legal structure that I have been provided is
`
`appropriate. Although I may cite to a particular page or pages of documents in this report, such
`
`pinpoint cites are provided for clarification purposes only, and I reserve the right to refer to any
`
`and all parts of these documents. I understand that certain aspects of discovery are ongoing in
`
`this matter.2 Should information included in these depositions, proceedings, documents, and
`
`further discovery provide relevant information related to my damages opinions in this matter,
`
`I reserve the right, when allowed, to revise or expand upon my opinions and supplement this
`
`report. Until I have had the opportunity to properly consider this information the opinions
`
`contained in this report should be considered preliminary in nature.
`
`I.E
`
`Incomplete / Conflicting Information Provided by Alphatec
`
`7. Due to incomplete / conflicting data and information provided by Alphatec, I am now
`
`required to make a number of assumptions in this report that I plan to revisit should more
`
`2 For example, within the last few weeks there have been numerous documents produced in this case, as well as
`depositions of company representatives that I have not had sufficient opportunity to consider. According to
`outside counsel for NuVasive: Alphatec produced over 600,000 pages of documents (which represented
`approximately 36,000 documents, totaling over 100GBs of data) at close to midnight PT on Oct. 15 by FTP, which
`took NuVasive’s vendor approximately 24 hours to download (not counting the time to process it and make it
`available on Relativity). According to counsel, Alphatec informed NuVasive that the production had some issues
`and sent a replacement hard drive that arrived on Oct. 19; this data was not processed and uploaded to Relativity
`until Oct. 23. I have been informed by counsel that Alphatec scrubbed their production of all metadata except
`bates and extracted text (so no file names, date created, date sent, custodian, file path, email subject, email
`senders/recipients, etc), which has had a huge impact on NuVasive’s ability to search and analyze the data. (By
`contrast, Nuva has provided robust metadata for all of its productions.). I have also been informed that Alphatec’s
`replacement production swapped out a large number of native excels for TIFF images, which has made it even
`harder to find, view, and analyze financial type documents.
`Page 3 of 211
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`Page 275
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-9 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32310 Page 7 of
`118
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`reliable or complete information become available. Examples of areas of Alphatec’s data and
`
`information that are incomplete or inconsistent include, but are not limited: (1) sales/usage
`
`data for the accused products; and (2) cost and profit information related to the accused
`
`products.
`
`8. First, I understand from counsel for NuVasive, that Alphatec has failed to provide
`
`information sufficient to show the sales and/or usage of all accused products in a procedure,
`
`along with any other products sold or used in conjunction with the accused products in a
`
`procedure. I understand that Alphatec has produced spreadsheets created by filtering data
`
`stored in Alphatec’s “sales cube” system. I understand that Alphatec designated Robert Judd
`
`on NuVasive’s 30(b)(6) topics related to damages, including products sold with the accused
`
`products. Mr. Judd confirmed that the data in the sales cube had been filtered by “product
`
`code” to create the spreadsheets.3 Mr. Judd testified that the list of “product codes” used to
`
`filter were not included in the spreadsheet and there would be no way to tell from the
`
`spreadsheet what product codes were chosen.4 Mr. Judd further testified that he did not know
`
`who generated the list of product codes for the filter, that the list was generated before he
`
`joined Alphatec, and that he merely adopted the list of product codes chosen by the
`
`unidentified person.5 When Mr. Judd was asked about a specific product code that was
`
`included, he didn’t know who came up with that product code or what it means.6 Mr. Judd
`
`testified that Alphatec does have a list of product codes mapped to part numbers, but he didn’t
`
`3 11/5/19 Deposition Transcript of Robert Judd, 150:5-151:11.
`4 11/5/19 Deposition Transcript of Robert Judd, 150:5-151:11, 152:15-22.
`5 11/5/19 Deposition Transcript of Robert Judd, 154:15-155:3.
`6 11/5/19 Deposition Transcript of Robert Judd, 157:19-24.
`Page 4 of 211
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`Page 276
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-9 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32311 Page 8 of
`118
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`Zimmer Biomet
`In 2018, Zimmer Biomet held a 5% share of the total MIS interbody device
`market. Zimmer Biomet’s total share was contributed by its notable shares of
`the MIPLIF/MITLIF, LLIF and OLIF markets…In 2011, Zimmer introduced the
`PathFinder NXT, an improved version of the original PathFinder system
`developed by Abbott. The system facilitates both mini-open and percutaneous
`approaches. The PathFinder NXT provides surgeons with a MIS option in
`performing multi-level constructs.
`
`RTI Surgical
`RTI Surgical was the seventh-leading competitor in the MIS interbody device
`market, with a share of 1.1%. The company gained its share in this market
`through its 2013 acquisition of Pioneer Surgical. RTI Surgical had a modest share
`of the LLIF market, while the majority of its share in the total market was in the
`MIPLIF/MITLIF segment.
`
`Other
`[As noted in the Figure 6-8, other competitors in the MIS interbody device
`market include Alphatec Spine, Aurora Spine, Centinel Spine, Clariance, CoreLink
`Surgical, CTL Amedica, Life Spine, Medacta International, Orthofix, Osteomed,
`Pinnacle Spine Group, Spineart, Titan Spine, etc.]
`
`III.D.1.b Adoption of Procedures / Platforms
`
`40. It is my understanding, based on the expert opinions of Dr. Youssef, discussions with
`
`NuVasive representatives including Matt Link and Kyle Malone, and other information available,
`
`that the basis for the adoption and usage of lateral platforms/procedures, such as NuVasive’s
`
`MAS Platform/XLIF procedure and Alphatec’s Battalion Platform, is at the procedure level and
`
`that each of these platforms includes integrated components that have been specifically
`
`designed to operate collectively as a functional unit in order to achieve a safe and reproducible,
`
`minimally invasive, and successful spinal fusion. Dr. Youssef has provided the following
`
`opinions related to this issue:
`
`Page 57 of 211
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`Page 277
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-9 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32312 Page 9 of
`118
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`Expert Report of Dr. Jim Youssef94
`Based on my experience, surgeons base their usage/adoption decisions for
`lateral procedures at the platform-level versus the component-level. This is
`primarily based on the fact that lateral platforms such as NuVasive’s MAS
`platform include integrated components such as a neuromonitoring system,
`access system (including MaXcess retractor), neuromonitoring disposables,
`MaXcess disposables, and implants, each of which have been specifically
`designed to operate collectively as a functional unit in order to achieve a safe
`and reproducible, minimally invasive, and successful lateral spinal fusion. The
`three main components necessary for performance of an XLIF procedure – (1)
`access tools; (2) implants; and (3) neuromonitoring – collectively function in such
`a way that allows surgeons to achieve safe and reproducible, minimally invasive,
`and clinically successful interbody fusions. Additionally, because the absence of
`any one of these components would dramatically impair surgeons’ ability to
`achieve these objectives, it is my opinion that each of these components
`contributes equally but in different ways to the adoption and continued use of
`the XLIF procedure and platform. For example, the implant, by itself, is of little
`value without neuromonitoring and access systems as the surgeon would have
`no safe and reproducible way to place the implant in the targeted disc space.
`Similarly, the retractor and/or neuromonitoring components would provide
`significantly reduced value without an implant, which are required for fusion,
`restoring the disc height, and providing stability to the spine. Therefore, it is my
`opinion that no one of these three key components of XLIF has more clinical
`value to a surgeon than any other.
`
`Moreover, it is my opinion that a surgeon who has chosen to perform spinal
`fusion surgery via a non-lateral approach (e.g., ALIF, PLIF, or TLIF) would not
`choose any of the components of XLIF for such a surgery because they are
`specifically designed for a lateral procedure, and as such do not work as well or
`provide the same level of utility of platforms specifically designed for these other
`approaches. The retractor, implants and neuromonitoring are specifically
`designed for lateral interbody fusion surgery or some variation of lateral surgery
`(i.e. corpectomy, lateral disc herniations, etc.). None of the implants for a lateral
`approach are designed for use in a method using a different approach (i.e. ALIF,
`TLIF, PLIF), and the retractor is not designed to provide visualization for different
`approaches. Additionally, the type of neuromonitoring used in XLIF is designed
`to navigate the lumbar plexus and not used in procedures using a different
`approach as it would be less relevant or clinically beneficial in those procedures.
`Furthermore, NuVasive’s MaXcess disposables and neuromonitoring disposals
`are designed specifically for use with the MaXcess retractor in an XLIF procedure.
`
`94 Expert Report of Jim Youssef Re Damages, dated 11/8/19, para. 26, 29. Based on discussions with Dr. Youssef.
`Page 58 of 211
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`Page 278
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-9 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32313 Page 10 of
`118
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`41. The following testimony from Pat Miles has helped inform my understanding of
`
`NuVasive’s procedure-driven strategy:
`
`Testimony of Pat Miles (Alphatec’s Executive Chairman & CEO; Former
`NuVasive COO)
`In little more than a decade, NuVasive has grown from a small medical device
`startup to the company it is today, helping thousands of patients. At the center
`of NuVasive’s success has been its XLIF procedure and associated equipment.
`(‘The majority of NuVasive’s revenue is directly related to XLIF procedures and its
`related devices. The XLIF procedure is the most rapidly growing MIS interbody
`fusion procedure, and comprises the vast majority of NuVasive’s market share in
`the LLIF segment.’) Without the invention of our method to safely and
`reproducible traverse the psoas muscle along the lateral trans-psoas path using
`nerve monitoring-enabled distraction and retraction assemblies (that are also
`optionally nerve monitoring enabled) with a nerve monitoring system, none of
`this would have been possible.95
`
`Importantly, NuVasive’s success has been driven by our XLIF procedure and
`instruments, namely the nerve monitoring enabled distractor and a retractor
`(which is also optionally nerve monitoring enabled) that integrate NuVasive’s
`nerve monitoring system.96
`
`Q. Okay. Can you turn to paragraph 27 of your declaration. I think it's around page 27.
`Starts on 26. The first sentence of paragraph 26 -- excuse me, paragraph 27 on page 26,
`states (reading):
`NuVasive's success has been driven by our XLIF procedure and instruments, namely, the
`nerve monitoring enabled distractor and a retractor. How did the retractor derive
`success?
`…Q. Did the retractor derive success?
`A. I think whenever you're trying to fulfill the obligations of a surgery, and -- and you
`provide the necessary tools to predictably fulfill the obligation of surgery, those tools,
`in essence, enable success. And that was the -- that was a connotation of that
`description.
`Q. Which features of the retractor were important to the success?
`….THE WITNESS: Yeah. The -- the intended communication was that multiple items have
`been core to the fulfillment of a reproducible surgery, and those included nerve
`monitoring and a retractor. And so if you'd like to read into it more, you're welcome to.
`That was the intent of this.
`BY MR. OLIVER: Q. Was there anything special about the retractor that helped with the
`success?
`
`95 Exhibit-1069 – 7/8/14 Declaration of Patrick Miles, p. 20 [emphasis added].
`96 Exhibit-1069 – 7/8/14 Declaration of Patrick Miles, p. 24 [emphasis added].
`Page 59 of 211
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`Page 279
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-9 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32314 Page 11 of
`118
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`…THE WITNESS: In certain applications there -- there are certain benefits associated
`with the retractor that we have hopefully designed in for predictability sake.
`BY MR. OLIVER: Q. And what are those?
`A. A fixed posterior blade.
`Q. Okay. MR. MILLER: You can give more --
`THE WITNESS: Yeah. There's a multitude of them that he's not interested in. But the –
`BY MR. OLIVER: Q. That's fine.97
`
`As I have stated repeatedly, XLIF’s success is directly related to the innovative
`procedure and systems that combine nerve monitoring enabled distraction and
`retraction (also optionally nerve monitoring enabled) with NuVasive’s nerve
`monitoring system to safely and reproducibly navigate the psoas muscle,
`avoiding the nerve roots, to reach the target disc space to perform a fusion or
`other procedure. If the XLIF system and method could not safely traverse the
`nerve-rich psoas muscle, surgeons would never have adopted XLIF and there
`would have been no commercial success.
`
`The success of the XLIF procedure is not due to brand name recognition or being
`a market leader. When the XLIF procedure hit the market, NuVasive was a small
`start-up company and it had no brand name recognition. Nor was XLIF’s success
`due to being part of an already growing market. There was no lateral fusion
`market at the time of the XLIF procedure. It is a testament to the procedure
`(and the instruments which enabled it, especially nerve monitoring) that
`NuVasive was able to essentially create a new market. Finally, XLIF’s success
`was not just a product of great marketing. Although marketing was and is
`important for XLIF, it did not create the demand for the XLIF procedure. XLIF was
`and continues to be such a success because of the efficacy and safety the
`procedure offers.”98
`
`42. Based on the following documents, Alphatec also appears to have adopted a procedure-
`
`driven strategy in developing and selling a LLIF platform:
`
`Alphatec Earnings Call Transcripts:
`The overarching intention behind Alphatec's renewed development program is
`to create value and deliver better outcomes by advancing this company from a
`simple implant manufacturer into a spine solutions architect.
`…
`…the [SafeOp nerve monitoring] technology will complete our lateral solution.99
`
`97 9/4/14 Deposition Transcript of Pat Miles, pp. 90-92 [emphasis added].
`98 Exhibit-1069 – 7/8/14 Declaration of Patrick Miles, pp. 27-28 [emphasis added].
`99 Alphatec Holdings, Inc. FQ4 2017 Earnings Call Transcript (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4154927-alphatec-
`holdings-atec-ceo-terry-rich-q4-2017-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single) [emphasis added].
`Page 60 of 211
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`Page 280
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-9 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32315 Page 12 of
`118
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`And the key is you need to start looking at spine surgery in a way that the spine
`surgeons view the world. And spine surgeons view the world in terms of
`approaches. And so what you'll hear us refer to ourselves as is spine approach
`technology, ATEC approach technology. And we must -- we really must create
`the clinical distinction by spine approach.100
`
`And so if you go to the next slide and you say, "gosh, what is our responsibility as
`a company?" And I would tell you that we're stewards to the surgeons' goals.
`And not to give you an overt spine lesson, but spine surgery is fundamentally
`decompression, stabilization and alignment. That's what spine surgeons are
`trying to accomplish. And there becomes a myriad of different pathologies and
`then to say, what approach do I take to address this pathology to fulfill these
`goals? Our job as stewards becomes, what's the technology that we could
`provide the surgeon and create predictability associated with creating great
`outcome? So what we do is we look within the approach itself and say, how
`can we be effectual with regard to the approach?101
`
`But this is really just a reminder that we think of the world in spine approaches
`and we architect approaches with products.102
`
`There's a bit of an interesting situation in spine in that implants are the currency
`items, and they are the ones that generate most of the currency. The challenges
`is a currency that's been defined and what the surgeon requires to do
`predictable surgery are not one and the same. And so what happens is, is a lot of
`companies won't create the requirements of surgery because financially, they
`don't appear as viable. But I think as you look at things with regard to a
`procedure and the integration of the tools being used to fulfill a specific
`surgical need, what you see is you see the expanse of the currency items based
`upon the ability to deliver clear, objectionable -- clear, excuse me, objective
`actionable information. And so the opportunity there is that you will see a vast
`minority in the contribution from the SafeOp platform, but it will be responsible
`for the revenue gained, if you will.103
`
`100 Alphatec Holdings, Inc. FQ4 2018 Earnings Call Transcript (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/edited-transcript-
`atec-earnings-conference-014048724.html) [emphasis added].
`101 Alphatec Holdings, Inc. FQ4 2018 Earnings Call Transcript (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/edited-transcript-
`atec-earnings-conference-014048724.html) [emphasis added].
`102 Alphatec Holdings, Inc. FQ1 2019 Earnings Call Transcript (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/edited-transcript-
`atec-earnings-conference-033534388.html) [emphasis added].
`103 Alphatec Holdings, Inc. FQ2 2019 Earnings Call Transcript (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/edited-transcript-
`atec-earnings-conference-032604521.html) [emphasis added].
`Page 61 of 211
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`Page 281
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 350-9 Filed 11/06/21 PageID.32316 Page 13 of
`118
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`And so we're so reliant upon building spine approaches. And so the ability to
`start to apply technology that integrates with each other such that we're
`architecting the approach, which will be reflected in convoyed sales.104
`
`Alphatec 2017 Form 10-K105
`
`With a focus on the entire procedure, we expect to build awareness of the
`breadth of our product offering.106
`
`Strategy
`Our goal is to become the most respected, fastest growing spine player by
`pioneering meaningful innovation. With our new spine-experienced leadership
`team, and the high-performance culture we are creating, we intend to advance
`Alphatec from an implant manufacturer to a spine solutions architect via two
`key principals:
`1. Proceduralization. We are determined to design complete surgical solutions
`that address unmet clinical needs and improve clinical outcomes by integrating
`Alphatec products and technologies to treat specific pathologies.
`2. Speed to Market. We intend to build on proven team expertise to expedite
`product development by enhancing Alphatec’s innovative dexterity and unique
`market strategy and accelerating the commercial launch of our innovative
`product pipeline.107
`
`The Alphatec Solution
`Our principal product offering includes a wide variety of spinal solutions
`comprised of components such as access systems, interbody implants, fixation
`plates, screws and rods, instruments, and various biologics offerings all designed
`to enhance and promote spinal fusion. Our business is focused on treating
`multiple spine pathologies and conditions through a variety of MIS and
`traditional procedures.108
`
`104 Alphatec Holdings, Inc. FQ2 2019 Earnings Call Transcript (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/edited-transcript-
`atec-earnings-conference-032604521.html) [emphasis added].
`105