Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34344 Page 1 of
`111
`
`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,
`
`))))))))))))))
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation, and ALPHATEC
`SPINE, INC., a California corporation,
`Defendants.
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S
`PROPOSED JURY
`INSTRUCTIONS
`
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`Courtroom: 15A
`Trial Date: January 10, 2022
`
`NUVASIVE’S PROPOSED JURY
`INSTRUCTIONS
`
`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 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34345 Page 2 of
`111
`
`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
`
`PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`NUVASIVE’S PROPOSED JURY
`INSTRUCTIONS
`
`1
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34346 Page 3 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED PRELIMINARY
`INSTRUCTION NO. 1
`
`[Intentionally skipped due to agreement of the parties]
`
`NUVASIVE’S PROPOSED JURY
`INSTRUCTIONS
`
`2
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34347 Page 4 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION
`NO. 2
`UNITED STATES PATENTS
`This case involves a dispute relating to a United States patent. Before
`summarizing the positions of the parties and the legal issues involved in the dispute,
`let me take a moment to explain what a patent is and how one is obtained.
`Patents are granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (sometimes
`called “the “PTO” or “USPTO”). ”). A valid United States patent gives the ownerpatent
`holder the right to excludeprevent others from making, using, offering to sell, or
`selling the claimedpatented invention within the United States, or from importing it
`into the United States. During the trial, the parties , during the term of the patent
`without the patent holder’s permission. A violation of the patent holder’s rights is
`called infringement. The patent holder may offer testimony to familiarize you with how
`one obtains a patent from the PTO, but I will give you a general background here.try to enforce
`a patent against persons believed to be infringers by means of a lawsuit filed in
`federal court.
`To obtain a patent, one must file an application for a patent must be filed with the
`with the PTO. The process of obtaining a patent is called patent prosecution. The
`PTO by an applicant. is an agency of the federal government and employs trained
`patent examiners who review applications for patents. The application includes what
`is called a “specification,,” which should havemust contain a written description of the
`claimed invention telling what the invention is, how it works, and how to make it
`and how to use it so as to enable others skilled in the art to do so. field will know how
`to make or use it. The specification concludes with one or more numbered sentences
`or paragraphs. . These are called the “claims” of the patent. The purpose of “claims.”
`When the patent is eventually granted by the PTO, the claims is to particularly point out
`what the applicant regards as the claimed invention and to define the scope of the patent owner’s
`
`PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`3
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34348 Page 5 of
`111
`
`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
`
`exclusive rights.boundaries of its protection and give notice to the public of those
`boundaries.
`After anthe applicant files the application for a patent is filed with the PTO,
`the application is reviewed by a trained , a PTO Patent Examiner. The Patent
`Examinerpatent examiner reviews (or examines) the patent application to
`determine whether the claims are patentable and whether the specification
`adequately describes the claimed invention. claimed. In examining a patent
`application, the Patent Examinerpatent examiner reviews information about the
`state of the technology at the time the application was filed. As part of that effort,
`the patent examiner searches recordsfor and reviews information that is publicly
`available to the PTO for what is referred to as “prior art,” and he or she also
`reviews prior art , submitted by the applicant.
`When the parties are done presenting evidence, , or both. That information is
`called “prior art.” Prior art is defined by law, and I will give you moreat a later
`time specific instructions as to what constitutes prior art. However, in this case.
`Generallygeneral, prior art is previously existing technical information and
`knowledge against which the Patent Examiners determine whether or not the
`claims in the application are patentable. includes things that existed before the
`claimed invention, that were publicly known, or used in a publicly accessible way
`in this country, or that were patented or described in a publication in any country.
`The Patent Examinerpatent examiner considers, among other things, whether each
`claim defines an invention that is new, useful, and not obvious in view of thisthe
`prior art. In addition, the Patent Examiner may consider whether other
`requirements for aA patent are met.lists the prior art that the examiner considered;
`this list is called the “cited references.”
`FollowingAfter the prior art search and examination of the application, the
`Patent Examiner advisespatent examiner then informs the applicant in writing what
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`4
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34349 Page 6 of
`111
`
`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
`
`the Patent Examinerexaminer has found and whether any claim is patentable (in
`other words, , and thus will be “allowed”). .” This writing from the Patent
`Examinerpatent examiner is called an “Office Action.” More often than not,office
`action.” If the initial Office Action by the Patent Examinerexaminer rejects the
`claims. The, the applicant then respondshas an opportunity to the Office
`Actionrespond and sometimes cancels or changes the claims or submits new claims
`or makes arguments against a rejection. . This process, which takes place only
`between the examiner and the patent applicant, may go back and forth between the
`Patent Examiner and the applicant for several months or even years some time
`until the Patent Examinerexaminer is satisfied that the application and claims meet
`the requirements for a patent. Sometimes, patents are patentable. Upon payment of
`an issue fee by the applicant, the PTO then “issues” or “grants” a patent issued
`after appeals with the allowed claims.
`PTO or to a court. The collection of papers generated by the Patent Examiner and
`the applicant during this time of correspondingcommunicating back and forth between
`the patent examiner and the applicant make up what is called the “prosecution
`history.” You may also hear the “prosecution history” referred to as the “file history” or the “file
`wrapper.”All of this material becomes available to the public no later than the date
`when the patent issues.
`A patent is presumed to be valid. In other words, it is presumed to have
`been properly granted by the PTO. But that presumption of validity can be
`overcome if clear and convincing evidence is presented in court that proves the
`patent is invalid. In this case, it is ultimately for you to decide, based on my
`instructions to you, whether Defendants Alphatec Holdings, Inc. and Alphatec
`Spine, Inc. (collectively “Alphatec” for short) have shown that the patent claims
`are invalid.
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`5
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34350 Page 7 of
`111
`
`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
`
`Authorities: AIPLA’s Model Patent Jury Instructions (2019) at 1.1 & 1.2; Volterra
`Semiconductor Corp. v. Primarion, Inc., No. C-08-05129 JCS, 2011 WL 4079223,
`at *10 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2011) (adopting jury instructions regarding the statutory
`presumption of validity because they “explained that the clear and convincing
`[evidence] standard is used because a patent is entitled to a statutory presumption
`of validity until it is proven invalid by clear and convincing evidence”); Am. Tech.
`Ceramics Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc., No. 14-CV-6544(KAM)(GRB),
`2019 WL 2330855, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. May 31, 2019) (adopting jury instructions
`regarding statutory presumption of validity because “it will be helpful and not at all
`confusing to a jury to understand why the particular party bears the burden of
`proof, and that the burden is greater than a preponderance of the evidence”); Int'l
`Bus. Mach. Corp. v. Groupon, Inc., No. 16-122-LPS, 2018 WL 3007662, at *2 (D.
`Del. June 15, 2018) (adopting jury instructions regarding presumption of validity
`because “it is reasonable and appropriate to provide the jury with some brief
`explanation for why the burden of proving invalidity is different and greater than
`the burden of proving infringement and damages”).
`The fact that the PTO grants a patent does not necessarily mean that any
`invention claimed in the patent, in fact, deserves the protection of a patent. For
`example, the PTO may not have had available to it all the information that will be
`presented to you. A person accused of infringement has the right to argue here in
`federal court that a claimed invention in the patent is invalid because it does not
`meet the requirements for a patent.
`Authorities: N.D. Cal. Model Pat. Jury Inst. A.1.
`____Given
`____Modified
`____Denied
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`6
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34351 Page 8 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED PRELIMINARY
`INSTRUCTION NO. 3
`
`[Intentionally skipped due to agreement of the parties]
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`7
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34352 Page 9 of
`111
`
`ALPHATEC’S PROPOSED PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 4
`
`[Intentionally skipped due to agreement of the parties]
`
`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
`
`PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`8
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34353 Page 10 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’S
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`9
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34354 Page 11 of
`111
`
`ALPHATEC’S PROPOSED PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 4
`
`[Intentionally skipped due to agreement of the parties]
`
`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
`
`PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`10
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34355 Page 12 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’S PROPOSED PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 5
`
`[Intentionally skipped due to agreement of the parties]
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`11
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34356 Page 13 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’S
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`12
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34357 Page 14 of
`111
`
`ALPHATEC’S PROPOSED PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 6
`
`[Intentionally skipped due to agreement of the parties]
`
`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
`
`PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`13
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34358 Page 15 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’S
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`14
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34359 Page 16 of
`111
`
`ALPHATEC’S PROPOSED PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 7
`
`[Intentionally skipped due to agreement of the parties]
`
`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
`
`PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`15
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34360 Page 17 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’S
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`16
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34361 Page 18 of
`111
`
`ALPHATEC’S PROPOSED PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 8
`
`[Intentionally skipped due to agreement of the parties]
`
`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
`
`PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`17
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34362 Page 19 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED PRELIMINARY
`INSTRUCTION NO. 9
`
`[Intentionally skipped due to agreement of the parties]
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`18
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34363 Page 20 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’S
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`19
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34364 Page 21 of
`111
`
`ALPHATEC’S PROPOSED PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 10
`
`[Intentionally skipped due to agreement of the parties]
`
`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
`
`PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`20
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34365 Page 22 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED PRELIMINARY
`INSTRUCTION NO. 11
`
`[Intentionally skipped due to agreement of the parties]
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`21
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34366 Page 23 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED PRELIMINARY
`INSTRUCTION NO. 12
`
`[Intentionally skipped due to agreement of the parties]
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`22
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34367 Page 24 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’S
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`23
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34368 Page 25 of
`111
`
`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
`
`ALPHATEC’S PROPOSED PRELIMINARYPRELIMINARY
`INSTRUCTION NO. 13
`
`[Intentionally skipped due to agreement of the parties]
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`24
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34369 Page 26 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`25
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34370 Page 27 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED PRELIMINARY
`INSTRUCTION NO. 14
`
`[Intentionally skipped due to agreement of the parties]
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`26
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34371 Page 28 of
`111
`
`NUVASIVE’S
`
`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
`
`PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`27
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34372 Page 29 of
`111
`
`ALPHATEC’S PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 15
`
`OUTLINE OF TRIAL
`The trial will now begin. First, each side may make an opening statement.
`An opening statement is not evidence. It is simply an opportunity for the lawyers
`to explain what they expect the evidence will show.
`There are two standards of proof that you will apply to the evidence,
`depending on the issue you are deciding. On some issues, you must decide
`whether certain facts have been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. A
`preponderance of the evidence means that the fact that is to be proven is more
`likely true than not, that is, that the evidence in favor of that fact being true is
`sufficient to tip the scale, even if slightly, in its favor. On other issues that I will
`identify for you, you must use a higher standard and decide whether the fact has
`been proven by clear and convincing evidence, that is, that you have been left with
`a clear conviction that the fact has been proven.
`These standards are different from what you may have heard about in
`criminal proceedings where a fact must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. On
`a scale of these various standards of proof, as you move from preponderance of the
`evidence, where the proof need only be sufficient to tip the scale in favor of the
`party proving the fact, to beyond a reasonable doubt, where the fact must be
`proven to a very high degree of certainty, you may think of clear and convincing
`evidence as being between the two standards.
`After the opening statements, NuVasive will present its evidence in support
`of its contention that the asserted claims of the ’801 and ’531 Patents have been
`and continue to be infringed by Alphatec and that the infringement of both these
`patents, as well as the ’832 Patent (for which itinfringement has already been
`
`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 CERTIFICATE OF
`SERVICEALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`28
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34373 Page 30 of
`111
`
`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
`
`determined that Alphatec infringes), has been and continues to be willful. To
`prove infringement of any claim, NuVasive must persuade you that it is more
`likely than not that Alphatec has infringed that claim. To persuade you that any
`infringement was willful, NuVasive must also prove that it is more likely than not
`that the infringement was willful. NuVasive will also present its evidence of the
`money damages it seeks to compensate it for Alphatec’s infringement. NuVasive
`must prove the amount of money damages that it more likely than not has suffered.
`Alphatec will then present its evidence that the asserted claims of the ’832,
`’801, and ’531 Patents are invalid. To overcome the presumption of validity and
`prove invalidity of any claim, Alphatec must leave you with a firm belief or
`conviction that it is highly probable that the factual contentions of Alphatec’s
`invalidity defense have been proven.persuade you by clear and convincing
`evidence that the claim is invalid. In addition to presenting its evidence of
`invalidity, Alphatec will put on evidence responding to NuVasive’s evidence of
`infringement, willfulness, and damages.
`NuVasive may then put on additional evidence responding to Alphatec’s
`evidence that the asserted claims of the ’832, ’801, and ’531 Patents are invalid,
`and to offer any additional evidence of infringement, and willfulness, and
`damages. This is referred to as “rebuttal” evidence. NuVasive’s “rebuttal”
`evidence may respond to any evidence offered by Alphatec.
`Finally, Alphatec may have the option to put on its “rebuttal” evidence to
`support its contentions as to the validity of the asserted claims of the Asserted
`Patents by responding to any evidence offered by NuVasive on that issue.
`After the evidence has been presented, the attorneys will make closing
`arguments and I will give you final instructions on the law that applies to the case.
`These closing arguments by the attorneys are not evidence. After the closing
`arguments and instructions, you will then decide the case.
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`29
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34374 Page 31 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`30
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34375 Page 32 of
`111
`
`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
`
`Authorities: Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions (May
`2020) at A.5; AIPLA’s Model Patent Jury Instructions (2019) at 2; Doc. No. 355
`(Pretrial Order)..
`____Given
`____Modified
`____Denied
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`31
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34376 Page 33 of
`111
`
`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
`
`PREDELIBERATION INSTRUCTIONS
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`32
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34377 Page 34 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’S
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`33
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34378 Page 35 of
`111
`
`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
`
`ALPHATEC’S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 1
`
`[Intentionally skipped due to agreement of the parties]
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`34
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34379 Page 36 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’S
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`35
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34380 Page 37 of
`111
`
`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
`
`ALPHATEC’S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 2
`
`SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS
`As I did at the start of the case, I will first give you a summary of each side’s
`contentions in this case. I will then provide you with detailed instructions on what
`each side must prove to win on each of its contentions.
`NuVasive has alleged patent infringement by Alphatec Holdings, Inc. and
`Alphatec Spine, Inc. As I go through these instructions withpreviously told you, I
`will refer to Alphatec Holdings, Inc. and Alphatec Spine, Inc. together as
`“Alphatec.”
`It has already been found that Alphatec infringes claims 1, 3, 9, and 10 of the
`’832 Patent. NuVasive seeks money damages for Alphatec’s infringement of these
`claims. NuVasive also seeks money damages from Alphatec for allegedly
`infringing the claims 1, 2, 15, 16, and 26 of the’832 patent, ’801 Patentpatent, and
`claims 1 and 39 of the ’531 Patentpatent by making, importing, using, selling, or
`offering for sale products that NuVasive argues are covered by certain claims
`contained in these patents. Collectively, the patents will be referred to as the
`“Asserted Patents” and the claims at issue will be referred to as the “Asserted
`Claims.”
`The products that NuVasive alleges to infringe the ’832 patent are: Alphatec’s
`K-wire, Initial Dilator, Secondary Dilator, Squadron Lateral Retractor Body,
`Squadron Lateral Retractor Right Blade, Squadron Lateral Retractor Left Blade,
`Squadron Lateral Retractor Posterior Blade, and the 4th Blade. The products that
`NuVasive alleges to infringe the ’801 patent are: Alphatec’s Initial Dilator,
`Secondary Dilator, Squadron Lateral Retractor Body, Squadron Lateral Retractor
`Right Blade, Squadron Lateral Retractor Left Blade, Squadron Lateral Retractor
`Posterior Blade, Squadron Lateral Retractor Right Handle Arm, Squadron Lateral
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`36
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34381 Page 38 of
`111
`
`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
`
`Left Handle Arm, Intradiscal Shim, Shim Inserter, and K-Wire. The products that
`NuVasive alleges infringe the ’531 patent are: Alphatec’s Squadron Lateral
`Retractor Body, the Squadron Lateral Retractor Right Blade, the Squadron Lateral
`Retractor Left Blade, the Squadron Lateral Retractor Posterior Blade, the Squadron
`Lateral Retractor Right Arm Extender, the Squadron Lateral Retractor Left Arm
`Extender, the Initial Dilator, the Secondary Dilator, the k-wire, the Intradiscal Shim,
`the Universal Clip, and the accused products additionally include “lateral implants
`(including Alphatec Battalion Lateral Spacer, Transcend LIF PEEK Spacer, Titec-
`Coated LLIF implants, and IdentiTi implants). Collectively, these are the
`“Accused Products.”
`Alphatec denies that it has infringed the Asserted Claimsasserted claims of
`the ’801 Patentpatent, and the ’531 Patent. Alphatec has been found to
`infringepatent and argues that, in addition, the Asserted Claimsclaims of the ’832
`Patent and cannot dispute that they are infringed. Also, Alphatec argues that the
`Asserted Claimspatent, ’801 patent, and ’531 patent are invalid.
`Your job is to decide whether Alphatec has infringed the Asserted
`Claimsasserted claims of the ’801 Patentpatent and the ’531 Patent. NuVasive has
`the burden of proving infringement by a preponderance of the evidence. You do not
`need to decide infringement of the Asserted Claims of the ’832 Patent as it has
`already been found. Your job is also to decide patent, and whether any of the
`Asserted Claimsasserted claims of the ’801 patent, ’531 patent, and ’832 patent are
`invalid. Alphatec has the burden of proving invalidity by clear and convincing
`evidence.
`If you decide that any of the Asserted Claims of the ’832 Patent is not invalid,
`or that any of the Asserted Claims of the ’801 Patent or ’531 Patent isclaim of the
`Asserted Patents has been infringed and is not invalid, you will then need to decide
`any money damages to be awarded to NuVasive to compensate it for the
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`37
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34382 Page 39 of
`111
`
`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. You will also need to make a finding as to whether the infringement
`was willful. If you decide that any infringement was willful, that decision should
`not affect any damages award you make. I will take willfulness into account later.
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`38
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34383 Page 40 of
`111
`
`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
`
`Authorities: Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions (May
`2020) at B.1.
`___ Given
`___ Modified
`___ Denied
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`39
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34384 Page 41 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`40
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34385 Page 42 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 3
`
`[Intentionally skipped due to agreement of the parties]
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`41
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34386 Page 43 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’S
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`42
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34387 Page 44 of
`111
`
`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
`
`ALPHATEC’S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 4
`
`[Intentionally skipped due to agreement of the parties]
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`43
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34388 Page 45 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’S
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`44
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34389 Page 46 of
`111
`
`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
`
`PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 5
`
`[Intentionally skipped due to agreement of the parties]
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`45
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34390 Page 47 of
`111
`
`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
`
`NUVASIVE’S
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`46
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34391 Page 48 of
`111
`
`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
`
`ALPHATEC’S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 6
`
`[Intentionally skipped due to agreement of the parties]
`
`NUVASIVE’SALPHATEC’S PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`47
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 362-5 Filed 12/20/21 PageID.34392 Page 49 of
`111
`
`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
`
`ALPHATEC’S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 7
`
`[Intentional