`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`NUV ASIVE, INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`Case No.: 18-CV-347-CAB-MDD
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`V.
`
`ALPHA TEC HOLDINGS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation, and
`ALPHA TEC SPINE, INC., a
`California corporation,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Answer each of the following Questions 1 through 6 following the jury instructions
`
`and the instructions given on this Verdict Form.
`
`• "The '832 patent" refers to U.S. Patent No. 8,439,832.
`
`• "The '801 patent" refers to U.S. Patent No. 7,819,801.
`
`• "The '531 patent" refers to U.S. Patent No. 9,974,531.
`
`We, the jury in the above-entitled action, find the following verdict on the
`
`questions submitted to us:
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 402 Filed 03/11/22 PageID.34936 Page 2 of 8
`
`QUESTION 1 - INFRINGEMENT
`
`Did NuVasive prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Alphatec infringed the
`
`following claims of the '801 and '531 patents?
`
`Checking "Yes" below is finding for NuVasive on the issue; checking "No" below
`
`is finding for Alphatec on the issue.
`
`'801 Patent
`
`(For NuVasive)
`
`(For Alphatec)
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 2
`
`Claim 15
`
`Claim 16
`
`Claim 26
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`J
`
`J
`
`"
`
`✓
`
`J
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`'531 Patent
`
`(For NuVasive)
`
`(For Alphatec)
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 39
`
`Yes V - - -
`✓
`- - -
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`No
`
`Continue to Question 2.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 402 Filed 03/11/22 PageID.34937 Page 3 of 8
`
`QUESTION 2 - WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`
`Did Nu Vasive prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Alphatec willfully
`
`infringed the '832, '801, or '531 patents?
`
`Checking "Yes" below is finding for NuVasive on the issue; checking "No" below
`
`is finding for Alphatec on the issue.
`
`(For NuVasive)
`
`(For Alphatec)
`
`'832 Patent
`
`Yes J
`
`'801 Patent
`
`Yes
`
`'531 Patent
`
`Yes J
`
`j
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 402 Filed 03/11/22 PageID.34938 Page 4 of 8
`
`QUESTION 3 - INVALIDITY
`
`Did Alphatec prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the claims of the
`
`'832, '801, or '531 patents are invalid as obvious?
`
`Checking "Yes" below is finding for Alphatec on the issue; checking "No" below is
`
`finding for Nu V asive on the issue.
`
`'832 Patent
`
`(For Alphatec)
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 3
`
`Claim 9
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes J
`
`Claim 10
`
`Yes
`
`'801 Patent
`
`(For Alphatec)
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 2
`
`Claim 15
`
`Claim 16
`
`Claim 26
`
`Yes
`
`Yes J
`Yes ✓
`YesJ
`
`Yes
`
`4
`
`(ForNuVasive)
`
`No
`
`j
`No J
`
`No
`
`No J
`
`(ForNuVasive)
`
`No J
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No_J_
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 402 Filed 03/11/22 PageID.34939 Page 5 of 8
`
`'531 Patent
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 39
`
`(For Alphatec)
`
`:::r
`
`(For NuVasive)
`
`No J
`
`No
`
`For the '832 Patent, if you answered "No" for Question 3 (Invalidity) for any claim,
`
`then proceed to answer Questions 4-7.
`
`For the '801 or '531 Patents, if you answered "Yes" for Question 1 (Infringement)
`
`for any claim, and answered "No" for Question 3 (Invalidity) for the same claim,
`
`then proceed to answer Questions 4-7.
`
`Otherwise, do not answer the remaining questions and proceed to check and sign the
`
`Verdict Form at the end of this form.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 402 Filed 03/11/22 PageID.34940 Page 6 of 8
`
`DAMAGES
`
`QUESTION 4: Has NuVasive shown by a preponderance of the evidence that it is
`
`entitled to lost profits damages for any of Alphatec's sales through September 16,
`
`2020?
`
`Checking "Yes" below is finding for Nu Vasive on the issue; checking "No" below
`
`is finding for Alphatec on the issue.
`
`(ForNuVasive)
`
`Yes J - - - -
`
`(For Alphatec)
`
`No - - - -
`
`Lost Profits
`
`QUESTIONS:
`
`For any sales through September 16, 2020 for which you found that Nu Vasive was
`
`entitled to lost profits, what amount oflost profits damages has NuVasive proven by
`
`a preponderance of the evidence?
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 402 Filed 03/11/22 PageID.34941 Page 7 of 8
`
`QUESTION 6:
`
`For any sales through September 16, 2020 for which you found that NuVasive is not
`
`entitled to lost profits damages, what amount of reasonable royalty damages has
`
`NuVasive proven by a preponderance of the evidence?
`
`$ _q_l_t,_4~\~4~. t)~O_
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 402 Filed 03/11/22 PageID.34942 Page 8 of 8
`
`You have now reached the end of the Verdict Form and should review it to ensure
`
`it accurately reflects your unanimous determinations. The Presiding Juror should
`
`then sign and date the Verdict Form in the spaces below and notify the clerk that
`
`you have reached a verdict.
`
`Please have the Presiding Juror date and sign this form.
`
`Dated: ~ / \\ / 7/l
`
`Presiding Juror
`
`8
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
