Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 49 Filed 05/17/18 PageID.5082 Page 1 of 34
`
`
`NIMALKA R. WICKRAMASEKERA (SBN: 268518)
`nwickramasekera@winston.com
`STEPHEN R. SMEREK (SBN: 208343)
`ssmerek@winston.com
`JASON C. HAMILTON (SBN: 267968)
`jhamilton@winston.com
`SHILPA A. COORG (SBN: 278034)
`scoorg@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 S. Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
`Telephone: (213) 615-1700
`Facsimile:
`(213) 615-1750
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC. AND ALPHATEC SPINE, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN DIEGO DIVISION
`Case No. 3:18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD
`NUVASIVE, INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`
`[Assigned to Courtroom 4C – Honorable
`Cathy Ann Bencivengo]
`
`
`v.
`[Magistrate: Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin]
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC., a
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
`Delaware corporation and
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;
`ALPHATEC SPINE, INC., a
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`California corporation,
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`
`THEREOF
`Defendants.
`
`
`SPECIAL BRIEFING SCHEDULE
`ORDERED
`
`Date: June 21, 2018
`Time: 2:00 p.m.
`Place: Courtroom 4C
`
`
`Complaint Filed: February 13, 2018
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 49 Filed 05/17/18 PageID.5083 Page 2 of 34
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`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
`
`2.
`3.
`
`B.
`
`Page
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................................................... 2
`III. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 3
`A. NuVasive Is Unlikely To Succeed On The Merits .................................... 3
`1.
`NuVasive has not met, and cannot meet, its burden to show that it
`is likely to succeed on the merits. .................................................... 3
`NuVasive has not shown that it will likely withstand invalidity. .... 7
`NuVasive has not met, and cannot meet, its burden to prove
`assignor estoppel applies. .............................................................. 11
`There Is No Irreparable Harm To Nuvasive ............................................ 13
`1.
`NuVasive’s delay shows there is no irreparable harm. ................. 13
`2.
`NuVasive’s purported harm is belied by its public statements. .... 14
`3.
`NuVasive’s purported harms are unsupported. ............................. 16
`4.
`Even if NuVasive prevailed, monetary relief would adequately
`compensate NuVasive.................................................................... 20
`5.
`NuVasive fails to establish nexus. ................................................. 21
`C.
`The Balance Of Hardships Favors Alphatec ............................................ 25
`D.
`The Public Interest Will Be Disserved By Granting An Injunction ........ 25
`IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 49 Filed 05/17/18 PageID.5084 Page 3 of 34
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Abbott Labs. v. Andrx Pharms., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................... 17
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................. 6
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc.,
`239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................. 8
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`695 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................... 22
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................... 21
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`809 F.3d 633 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................. 21
`Automated Merch. Sys., Inc. v. Crane Co.,
`357 F. App’x 297 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 20
`Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`80 F.3d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................. 17
`Blackberry Ltd. v. Typo Prods. LLC
`2014 WL 1318689 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2014) ........................................................ 21
`CA, Inc. v. New Relic, Inc.,
`2015 WL 1611993 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2015) ........................................................... 13
`California Lacrosse, Inc. v. Lacrosse Unlimited, Inc.,
`2017 WL 1427130 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2017) ......................................................... 14
`Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mech. Sys., Inc.,
`15 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ................................................................................. 13
`Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A.,
`412 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................... 12
`
`ii
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 49 Filed 05/17/18 PageID.5085 Page 4 of 34
`
`
`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
`
`Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp.,
`99 Fed. Appx. 928 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................ 25
`DNA Genotek Inc. v. Spectrum Sols. L.L.C.,
`2016 WL 8738225 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2016) .......................................................... 2, 3
`Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods. Co.,
`717 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................... 19
`eBay Inc. v. MerkExchange, L.L.C.,
`547 U.S. 388 (2006)................................................................................................... 2
`Hansen Beverage Co. v. Vital Pharm., Inc.,
`2008 WL 5427601 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2008) ........................................................... 1
`Heart Imaging Tech., LLC v. Merge Healthcare Inc.,
`2013 WL 4432125 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 14, 2013) ................................................. 16, 24
`High Tech Med. Instrumentation, Inc. v. New Image Indus., Inc.,
`49 F.3d 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ........................................................................... 14, 21
`Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc.,
`2016 WL 3143824 (D. Del. June 2, 2016) .............................................................. 21
`HWB, Inc. v. Braner, Inc.,
`869 F. Supp. 579 (N.D. Ill. 1994) ...................................................................... 12, 13
`Intel Corp. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`946 F.2d 821 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ................................................................................. 13
`Litton Systems, Inc. v. Sundstrand Corp.,
`750 F.2d 952 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ................................................................................. 25
`M-I LLC v. FPUSA, LLC,
`2015 WL 6738823 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2015) ........................................................ 21
`MAG Aerospace Industries, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.,
`816 F.3d at 1374 (_____) ........................................................................................ 13
`Malibu Boats, LLC v. Nautique Boat Co., Inc.,
`997 F. Supp. 2d 866 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 4, 2014) ...................................................... 24
`Maxlinear, Inc. v. Silicon Labs. Inc
`2012 WL 12878678 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012) .................................................. passim
`iii
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 49 Filed 05/17/18 PageID.5086 Page 5 of 34
`
`
`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
`
`Maxwell Techs., Inc. v. Nesscap, Inc.,
`508 F. Supp. 2d 837 (S.D. Cal. 2007) ................................................................... 3, 4
`Medtronic v. NuVasive,
`No. 3:08-cv-1512 (S.D. Cal.))(April 1, 2010) ........................................................... 5
`Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc.,
`870 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................... 13
`Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Quickturn Design Sys., Inc.,
`150 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................... 13
`Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co.,
`848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................... 21
`Mikkelsen Graphic Eng’g Inc. v. Zund Am. Inc.,
`2014 WL 12654766 (E.D. Wis. May 23, 2014) ...................................................... 12
`Minsurg Int’l, Inc. v. Frontier Devices, Inc.,
`2010 WL 5775680 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2010 ............................................................. 6
`Mylan Institutional LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.,
`857 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................. 23
`Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Ams., Inc.,
`855 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................... 16
`NuVasive, Inc. v. Globus Med., Inc.,
`2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97511 (D. Del. July 12, 2013) ............................................. 4
`Open Text, S.A. v. Box, Inc.,
`36 F. Supp. 3d 885 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ....................................................................... 22
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Gilbert Inc.,
`2014 WL 2532520 (N.D.N.Y. June 5, 2014) .......................................................... 19
`Precision Links Inc. v. USA Prods. Grp., Inc.,
`527 Fed. App’x 852 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...................................................................... 18
`Prestige Flag Mfg. Co. v. Par Aide Prods. Co.,
`2015 WL 11990931 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2015) ........................................................ 13
`Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs.,
`2005 WL 7985065 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2005) ........................................................... 4
`iv
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 49 Filed 05/17/18 PageID.5087 Page 6 of 34
`
`
`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
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH,
`237 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................... 20
`Qualcomm Inc. v. Compal Elecs., Inc.,
`283 F. Supp. 3d 905 (S.D. Cal. 2017) ............................................................... 17, 20
`Quigley Corp. v. GumTech Int’l, Inc.,
`2000 WL 424269 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 19, 2000) ............................................................. 14
`Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. Baker, Inc.,
`32 F. 3d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .................................................................................. 3
`Regents of the Univ. of California v. Affymetrix, Inc.,
`2017 WL 5614904 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2017) ....................................................... 3, 4
`Riverbed Tech., Inc. v. Silver Peak Sys., Inc.,
`2014 WL 4695765 (D. Del. Sept. 12, 2014) ........................................................... 22
`Rudolph Techs., Inc. v. Camtek Ltd.,
`2015 WL 5039295 (D. Minn. 2015) ........................................................................ 22
`Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc.,
`470 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................... 17
`Shamrock Techs., Inc. v. Med. Sterilization, Inc.,
`903 F.2d 789 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ........................................................................... 12, 13
`Telesign Corp. v. Twilio, Inc.,
`2015 WL 12532491 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015) ....................................................... 24
`Tinnus Enters., LLC v. Telebrands Corp.,
`846 F.3d 1190 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................... 19
`TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’n Corp.,
`446 F. Supp. 2d 664 (E.D. Tex. 2006) .................................................................... 21
`Warrior Lacrosse, Inc. v. Brine, Inc.,
`2006 WL 763190 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 8, 2006) .......................................................... 12
`Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc.,
`3:08-CV-01512-LAB-AJB (S.D. Cal. June 10, 2013) ............................................ 20
`Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo,
`456 U.S. 305 (1982)................................................................................................. 16
`v
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 49 Filed 05/17/18 PageID.5088 Page 7 of 34
`
`
`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
`
`Whitewater West Indus., Ltd. v. Pacific Surf Designs, Inc.,
`2017 WL 4583869 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2017) .......................................................... 21
`Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
`555 U.S. 9 (2008) ................................................................................................. 2, 16
`
`vi
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 49 Filed 05/17/18 PageID.5089 Page 8 of 34
`
`
`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
`
`ABBREVIATION TABLE
`
`NuVasive
`NuVasive, Inc.
`Alphatec
`Alphatec Holdings, Inc. and Alphatec Spine, Inc.
`(collectively)
`XLIF
`eXtreme Lateral Interbody Fusion
`Battalion
`BattalionTM Lateral System
`Battalion System
`Squadron Retractor
`SquadronTM Lateral Retractor
`Squadron
`Link Decl.
`Declaration of Matthew Link (Doc. No. 37-13)
`Youssef Decl.
`Declaration of Jim A. Youssef, M.D. (Doc. No. 37-
`45)
`Inglish Decl.
`Declaration of Blake B. Inglish (Doc. No. 37-10)
`Link Tr.
`4/19/18 Deposition Transcript of Matthew Link
`(Exhibit 66 to Neels Decl.)
`Youssef Tr.
`4/27/2018 Deposition Transcript of Jim A. Youssef,
`MD (Exhibit 67 to Neels Decl.)
`Inglish Tr.
`4/20/18 Deposition Transcript of Blake Inglish
`(Exhibit 65 to Neels Decl.)
`Neels Decl.
`Declaration of Kevin Neels, Ph.D. filed herewith
`Howell Decl.
`Declaration of Kelli Howell filed herewith
`Sachs Decl.
`Declaration of Barton L. Sachs, M.D., M.B.A. filed
`herewith
`’801 patent
`U.S. Patent No. 7,819,801
`’801 Patent Asserted Claims Claims 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, 23, 26, 28, and 29
`’780 patent
`U.S. Patent No. 8,355,780
`’780 Patent Asserted Claims Claims 21, 22, 24-26, and 28
`’832 patent
`U.S. Patent No. 8,439,832
`’832 Patent Asserted Claims Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 12-14, 17, and 19
`’227 patent
`U.S. Patent No. 9,833,227
`’227 Patent Asserted Claims Claims 1, 2, 6, 13, 15, 17, 22, and 28
`’156 patent
`U.S. Patent No. 8,361,156
`’156 Patent Asserted Claims Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13-20, 24, and 27
`’270 patent
`U.S. Patent No. 8,753,270
`’270 Patent Asserted Claims Claims 1-4, 6, 12
`Asserted Patents
`’801 patent, ’780 patent, ’832 patent, ’227 patent,
`’156 patent, and ’270 patent
`Access Platform Patents
`’801 patent, ’780 patent, ’832 patent, ’227 patent
`The lateral percutaneous approach to discectomy,
`Friedman
`Interventional Radiology in Bone and Joint,
`Srpinter-Verlag/Wien 1988 (Friedman)
`United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Department of Justice
`Society of Lateral Access Surgery
`
`PTAB
`DOJ
`SOLAS
`
`
`
`*All internal quotations omitted and citation omitted unless otherwise noted.
`*All emphasis is added, unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`vii
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 49 Filed 05/17/18 PageID.5090 Page 9 of 34
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`NuVasive has made no showing that would justify the “drastic and extraordinary
`remedy” it now asks of this Court—a preliminary injunction related to Alphatec’s
`Battalion.1 According to its own Complaint, NuVasive waited almost a year after
`Battalion was publicly launched on a limited basis in April 2017 and nearly 6 months
`after Battalion was fully launched in October 2017 before filing this suit. It did so at
`least two years after NuVasive considered acquiring Alphatec and investigated its
`product portfolio in January 2016. And despite filing a Notice of Intent to “promptly
`seek a preliminary injunction in this matter” (Doc. No. 10 at 3), NuVasive further
`delayed filing its threatened motion nearly two additional months, until just days before
`the anniversary of Battalion’s launch. NuVasive’s inaction demonstrates that it is not—
`and will not be—irreparably harmed by sales of Battalion. The delay alone shows
`NuVasive “did not believe [Battalion] had a serious impact on its business until almost
`a year after defendant introduced the product,” which “bears against a finding of
`irreparable harm.” Hansen Beverage Co. v. Vital Pharm., Inc., No. 08-CV-1545
`(IEG)(POR), 2008 WL 5427601, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2008).
`Indeed, NuVasive’s public financial records and recent statements by the
`company’s CEO, Greg Lucier, tell a very different story from what NuVasive would
`have this Court believe. Just two weeks ago (after NuVasive filed its motion),
`Mr. Lucier confirmed to investors that “[i]nnovation remains at the heart of what
`NuVasive does best, and we continue to lead the industry by delivering the technologies
`and innovations that surgeons want and need.” (Neels Decl. Ex. 11 at 5.) He added that,
`“our sales rep attrition is at its lowest rate since I’ve gotten here. I think the sales force
`is very stable. So that’s good. And then surgeon attrition really not anything different
`than what we’ve had in the past, so pretty standard in terms of the quarter.” Id. at 11.
`NuVasive further assured investors, “we are definitely taking share.” Id. at 12. As
`
`1 Alphatec assumes NuVasive seeks to enjoin Battalion, although neither its Motion for
`Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 37) nor its Memorandum of Points and Authorities In
`Support Thereof (Doc. No. 37-1) specifies the products or activities it seeks to enjoin.
`-1-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 49 Filed 05/17/18 PageID.5091 Page 10 of 34
`
`
`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
`
`detailed further below, NuVasive’s contentions to this Court of “substantial and
`permanent harm” from which it will be “entirely unable to recover if no action is taken
`until years from now” are inconsistent with its public statements. (Doc. No. 37-1 at 9–
`10, 21.) These statements confirm there is no basis for NuVasive’s requested relief.
`NuVasive also has not met its burden to demonstrate that it is likely to succeed
`on the merits. Alphatec’s Battalion System does not infringe any valid claim of the
`Asserted Patents. To support its contention to the contrary, NuVasive submitted an
`opinion from its paid consultant, Dr. Jim Youssef, who has earned millions from
`NuVasive from years of
` and other payments. But apparently recognizing
`the flawed infringement analysis he provided, NuVasive itself withdrew certain claims
`Dr. Youssef opined are infringed. At least the withdrawal of those claims demonstrates
`that Dr. Youssef’s analysis was cursory and unsupported. Indeed, to the extent
`NuVasive could prevail on its overbroad infringement analysis, the Asserted Patents are
`invalid in light of the substantial prior art. In fact, a jury, this Court, and the Federal
`Circuit have all confirmed that NuVasive’s XLIF procedure infringes prior art to the
`Asserted Patents. This same prior art, among others, anticipates or renders obvious the
`asserted claims.
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`“A preliminary injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy that is not to be
`routinely granted.” DNA Genotek Inc. v. Spectrum Sols. L.L.C., No. 16-CV-1544 JLS
`(NLS), 2016 WL 8738225, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2016); Winter v. Natural Res. Def.
`Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 9, 24 (2008) (injunctive relief “may only be awarded upon a
`clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief”). Whether to grant or deny such
`relief rests within the equitable discretion of the court. Maxlinear, Inc. v. Silicon Labs.
`Inc., No. 12-CV-1161-H (MDD), 2012 WL 12878678, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012);
`eBay Inc. v. MerkExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).
` “To prevail on a motion for preliminary injunction on a patent infringement
`claim, a reviewing court must weigh the following factors: 1) likelihood of the
`-2-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 49 Filed 05/17/18 PageID.5092 Page 11 of 34
`
`
`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
`
`patentee’s success on the merits; 2) irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; 3)
`the balance of hardships between the parties; and 4) the public interest.” Maxwell
`Techs., Inc. v. Nesscap, Inc., 508 F. Supp. 2d 837, 841 (S.D. Cal. 2007). “[A] movant
`must establish the existence of both of the first two factors to be entitled to a preliminary
`injunction.” Regents of the Univ. of California v. Affymetrix, Inc., No. 17-CV-01394-
`H-NLS, 2017 WL 5614904, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2017); Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. Baker,
`Inc., 32 F. 3d 1552, 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“movant must establish both a likelihood of
`success on the merits and irreparable harm”). A “limited analysis may support a trial
`court’s denial of a preliminary injunction so long as the district court concludes that
`some of the requisite preliminary injunction factors disfavor the movant.” DNA
`Genotek, 2016 WL 8738225, at *2.
`III. ARGUMENT
`A. NuVasive Is Unlikely To Succeed On The Merits
`NuVasive has not met, and cannot meet, its burden to show that
`1.
`it is likely to succeed on the merits.
`
`“[T]he burden lies with the patentee in establishing infringement by the accused
`product in a preliminary injunction motion by a preponderance of the evidence.”
`Maxwell, 508 F. Supp. 2d at 843. “Determining the likelihood of patent infringement
`on a preliminary injunction motion requires two steps: 1) construction of the relevant
`claims; and 2) comparison of the construed claims to the accused product(s).” Id. Thus,
`“showing a likelihood of success on the merits for purposes of a preliminary injunction
`depends fundamentally on the meaning of the asserted claim and its relationship to the
`accused product or process.” Maxlinear, 2012 WL 12878678, at *2. NuVasive cannot
`make the requisite showing here.
`First, Dr. Youssef did not properly construe a single term among the 50+ claims
`NuVasive alleges are infringed in six Asserted Patents.2 Although he purports to do so
`
`2 NuVasive disagreed with Dr. Youssef’s infringement opinion and withdrew claim 23
`of the ’780 patent, claim 16 of the ’832 patent, and claims 4, 6, and 19 of the ’227 patent.
`(Compare Doc. No. 37-1 at 12-13, 16 with Doc. No. 37-45 at 21.)
`-3-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 49 Filed 05/17/18 PageID.5093 Page 12 of 34
`
`
`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
`
`for six terms, Dr. Youssef’s analysis comes without any identification of which claims
`or patents those constructions apply to, or any contextual explanation to support them.
`(Doc. No. 37-45 at ¶¶ 60–78.) Dr. Youssef also fails to explain the “plain and ordinary
`meaning” that he applied to his analysis of the remaining terms. (Id. at ¶ 60.)
`Second, using the undisputed plain and ordinary meaning of the asserted claims,
`which Dr. Sachs explains,3 Alphatec does not infringe. Affymetrix, 2017 WL 5614904,
`at *6 (denying preliminary injunction for failure to establish likelihood of success on
`the merits in light of competing claim constructions). In his declaration, Dr. Sachs
`provides an overview of Alphatec’s Battalion System and details the reasons,
`summarized below, that Battalion does not infringe the Asserted Patents, including an
`explanation of the plain and ordinary meaning he applied in his analysis (Sachs Decl.
`¶¶ 77–189.)4
`’801 patent: Battalion does not include at least the following limitations of the
`independent ’801 Patent Asserted Claim (Sachs Decl. ¶¶ 79–95 (claim 1)): “a plurality
`of sequential dilators” because Battalion has two dilators (id. at ¶¶ 79–85 (consistent
`with patent specification and Dr. Youssef’s opinion that XLIF’s use of three dilators
`embodies, plain meaning requires three or more sequential dilators where claim does
`not recite “sequential dilators” alone, or a “plurality of dilators,” but rather, a “plurality
`of sequential dilators”)); first and second retractor blades “rigidly coupled” to respective
`first and second “pivotable arm member[s],” and third retractor blade “rigidly coupled”
`to “translating member prior to introduction toward the targeted spinal site” because
`
`3 See Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., No. 04-CV-1200-JAH-
`RBB, 2005 WL 7985065, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2005) (“The terms of a claim are
`given their ordinary and customary meaning, determined from the view of a person of
`ordinary skill in the relevant art.”).
`4 To the extent NuVasive attempts to rebut Dr. Sachs’ claim constructions in reply, it
`should be precluded. At all times, NuVasive bore the burden of proving infringement
`in connection with this motion, which includes doing a proper claim construction
`analysis. Maxwell, 508 F. Supp. 2d at 842. Indeed, NuVasive has been admonished by
`other courts for “hide-the-ball” tactics with respect to claim construction. NuVasive,
`Inc. v. Globus Med., Inc., No. 10-849, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97511, n. 6 (D. Del. July
`12, 2013) (admonishing NuVasive for refusing to explain plain and ordinary meaning
`and frustrating claim construction with “hide-the-ball” tactics).
`-4-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 49 Filed 05/17/18 PageID.5094 Page 13 of 34
`
`
`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
`
`there is no “fixed and immovable connection” between the Battalion blades and their
`respective arm members (id. at ¶¶ 86–89 (construed by Globus court to mean a “fixed
`and immovable connection”)); “the intradiscal shim element engages with a groove
`defined by the third retractor blade” because the “tab” Dr. Youssef identifies on the
`shim interacts with the shim inserter, not third retractor blade (id. at ¶¶ 90–95
`(Alphatec’s surgical technique references “tabs on either side” of shim inserter, and not
`shim)). Dr. Sachs detailed additional reasons the asserted dependent claims are not
`infringed. (Id. at ¶¶ 96–108.)
`’780 patent: Battalion does not include at least the following limitations of the
`independent ’780 Patent Asserted Claim (id. ¶¶ 109–114 (claim 21)): a second dilator
`that is “slidably engageable” with an exterior of a first dilator because the Battalion
`Second Dilator is not “capable of being fitted together with or connected to” the
`Battalion Initial Dilator where neither have any engaging mechanisms (id. (consistent
`with ’780 patent claims and specification indicating that “slidably engageable” and
`“slidable over” have different meanings and repeatedly using “slid[ably] engage[able]”
`in connection with engagement mechanisms, as further supported by this Court’s
`construction in Medtronic v. NuVasive, No. 3:08-cv-1512 (S.D. Cal.))(April 1, 2010),
`which NuVasive contends is related to the present case, of “engageable” to mean
`“capable of being fitted together with or connected to” in the context of U.S. Patent No.
`6,945,933)). Dr. Sachs detailed additional reasons the dependent asserted claims are not
`infringed. (Id. at ¶¶ 115–120.)
`’832 patent: Battalion does not include at least the following limitations of the
`independent ’832 Patent Asserted Claims (id. ¶¶ 121–126; 131–136 (claims 1 & 12)):
`“a distraction assembly” that includes “an elongate inner element and a plurality of
`dilators” because Battalion’s Initial Dilator, Secondary Dilator, and K-wire are not pre-
`assembled such that they may be introduced simultaneously (id. ¶¶ 121–126 (consistent
`with specification and Dr. Youssef’s ’801 patent declaration to Patent Office to
`overcome prior art, arguing, “in the Koros frame-based retractor, there is no ‘handle
`-5-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 49 Filed 05/17/18 PageID.5095 Page 14 of 34
`
`
`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
`
`assembly’ as with the ‘801 patented spinal access system, and the blades are introduced
`in the patient one at a time, as opposed to being configured with a handle assembly
`such that they would be introduced simultaneously”); “maintaining said operative
`corridor along said lateral, trans-psoas path using said three-bladed retractor tool”
`because Squadron Retractor cannot “maintain” the operative corridor, rather this
`function is performed by the Intradiscal Shim—which “stabiliz[es] the Retractor”—
`and/or a fourth retractor blade, which “limit[s] the expansion of the Retractor” (id. ¶¶
`130–136 (consistent with claims and specification, plain and ordinary meaning requires
`three-bladed retractor to maintain operative corridor along lateral, trans-psoas path)).
`Dr. Sachs detailed additional reasons the dependent asserted claims are not infringed.
`(Id. at ¶¶ 127–130; 137–142.) Moreover, NuVasive has failed to provide any evidence
`that a single entity using Battalion performs each and every step of the asserted method
`claims.5
`’227 patent: Battalion does not include at least the following limitations of the
`independent ’227 Patent Asserted Claims (id. ¶¶ 143–149 (claim 1); 157–169 (claim 16
`withdrawn by NuVasive)): “moving a plurality of retractor blades along the lateral,
`trans-psoas path to form an operative corridor along the lateral, trans-psoas path”
`because moving a plurality of Battalion retractor blades in a closed position along the
`lateral, trans-psoas path does not form an operative corridor dimensioned to pass an
`implant therethrough (id. (consistent with claims and specification, plain meaning
`
`5 Courts will not grant preliminary injunctions based on indirect infringement of a
`method caim without evidence of underlying direct infringement. Minsurg I