Case 3:08-cv-01512-MMA -MDD Document 407-1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 1 of 48
`
`
`
`Todd G. Miller (SBN 163200), miller@fr.com
`Nicholas V. Martini (SBN 237687), martini@fr.com
`Craig E. Countryman (SBN 244601), countryman@fr.com
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`12390 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Phone: 858-678-5070/Fax: 858-678-5099
`
`Frank E. Scherkenbach (SBN 142549), scherkenbach@fr.com
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`One Marina Park Drive
`Boston, MA 02210-1878
`Phone: 617-542-5070; Fax: 617-542-8906
`
`John M. Farrell (SBN 99649), farrell@fr.com
`Jonathan J. Lamberson (SBN 239107), lamberson@fr.com
`Keeley I. Vega (SBN 259928), kvega@fr.com
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Phone: 650-839-5070; Fax: 650-839-5071
`
`Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant/Counterclaim Defendant
`NUVASIVE, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`NUVASIVE, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`_______________________________________
`
`NUVASIVE, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Counterclaimant,
`
`MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK USA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counterclaim Defendant.
`
`AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.
`
`Case No. 3:08-CV-1512 MMA (MDD)
`
`NUVASIVE, INC.’S MEMORANDUM
`OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT OF ITS RENEWED MOTION
`FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF
`LAW OR A NEW TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`Date:
` January 24, 2012
`Time: 2:30 p.m.
`Judge: Hon. Michael M. Anello
`Courtroom: 5, 3rd floor
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:08-CV-1512 MMA (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
`
`WARSAW2013
`NuVasive, Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.
`Case IPR2013-00208
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 3:08-cv-01512-MMA -MDD Document 407-1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 21 of 48
`
`
`
`
`Dr. van Dam testified that it would have been obvious to incorporate the ratchetings from the
`
`earlier design into the Brantigan ’327 implant. (Id.) And, in fact, Dr. Brantigan himself made the
`
`combination in the design of his commercial implants. (DTX-5131; DTX-5995 at N0806418.)
`
`Warsaw cannot overcome this prima facie case of obviousness as a matter of law. Boston Sci.
`
`Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 990-92 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`Because the Brantigan patents disclose all the relevant structures, the Court should enter
`
`JMOL that the Brantigan ’327 patent anticipates claims 24, 57, and 61, and renders obvious claims
`
`41 and 42 in combination with Brantigan ’757. See cases cited at pp. 10, 15.
`
`3.
`
`Michelson ’247 Patent
`
`The undisputed facts show that the ’247 patent anticipates claim 61 of the ’973 patent.
`
`Warsaw admitted that the Michelson ’247 patent is prior art. (JX-1 at ¶ 62.) And a comparison of
`
`the implants of Figure 2 of the ’973 patent (left) and Figure 5 of the ’247 patent (right) shows they
`
`are exactly the same size relative to the vertebrae in which they may be used.
`
`
`
`The ’247 patent discloses each limitation of claim 61. First, Warsaw admitted the ’247
`
`patent discloses an implant with a length of 26 mm. (JX-1 at ¶ 91; PX-318 at 10:31-36.) That
`
`meets the length requirement in claim 61 because the Court’s Markman order held, at Warsaw’s
`
`urging, that “implants less than 26 mm in length have not been disclaimed and are capable of
`
`meeting the term’s limitation.” (Doc. No. 149 at 9.) Indeed, a 26 mm length implant is within the
`
`range that the ’973 patent gives for its preferred embodiment for the thoracic spine. (PX-326 at
`
`7:26-30.) Moreover, 26 mm is greater than half of the average width of all vertebra between T2
`
`and L5 as shown by the Berry data. (Tr. at 1740:23-1741:11 (van Dam).) Second, the Markman
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`Case No. 3:08-CV-1512 MMA (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
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 3:08-cv-01512-MMA -MDD Document 407-1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 47 of 48
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 27, 2011
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`
`By: /s/ Todd G. Miller
`
`
`
`Todd G. Miller
`
`Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant/
`Counterclaim Defendant NUVASIVE, INC.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`41
`
`
`Case No. 3:08-CV-1512 MMA (MDD)
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 3:08-cv-01512-MMA -MDD Document 407-1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 48 of 48
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`
`document has been served on October 27, 2011 to all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Civ LR 5.4(d). Any other
`
`counsel of record will be served by U.S. mail or hand delivery.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Todd G. Miller
`
`Todd G. Miller
`
`
`42
`
`
`Case No. 3:08-CV-1512 MMA (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
`
`Page 4
`
`