`
`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
`
`
`
`Luke L. Dauchot (S.B.N. 229829),
`luke.dauchot@kirkland.com
`Denise L. McKenzie (S.B.N. 193313),
`denise.mckenzie@kirkland.com
`Laura M. Burson (S.B.N. 204459),
`laura.burson@kirkland.com
`Nimalka R. Wickramasekera (S.B.N. 268518),
`nimalka.wickramasekera@kirkland.com
`Sharre S. Lotfollahi (S.B.N. 258913),
`sharre.lotfollahi@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`333 South Hope Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone:
`(213) 680-8400
`Facsimile:
`(213) 680-8500
`
`Jeff E. Schwartz (appearing pro hac vice),
`jschwartz@dl.com
`DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP
`1101 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 2005-4213
`Telephone:
`(202) 346-8000
`Facsimile:
`(202) 346-8102
`
`Douglas E. Olson (S.B.N. 38649),
`dougolson@sandiegoiplaw.com
`SAN DIEGO IP LAW GROUP LLP
`12526 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Telephone: (858) 792-3446
`Facsimile: (858) 792-3447
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants/
`Counter Claimants
`
`Todd G. Miller (SBN 163200), miller@fr.com
`Nicholas V. Martini (SBN 237687) martini@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12390 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Telephone: (858) 678-5070
`Facsimile: (858) 678-5099
`
`Frank E. Scherkenbach (SBN 142549)
`scherkenbach@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`225 Franklin Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`Telephone: (617) 542-5070
`Facsimile: (617) 542-8906
`
`Thomas S. McClenahan (SBN 203204)
`mcclenahan@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`3300 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 335-5070
`Facsimile: (612) 288-9696
`
`Craig R. Compton (SBN 215491) Compton@fr.com
`Keeley I. Vega (SBN 259928) kvega@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Telephone: (650) 839-5070
`Facsimile: (650) 839-5071
`
`Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant/
`Counterclaim Defendant
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC.
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`NUVASIVE, INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`NUVASIVE, INC.
`
`Counterclaimant,
`
`v.
`MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK USA, INC.; WARSAW
`ORTHOPEDIC, INC.; MEDTRONIC PUERTO RICO
`OPERATIONS CO.; AND MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR
`DANEK DEGGENDORF, GMBH,
`
`
`Counterclaim Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`CASE NO. 3:08-CV-01512-MMA-AJB
`
`
`STIPULATION
`
`
`
`AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.
`
`)
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 3:08-cv-01512
`
`
`
`STIPULATION
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`WARSAW2027
`NuVasive, Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.
`Case IPR2013-00208
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED as follows:
`
`1. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Medtronic Puerto Rico
`
`Operations Co., and Medtronic Sofamor Danek Deggendorf, GmbH (collectively “Medtronic”)
`
`admits the authenticity of each document that on its face appears to have been generated by
`
`Medtronic (including documents generated by its employees during the course of their employment
`
`for Medtronic) and produced in this case by Medtronic.
`
`2. Medtronic admits the business record status of each document that on its face appears to
`
`have been generated by Medtronic (including documents generated by its employees during the
`
`course of their employment for Medtronic) concerning a matter pertaining to a regularly conducted
`
`10
`
`business activity of Medtronic and produced in this case by Medtronic subject to the caveat that
`
`11
`
`Medtronic may object to the admissibility of any specific statement in a document to the extent it
`
`12
`
`can show that such statement does not fall within Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) or should otherwise not be
`
`13
`
`admitted (e.g., pursuant to Rule 402 or 403, Fed. R. Evid.).
`
`14
`
`3. NuVasive, Inc. (“NuVasive”) admits the authenticity of each document that on its face
`
`15
`
`appears to have been generated by NuVasive (including documents generated by its employees
`
`16
`
`during the course of their employment for NuVasive) and produced in this case by NuVasive.
`
`17
`
`4. NuVasive admits the business record status of each document that on its face appears to
`
`18
`
`have been generated by NuVasive (including documents generated by its employees during the
`
`19
`
`course of their employment for NuVasive) concerning a matter pertaining to a regularly conducted
`
`20
`
`business activity of NuVasive and produced in this case by NuVasive subject to the caveat that
`
`21
`
`NuVasive may object to the admissibility of any specific statement in a document to the extent it can
`
`22
`
`show that such statement does not fall within Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) or should otherwise not be
`
`23
`
`admitted (e.g., pursuant to Rule 402 or 403, Fed. R. Evid.).
`
`24
`
`5. The parties further stipulate that any documents subject to the above admissions and not
`
`25
`
`otherwise subject to the above caveats may be entered by either party into evidence.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 3:08-cv-01512
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`DATED: November 2, 2010
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`
`/s/ Craig R. Compton
`Craig R. Compton
`Compton@fr.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant/
`Counterclaim Defendant NuVasive, Inc.
`
`DATED: November 2, 2010
`
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Laura M. Burson
`Laura M. Burson
`laura.burson@kirkland.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim
`Defendants/Counterclaimants
`
`CASE NO: 3:08-cv-01512
`K&E 17957291
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3
`
`