`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Entered: September 12, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NUVASIVE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00395 and IPR2013-00396
`Patent 8,444,696
`____________
`
`Held: July 31, 2014
`____________
`
`
`
`Before: SALLY C. MEDLEY, LORA GREEN, and STEPHEN SIU,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`MICHAEL R. HAWKINS, ESQUIRE
`
`
`STEPHEN R. SCHAEFER, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`
`
`3200 RBC Plaza
`
`
`60 South Sixth Street
`
`
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00395 and IPR2013-00396
`Patent No. 8,444,696
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`THOMAS H. MARTIN, ESQUIRE
`
`
`WES MEINERDING, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Martin & Ferraro, LLP
`
`
`1557 Lake O’Pines Street, NE
`
`
`Hartville, Ohio 44632
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`July 31, 2014, commencing at 2:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Good afternoon. This is the hearing
`
`18
`
`for IPR2013-00395 and 396, between Petitioner NuVasive and Patent
`
`19
`
`Owner Warsaw Orthopedic. At this time we would like the parties to
`
`20
`
`please introduce themselves and who will be arguing for their
`
`21
`
`respective sides, beginning with Petitioner.
`
`22
`
`MR. SCHAEFER: Yes, I'm Steve Schaefer for the
`
`23
`
`Petitioner, NuVasive, and I'm lead counsel, I will be arguing the case,
`
`24
`
`and with me as back-up counsel, Michael Hawkins.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you. And for Patent Owner?
`
`MR. MARTIN: Good afternoon, I'm Tom Martin with
`
`27
`
`Martin & Ferraro, lead counsel for the Patent Owner, Warsaw, and
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00395 and IPR2013-00396
`Patent No. 8,444,696
`
`with me today is Wes Meinerding, with Martin & Ferraro as well, he's
`
`back-up counsel. And with us handling the exhibits is Mr. Thomas.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: You will be arguing for your side?
`
`MR. MARTIN: Yes, sir.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: As you know, per the June 27th
`
`order from the Board, each party will have 60 minutes to argue for
`
`both cases. Petitioner, you will proceed first, to present your case
`
`with respect to the challenged claims and grounds for which the Board
`
`instituted trial, and then Patent Owner, you will respond to Petitioner's
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`presentation, and Petitioner, you may reserve rebuttal time if you'd
`
`11
`
`like.
`
`12
`
`So, Petitioner, counsel for Petitioner, Mr. Schaefer, you
`
`13
`
`may begin, and would you like to reserve rebuttal time?
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`proceed.
`
`MR. SCHAEFER: Yes, I'd like to reserve 20 minutes.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Twenty minutes, all right. You may
`
`17
`
`18
`
`MR. SCHAEFER: May it please the Board, thank you.
`
`So, we're here on two IPRs on U.S. patent 8,444,696, the
`
`19
`
`'696 patent. The first IPR proceeding, that's IPR2013-00695, involves
`
`20
`
`claims 1 to 6 of the '696 patent, and the second one, IPR2013-00696,
`
`21
`
`involves claims 7 to 13.
`
`22
`
`So, for claims 1 to 6, we have two independent claims, 1
`
`23
`
`and 4. These are claims to a fusion implant device. They're wider
`
`24
`
`than they are tall. That's kind of distinguishing between claim set 1
`
`25
`
`through 6 and 7 to 13.
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00395 and IPR2013-00396
`Patent No. 8,444,696
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`These -- importantly, these implants have convex bearing
`
`surfaces, ratchetings and at least one opening through the implant.
`
`Two main grounds for this set that have been instituted,
`
`they are the Senter grounds and then secondly they are the Michelson
`
`grounds. Michelson's earlier patent, the '037 patent, and I'll talk about
`
`both of those grounds.
`
`The second IPR for claims 7 to 13, these involve the
`
`insert and rotate claims. These are a specific type of implant that is
`
`inserted and rotated 90 degrees. These claims also have the same
`
`10
`
`features that are in claim 1 and 4 of the convex bearing surfaces, as
`
`11
`
`well as ratchetings and the openings. So, those are the important
`
`12
`
`points.
`
`13
`
`As this Board knows from the lateral method patent that
`
`14
`
`we talked about two months ago, this case is similar in that it involves
`
`15
`
`spinal fusion implants, and just by way quickly of background, these
`
`16
`
`are a spinal fusion procedure, you remove the disc, put an implant in
`
`17
`
`place, and then bone grows between those two adjacent vertebra. You
`
`18
`
`don't end up with any movement between those two vertebra, as you
`
`19
`
`would with a natural disc, but you relieve problems such as pain in the
`
`20
`
`legs and the like.
`
`21
`
`So, the implant does two things: It provides structural
`
`22
`
`support to space apart the two adjacent vertebra, and it does facilitate
`
`23
`
`bone growth between the two vertebra.
`
`24
`
`So, I want to talk briefly about the '696 patent in general.
`
`25
`
`This is a patent that was granted just a little over a year ago, and it's
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00395 and IPR2013-00396
`Patent No. 8,444,696
`
`the great, great, great, great, that's four greats, grandchild of a 1995
`
`application through a long series of continuations. That original 1995
`
`application, as we describe in our petition, was a CIP of, in fact, the
`
`specification that is the Michelson '037 patent. So, that 1988
`
`Michelson '037 patent was the prior -- was the ultimate priority
`
`document to the application filed in 1995, which is a CIP.
`
`That's actually an important point, because you'll see if
`
`you compare the two, there's a lot of similarities between these two,
`
`and that is, in fact, why the '037 patent is part of -- is one of our main
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`grounds on claims 1 to 4.
`
`11
`
`We also talk in our petition about the prior
`
`12
`
`re-examination action on the '430 patent, the immediate parent of the
`
`13
`
`'696. As explained in our petition -- I'm sorry, the '430 claims, like
`
`14
`
`the '696 claims, claim a spinal fusion implant with convex upper and
`
`15
`
`lower bearing surfaces. Dependent claims in that patent got to the
`
`16
`
`anti-expulsion features, or ratchetings, and also got to the openings
`
`17
`
`through the implant. Ultimately, Warsaw sued NuVasive on that '430
`
`18
`
`patent, and in turn, NuVasive brought the Inter Partes Re-Examination
`
`19
`
`on that '430 patent.
`
`20
`
`In that action, despite the fact that much of that art was of
`
`21
`
`record, the CRU, in the re-exam, found numerous grounds upon
`
`22
`
`which these convex claims were invalid on the prior art, and
`
`23
`
`ultimately, Warsaw abandoned its efforts on that.
`
`24
`
`Meanwhile, while that re-exam was going on, Warsaw
`
`25
`
`obtained the '696 patent. So, that's why I say in our petitions, this was
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00395 and IPR2013-00396
`Patent No. 8,444,696
`
`déjà vu all over again, it seemed like we were re-litigating the same
`
`issue that we had before.
`
`So, let me talk now about claim -- all of the independent
`
`claims 1, 4 and 10, generally. The claims have a lot of words.
`
`They're probably at least a paragraph long, if not longer, but very little
`
`structure.
`
`According to Warsaw, and its expert, and you can find
`
`this in their Patent Owner response at pages 5 to 8, that's the Patent
`
`Owner response in the 395 case, the invention that's claimed in the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`'696 boils down to a combination of three things: The convex bearing
`
`11
`
`surfaces, the ratchetings and the openings. It's a spinal fusion implant
`
`12
`
`that has those combined features.
`
`13
`
`So, let's talk about each one of those in turn. Convex
`
`14
`
`upper and lower bearing surfaces. So, the '696 patent discloses a lot
`
`15
`
`of embodiments that don't have convex surfaces, they have flat
`
`16
`
`surfaces. But, indeed, they disclose one embodiment that does have
`
`17
`
`these convex surfaces in figures 13 to 17.
`
`18
`
`So, if we can put up figure 14, this, of course, in the
`
`19
`
`institution decision, is the figure that's copied there, has upper and
`
`20
`
`lower surfaces, 313 -- 312 is generally referring to the upper bearing
`
`21
`
`surface, and the lower convex bearing surface is the region below that.
`
`22
`
`So, indeed, the '696 patent does, in fact, disclose that.
`
`23
`
`You will note that this embodiment doesn't have any openings
`
`24
`
`through the implant, it doesn't have any ratchetings on those convex
`
`25
`
`surfaces. This is the only convex embodiment disclosed in the patent.
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00395 and IPR2013-00396
`Patent No. 8,444,696
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`And importantly, nowhere in the '696 patent is there any
`
`explanation about the advantages of a convex implant when it's
`
`inserted into a patient having conforming, concave endplates. And
`
`this is important, it makes sense, because as Dr. Brantigan explained
`
`in paragraph 10 of his first declaration, there's -- he cites to six
`
`different references there that show this very well-known feature in
`
`1995 of upper and lower convex bearing surfaces.
`
`And despite the fact that the '696 patent doesn't talk about
`
`the advantage of these bearing surfaces, much of the prior art does,
`
`10
`
`such as the Kim reference, the Wagner reference, these references all
`
`11
`
`talk about the advantages of having that convexity, and it really boils
`
`12
`
`down to two things: It provides us added stability to keep the implant
`
`13
`
`in place after implantation, it helps to prevent -- it's, in essence, in a
`
`14
`
`concave portion of the endplate, and that convexity allows it to
`
`15
`
`prevent from being moved. Secondly, it actually helps in distributing
`
`16
`
`loads placed on the implant by the adjacent vertebra. So, that's what
`
`17
`
`the prior art talks about, although the '696 patent doesn't.
`
`18
`
`Secondly, ratchetings, or angled teeth, as Warsaw, or
`
`19
`
`Medtronic, its operating company, talks about this feature in
`
`20
`
`connection with its Clydesdale implant. These ratchetings were also
`
`21
`
`well known in 1995. Of course, they're shown in figures 8 -- figure 9
`
`22
`
`of the '696 patent. This, of course, is not a convex implant. It is a flat,
`
`23
`
`but it has the ratchetings, and as the specification describes, the
`
`24
`
`specification, that is the '696, the ratchetings facilitate introduction of
`
`25
`
`the implant into the disc space, and you understand that we have an
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00395 and IPR2013-00396
`Patent No. 8,444,696
`
`implant insertion tool at the trailing end, which is on the right of this
`
`figure 9, of the '696 patent. That implant insertion tool is pushing it
`
`into the disc space, and the ratcheting design prevents backout.
`
`That very same feature, of course, is described in
`
`Brantigan's '035 patent filed seven years before the priority date of the
`
`'696. And if we can throw up the Brantigan '035 figures 18 and 19,
`
`figure 18 and 19 there, we see we have the same feature in
`
`Dr. Brantigan. He has what they call nubs, but it's the same deal.
`
`This implant is inserted -- this one happens to be a posterior implant,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`it's inserted from the back end, and those nubs help prevent backout.
`
`11
`
`That's what's described, in fact, in the Brantigan specification at the
`
`12
`
`paragraph from page 20 to 21, as we describe in our petition. Same
`
`13
`
`exact feature, facilitates introduction into the implant space, and
`
`14
`
`prevents backout.
`
`15
`
`And then, finally, the third feature of the three main
`
`16
`
`features, the opening, the claims recite at least one opening into and
`
`17
`
`through the spinal implant for bone growth through the implant. This
`
`18
`
`is also well known long before the 1995 priority date. This was
`
`19
`
`present in anterior implants, or implants inserted from the front, as we
`
`20
`
`know from the Michelson '037 patent, it's also present in posterior
`
`21
`
`implants, the Brantigan '035.
`
`22
`
`And I want to mention one thing, you'll see a lot of
`
`23
`
`discussion in the '696 patent about lordotic implants, or this wedge
`
`24
`
`shape of the implant. It's a big part of the '696 spec. It's only in one
`
`25
`
`of the claims, claim 7, it is not a big part of Warsaw's contentions, but
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00395 and IPR2013-00396
`Patent No. 8,444,696
`
`this -- if you compare, for example -- I should back up a second and
`
`talk a little bit about the spine. The spine is actually a curved thing. It
`
`curves from the tail bone forwardly, that's called a lordosis, that
`
`forward curvature, in the thoracic spine, which is around your rib
`
`cage, it's called kyphosis, or kyphotic, it's bending outwardly, and
`
`then back in the neck it curves forwardly again. That lordosis causes
`
`the disc space to be taller at the front of the implant than it is in the
`
`back of the implant.
`
`So, if we're looking at the lumbar spine here, the lower
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`spine, the back of the patient would be to the right, and the front of the
`
`11
`
`patient would be to the left, as shown in figure 7A here of the '696
`
`12
`
`patent.
`
`13
`
`So, you'll see all this discussion about the implant of the
`
`14
`
`'696 being designed to fill that disc space, it's really to prevent this.
`
`15
`
`That has nothing to do with any issues in this case, except, of course,
`
`16
`
`claim 7, and, of course, there we have the Steffee reference, which is
`
`17
`
`sort of informally referred to as the Steffee RAM. The Steffee RAM
`
`18
`
`is a lordotic implant, and we'll talk about that in connection with the
`
`19
`
`insert and rotate claims.
`
`20
`
`So, I want to turn now to the Senter grounds in particular.
`
`21
`
`And here we have the issue of claim construction with respect to the
`
`22
`
`upper and lower convex bearing surfaces. This is actually in all the
`
`23
`
`independent claims, but it really only relates to the Senter grounds.
`
`24
`
`In the petition, as this Board may recall, we had offered
`
`25
`
`an interpretation that the claim convexity need not be the entire length
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00395 and IPR2013-00396
`Patent No. 8,444,696
`
`of the implant, the Board agreed with that, invited Warsaw to inform
`
`the Board if it wanted that changed, Warsaw provided a claim
`
`interpretation, I don't think it changes that issue. They provide
`
`something else, which is that not only does the implant -- the
`
`convexity need not be the entire length of the implant, but that it must
`
`conform to a natural endplate. There's no basis of that in the claim.
`
`The claim is silent. It talks about a convexity.
`
`If we look at claim 1, column 13, lines 38 to 42, we see --
`
`38 to 42 -- we see that the claim recites that the upper and lower
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`bearing surfaces have portions proximate to each of said first and
`
`11
`
`second sides and being convex along the entire length of said upper
`
`12
`
`and lower bearing surfaces, there. It doesn't say anything that the
`
`13
`
`convexity has to conform to some patient. There's nothing like that in
`
`14
`
`the claim, and it's created from whole cloth by Warsaw and its expert.
`
`15
`
`And furthermore, if one does interpret the claim to require a convexity
`
`16
`
`that's in conformance with a natural endplate, because different
`
`17
`
`patients will have different endplates, if I were to put an implant on
`
`18
`
`the table here, and it had certain convexity, one wouldn't know
`
`19
`
`whether it meets the claims or not.
`
`20
`
`JUDGE GREEN: Now, what if using that -- you have
`
`21
`
`lower bearing surfaces, doesn't it have to be bearing something, so
`
`22
`
`doesn't that mean that it has to bear the implant? I mean not the
`
`23
`
`implant, but the vertebral endplate? I mean, doesn't that to a certain
`
`24
`
`extent support that interpretation by Patent Owner?
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00395 and IPR2013-00396
`Patent No. 8,444,696
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. SCHAEFER: And it does, in fact, bear something.
`
`If we compare in the claim where we talked about other bearing
`
`surfaces, as Your Honor knows, there are multiple claimed bearing
`
`surfaces. We have the terminal parts that also have bearing surfaces.
`
`Here we say that the bearing surface actually engages the endplate.
`
`And I think it's on the part of the claim in the prior page, right there.
`
`We have a first bearing surface is adapted to bear against the portion
`
`of the first endplate.
`
`So, when we're talking about those bearing surfaces, it
`
`10
`
`specifically says that it's adapted to bear against those endplates.
`
`11
`
`When we're talking about the convex upper and lower surfaces,
`
`12
`
`however, there's no such language. It doesn't say that it has to bear
`
`13
`
`against endplates or anything else. It's silent. It just says it has to be
`
`14
`
`convex.
`
`15
`
`JUDGE GREEN: But if it's not bearing against the
`
`16
`
`endplates, what would it be bearing against?
`
`17
`
`MR. SCHAEFER: Other -- the Senter patent, for
`
`18
`
`example, involves moving -- removing part of it. There are things
`
`19
`
`underneath the endplate that it would bear against, it's not like it's a
`
`20
`
`hollow bone inside there.
`
`21
`
`So, in that sense when we get to Senter, which, as this
`
`22
`
`Board knows from the institution decision, the Senter implant does
`
`23
`
`have a center region that is convex, and there's no dispute that it's
`
`24
`
`convex, the only dispute is whether it meets this claim limitation. We
`
`25
`
`say it doesn't meet that claim limitation.
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00395 and IPR2013-00396
`Patent No. 8,444,696
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Moreover, Warsaw's narrow claim construction of
`
`requiring this -- requiring the narrowness of -- that it conforms with
`
`the endplate is inconsistent with the Board's holding that the Kim
`
`grounds are redundant with the Senter grounds, because, of course, in
`
`the Kim case, in the Kim reference, it, like many references, the
`
`convexity is -- conforms with the endplate.
`
`Now, this Board actually said those grounds are
`
`redundant, but if they are not redundant, I think it's incumbent upon
`
`Warsaw to explain, okay, if this ground, Senter, doesn't meet the
`
`10
`
`claim because this center region doesn't meet the convex limitation,
`
`11
`
`then why is it, then, that the Kim ground, which is exactly the same
`
`12
`
`combination, except that implant has a convexity that does, in fact --
`
`13
`
`is, in fact, described to rest on the endplate, why is that?
`
`14
`
`Warsaw doesn't address that. They didn't address that
`
`15
`
`and they don't have any answer for that, but at least, I think, we
`
`16
`
`deserve one statement as to why that ground is no longer redundant.
`
`17
`
`Now, there's -- I'm going to have to speed up here a little
`
`18
`
`bit.
`
`19
`
`There's basically two other arguments with respect to the
`
`20
`
`Senter combination. The -- and it really relates to modifying Senter,
`
`21
`
`the convex surface to have ratchetings. I think that's actually well set
`
`22
`
`forth in our reply in Dr. Brantigan's declaration, it's described right
`
`23
`
`there in detail why you would -- why one of skill in the art would
`
`24
`
`want a belt and suspenders approach, both features, the convexity and
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00395 and IPR2013-00396
`Patent No. 8,444,696
`
`the ratchetings provide stability in the disc space, and I think our
`
`answer in our reply addresses that topic quite thoroughly.
`
`And then the last argument by Warsaw has to do with
`
`adding openings through the implant through Senter, based on the
`
`teaching of many references, such as Brantigan, that show holes
`
`through an implant, and again, I think this issue on the Senter grounds
`
`is thoroughly explained in our reply brief, and in, also, the second --
`
`the second Dr. Brantigan declaration.
`
`So, with that I want to move to the second ground that's
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`been instituted on the first IPR, and that involves the Michelson '037
`
`11
`
`patent. Of course, our argument here is Michelson '037, filed in 1988,
`
`12
`
`discloses flat surfaces. Figure 1, there are, indeed, if we show figure
`
`13
`
`1, there are holes through the implant. It meets all the limitations of
`
`14
`
`the claim except two things, the convex upper and lower bearing
`
`15
`
`surfaces, and ratchetings on those upper and lower convex bearing
`
`16
`
`surfaces.
`
`17
`
`NuVasive's position is that adding those convex upper
`
`18
`
`and lower bearing surfaces to that design would have been obvious to
`
`19
`
`a person of skill in the art in 1995, after this period of seven years had
`
`20
`
`lapsed in which there is at least six references showing convex
`
`21
`
`surfaces. One of those being Wagner. And if we could show Wagner,
`
`22
`
`figure 6, Wagner actually shows -- Wagner shows flat implants, and it
`
`23
`
`actually shows convex implants. Like the '696 patent, Wagner is
`
`24
`
`similar in that sometimes it's flat, sometimes -- let's move to figure 7, I
`
`25
`
`think it is. This is the one that is the convex embodiment, and Wagner
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00395 and IPR2013-00396
`Patent No. 8,444,696
`
`actually describes it can be convex in different directions, front to
`
`back and side to side. And interestingly enough here, this is a belt and
`
`suspenders approach. You have the motion prevention by virtue of
`
`the convexity of the implant, and you also have these pyramid
`
`structures.
`
`So, by 1995, our position is that this was in the toolbox
`
`of implant designers, and one of skill in the art would have modified
`
`Michelson '037 in view of these teachings of Wagner to obtain the --
`
`to obtain the advantages described in both of these patents.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Warsaw's arguments boil down to two things: Its
`
`11
`
`primary argument is that Warsaw asserts the '037 being flat is
`
`12
`
`intended to treat a different type of patient, as compared to Wagner,
`
`13
`
`which is a convex implant for a patient that still has that concavity in
`
`14
`
`the endplate. That argument is flawed for two main reasons: First,
`
`15
`
`Michelson '037 says it's universally applicable and describes no such
`
`16
`
`limitations that were invented by Dr. Branch on this. In fact, on page
`
`17
`
`7, at lines 18 to 23 -- actually, I'm sorry. It's the same quote.
`
`18
`
`This is from the '037 patent, this is in Dr. Brantigan's
`
`19
`
`second declaration where the Michelson '037 patent teaches that the
`
`20
`
`disclosed implant device, "Will fit any patient, anywhere throughout
`
`21
`
`the spine, in any vertebral disc space, and without alteration of that
`
`22
`
`inner space, regardless of its natural size or shape."
`
`23
`
`So, here again, we have a universally -- allegedly a
`
`24
`
`universally applicable Michelson '037 patent, and now, on the other
`
`25
`
`hand, now we've got Wagner, who in 1992 teaches you're going to
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00395 and IPR2013-00396
`Patent No. 8,444,696
`
`have flat bearing surfaces or you can have convex bearing surfaces,
`
`take your choice. And we will have anti-migration capability for belt
`
`and suspenders on those bearing surfaces. And in view of that,
`
`certainly in 1995, in view of Wagner, one of skill in the art would
`
`know that Michelson '037 could be convex or it could be -- or it could
`
`be flat.
`
`Warsaw's second argument on this ground, on the
`
`Michelson '037 grounds against claims 1 and 4 is that if the teaching
`
`of Wagner were to include convex surfaces, if that were included in
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`the Michelson '037, the specific anti-migration mechanism of
`
`11
`
`pyramids of Wagner must also be adopted rather than the ratchets of
`
`12
`
`Brantigan '035. And specifically, Warsaw contends that Wagner's
`
`13
`
`pyramids provide anti-migration that is both front and back, and side
`
`14
`
`to side. But allegedly, the ratchetings, according to Warsaw, of
`
`15
`
`Brantigan '035 provide only front to back stability.
`
`16
`
`Well, that argument is simply flawed, and again, this is
`
`17
`
`actually an argument that we've fleshed out in some detail in our
`
`18
`
`reply, and in the Brantigan second declaration. Here we see that
`
`19
`
`Wagner is -- is pretty general about what could be on that bearing
`
`20
`
`surface. He says that they are three-dimensional features, and that it
`
`21
`
`provides anchoring effect on the implant's bearing surfaces.
`
`22
`
`It happens to give the example of pyramids, but
`
`23
`
`ratchetings were also another 3-D anti-migration feature that was
`
`24
`
`known at the time, and one of skill in the art would know that these
`
`25
`
`are interchangeable things.
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00395 and IPR2013-00396
`Patent No. 8,444,696
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`The other point is that Warsaw argues that because
`
`Brantigan is put in a hole with sides to prevent it from going back and
`
`forth, therefore, the nubs that dig into the vertebra would not -- do
`
`not -- are not what's providing back and forth movement. That's just
`
`simply, I would submit, flawed logic, simply because there are two
`
`things preventing the side to side movement doesn't mean the
`
`ratchetings which dig into the bone don't also provide side to side
`
`movement. They do, in fact, prevent side to side movement.
`
`Now, I guess the final point I want to make on this
`
`10
`
`ground involving Michelson '035 patent, if it were really something
`
`11
`
`tricky, or difficult, in 1995, to put ratchetings on a convex bearing
`
`12
`
`surface, you would think that somewhere in the '696 patent, there
`
`13
`
`would be some discussion of that. There's not.
`
`14
`
`So, all of Warsaw's arguments that say you can't -- one of
`
`15
`
`skill just wouldn't know how to combine these. Well, then you have
`
`16
`
`to look at the '696, we submit, and it's not described as being
`
`17
`
`combined there. So, they're putting us to a lot higher burden in the
`
`18
`
`prior art that we would submit is the backdrop of the '696. These are
`
`19
`
`all interchangeable features, and the whole disclosure of the '696
`
`20
`
`patent recognizes that, and that's why, in fact, you don't have any
`
`21
`
`disclosure of any embodiments that have a convex surface with
`
`22
`
`ratchetings on them.
`
`23
`
`I want to mention, I guess, move now, I'm going to stay
`
`24
`
`on the first IPR, but talk a little bit about the secondary considerations
`
`25
`
`that Warsaw does briefly mention for claims 1 and 6. They argue that
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00395 and IPR2013-00396
`Patent No. 8,444,696
`
`the commercial success of its lateral implants, called the Clydesdale,
`
`support a finding of nonobviousness.
`
`I would submit that they just simply did not meet their
`
`burden. There's no claim-by-claim analysis. There's, in fact, the only
`
`record evidence that's here of it is an accountant statement of what the
`
`sales of that lateral implant have been, and, in fact, Dr. Branch, who's
`
`the expert, is not familiar with the Clydesdale implant, he provides no
`
`testimony on it, and when cross examined on it, he just simply was
`
`unfamiliar with it and didn't know whether it met the claims or not.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`We described this in our reply briefly, we addressed the
`
`11
`
`issue and our arguments are there, I would submit that's a non-issue.
`
`12
`
`So, let me now spend the time I have, and I may take a
`
`13
`
`little longer than 40 minutes here, to talk about the IPR number two,
`
`14
`
`which are the insert and rotate claims. First let me give a little
`
`15
`
`background on what an insert and rotate implant is all about. These
`
`16
`
`are a posterior implant, inserted from the back, and if you remember
`
`17
`
`in my discussion about the lordosis of the spine, you remember that
`
`18
`
`the space in the disc is actually a little larger in the front, or the
`
`19
`
`anterior portion of the patient, than it is in the back.
`
`20
`
`And, so, the idea, as it's described in the Steffee patent,
`
`21
`
`and if we could throw up the Steffee patent, figures 9 to 12, the idea
`
`22
`
`of an insert and rotate patent is it has a width that's less than its height.
`
`23
`
`So, you put it into the disc space from, again, the back, and you put it
`
`24
`
`in on its side, and then you rotate it 90 degrees.
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00395 and IPR2013-00396
`Patent No. 8,444,696
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So, here we see a description of that, starting with figure
`
`9, one implant is put on one side. You will see here that you have to
`
`avoid the spinal column, which is in the back. I have a pointer, this
`
`space here. Well, actually, I don't want to -- the space between --
`
`sorry, technical difficulties.
`
`This area right there is the spinal column. So, this is the
`
`posterior part of the spine and this is the anterior column where the
`
`discs are. The first implant is put in on one side of the column, on its
`
`side, and then turned 90 degrees, the ratchetings or teeth, as they're
`
`10
`
`called, are on the top and bottom, and then you put in the second one,
`
`11
`
`on its side, turn it 90 degrees, and then you have both implants there.
`
`12
`
`So, that's what an insert and rotate implant is. In the '696
`
`13
`
`patent, that's similarly envisioned as the insert and rotate embodiments
`
`14
`
`that are introduced posteriorly. If we could put up figures 18 to 23 of
`
`15
`
`the '696 patent. This is one set of insert and rotate embodiments.
`
`16
`
`Here it is, this is its top surface, and its bottom surface, it's taller than
`
`17
`
`it is wide. Here it is, its width going in the space, smaller, and then
`
`18
`
`the patent -- the '696 patent, just like Steffee, describes that you turn it
`
`19
`
`90 degrees, and you have this height.
`
`20
`
`Now, this would be at the anterior part of the implant, the
`
`21
`
`forward part, so it's taller, and this would be at the back part. So,
`
`22
`
`conceptually, it's pretty much close to Steffee. Importantly, of course,
`
`23
`
`you don't see any convex bearing surfaces here, you don't see any
`
`24
`
`ratchetings. These insert and rotate embodiments don't have any of
`
`25
`
`that in it. And if we show the only other insert and rotate embodiment
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00395 and IPR2013-00396
`Patent No. 8,444,696
`
`is on the next page of the figures, here's another one that shows, again,
`
`another version of the insert and rotate embodiment, has
`
`anti-migration features that also were in the toolbox at the time of
`
`posts on a flat bearing surface, not a convex bearing surface. This,
`
`again, is an insert and rotate implant, and is in figures -- this is figures
`
`24 through 29 of the '696 patent.
`
`So, if we get at, now, the claims, there's one claim
`
`interpretation issue having to do with opening that relates to the
`
`Steffee grounds. The claim recites, and let me put up the claim
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`language, can we put the claim -- this is from our claim chart, opening
`
`11
`
`is -- no, it's -- can we go to the patent, claim 7, the '696 patent, claim
`
`12
`
`7. Opening is down here.
`
`13
`
`The claim recites "an opening between said trailing face
`
`14
`
`and said insertion face and between said first and second sides to
`
`15
`
`permit for the growth of bone through said implant from the first
`
`16
`
`vertebra to the second vertebra." So, the structural part of the claim
`
`17
`
`that the opening be between the trailing face and the insertion face,
`
`18
`
`and between the first and second sides. Now, Steffee has holes
`
`19
`
`through from side to side, horizontal holes through the implant, not
`
`20
`
`disputed, bone grows through those.
`
`21
`
`The functional language in this, the intended use, is for
`
`22
`
`the growth of bone through said implant from the first vertebra to the
`
`23
`
`second vertebra. We would submit that we're talking about fusion
`
`24
`
`from the top vertebra to the second vertebra. The claim doesn't
`
`25
`
`require that these openings, or the opening through the implant be in
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00395 and IPR2013-00396
`Patent No. 8,444,696
`
`communication with the top bearing surface or what have you, it just
`
`simply provides an opening, bone grows through the implant, and
`
`forms a fusion between that upper implant and the lower implant.
`
`N