Alphatec Holdings, Inc. and Alphatec Spine, Inc.
`v.
`NuVasive, Inc.
`
`IPR2019-00361
`
`IPR2019-00362
`
`IPR2019-00546
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,187,334
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,631,156
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,187,334
`
`Petitioners’ Presentation
`
`April 3, 2020
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`v.
`NuVasive, Inc.
`
`IPR2019-00361
`
`IPR2019-00362
`
`IPR2019-00546
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,187,334
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,631,156
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,187,334
`
`Petitioners’ Presentation
`
`April 3, 2020
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`
`Overview of Grounds
`Overview of Grounds
`
`2
`
`
`
`Overview of Grounds
`
`The ’334 patent (-0361)
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`1
`
`2
`
`6-9 and 18
`
`Obvious over Frey, Michelson, and Berry
`
`6-9 and 18
`
`Obvious over Brantigan, Baccelli, Berry, and Michelson
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`The ’334 patent (-0546)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`16
`
`16
`
`Obvious over Frey, Michelson, and Baccelli
`
`Obvious over Brantigan, Baccelli, Berry, and Michelson
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`Overview of Grounds
`
`The ’156 patent (-0362)
`
`Claims
`1-3, 5, 9, 10, 12-21,
`23, 24, and 27
`
`Basis
`
`Obvious over Brantigan, Baccelli, and Berry
`
`9
`
`Obvious over Brantigan, Baccelli, Berry, and Michelson
`
`Ground
`
`1
`
`2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`
`
`Background
`Background
`
`5
`
`
`
`Challenged Claims Directed to Spinal Fusion Implants
`
`EX1002 [Branch Decl.], ¶ 22
`
`EX1002 [Branch Decl.], ¶ 27
`
`Source: Pet. 47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`
`
`Challenged Claims Directed to Spinal Fusion Implants
`
`EX1002 [Branch Decl.], ¶ 27
`
`EX1001 [’334 Patent], Fig. 2 (annotated)
`
`Source: Pet., 7, 47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`
`
`State of the Art
`State of the Art
`
`8
`
`
`
`State of the Art
`
`• Non-bone implants were known
`
`• Modular implants were known
`
`• Vertebral dimensions were known
`
`• Radiopaque markers were known
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`
`
`Berry Discloses Dimensions for Non-Bone Implants (1987)
`
`EX1022 [Berry], 1
`
`EX1022 [Berry], 1
`
`EX1022 [Berry], 1
`
`Source: Pet., 12-13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`
`
`Brantigan Discloses Non-Bone Implants (1993)
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 3:9-12
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], Fig. 1
`
`Source: Pet., 15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`
`
`Michelson Discloses Non-Bone Implants (1999)
`
`EX1032 [Michelson], 6:36-37
`
`The translateral implants of the present invention
`may be made of an artificial material.
`
`EX1032 [Michelson], Figs. 16, 18
`
`Source: Pet., 9-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`
`
`Frey Discloses Non-Bone Implants (2002)
`
`EX1040 [Frey], [0181]
`
`EX1040 [Frey], Fig. 57
`
`Source: Pet., 8-9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s State of the Art in Current Proceedings
`
`POR, 13
`
`Source: POR, 13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Statements in Prior Challenges
`
`EX1038 [IPR2013-00208 McAfee Decl.]
`
`* * *
`
`Source: IPR2019-00362 Supp. Sur-Sur-Reply, 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Statements in Prior Challenges
`
`EX1038 [IPR2013-00208 McAfee Decl.], ¶ 27
`
`Source: IPR2019-00362 Supp. Sur-Sur-Reply, 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Previously Relied on McAfee (1998)
`
`EX1047 [IPR2013-00208 Reply], 8
`
`* * *
`
`Source: IPR2109-00362 Supp. Sur-Sur-Reply, 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`
`
`McAfee Discloses Non-Bone Implants (1998)
`
`EX1054 [McAfee], Fig. 5
`
`Source: Reply, 2; IPR2019-00362 Reply, 2; IPR2019-00546 Reply, 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Previously Relied on Michelson ‘770 (2001)
`
`EX1038 [IPR2013-00208 McAfee Decl.]
`
`* * *
`
`Source: IPR2109-00362 Pet. Supp. Sur-Sur-Reply, 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`
`
`Michelson ’770 Discloses Non-Bone Implants (2001)
`
`EX1053 [Michelson ’770], 2:20-25, 2:33-36
`
`* * *
`
`Source: Reply, 4; IPR2019-00362 Reply, 4; IPR2019-00546, Reply, 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`
`
`State of the Art
`
`• Non-bone implants were known
`
`• Modular implants were known
`
`• Vertebral dimensions were known
`
`• Radiopaque markers were known
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`
`
`Brantigan Discloses Modular Implants (1993)
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 2:4-11
`
`Source: Pet., 61-62
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`
`
`Michelson Discloses Modular Implants (1999)
`
`EX1032 [Michelson], 10:48-59
`
`Source: Pet., 41-42
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`
`
`Frey Discloses Modular Implants (2002)
`
`EX1040 [Frey], [0160]
`
`Source: Pet., 42-43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s State of the Art in Current Proceedings
`
`POR, 12
`
`Source: POR, 12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Previously Relied on McAfee (1998)
`
`EX1054 [McAfee], Fig. 5
`
`Source: Reply, 2; IPR2019-00362 Reply, 2; IPR2019-00546 Reply, 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Previously Relied on Michelson ‘770 (2001)
`
`EX1053 [Michelson ‘770], Figs. 13B, 14B
`
`Source: Reply, 10-11; Supp. Sur-Sur-Reply, 2; IPR2019-00362 Reply, 12-13; Supp. Sur-Sur-Reply, 2; IPR2019-00546 Supp. Sur-Sur-Reply, 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`
`
`State of the Art
`
`• Non-bone implants were known
`
`• Modular implants were known
`
`• Vertebral dimensions were known
`
`• Radiopaque markers were known
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`
`
`Berry Discloses “Direct Dimensional Measurements” (1987)
`
`EX1022 [Berry], Table 1
`
`Source: Pet., 13, 40-43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`
`
`State of the Art
`
`• Non-bone implants were known
`
`• Modular implants were known
`
`• Vertebral dimensions were known
`
`• Radiopaque markers were known
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`
`
`Frey Discloses Three Radiopaque Markers (2002)
`
`EX1040 [Frey], Fig. 59 (annotated)
`
`Source: Pet., 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`
`
`Baccelli Discloses Four Radiopaque Markers (2003)
`
`EX1008 [Baccelli], Figs. 1, 2 (annotated)
`
`Source: Pet., 16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s State of the Art in Current Proceedings
`
`POR, 55
`
`Source: POR, 55
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`
`
`McAfee Discloses X-Rays to Show Implant Position (1998)
`
`EX1054 [McAfee], Fig. 1
`
`Source: Reply, 3; IPR2019-00362 Reply, 2-3; IPR2019-00546 Reply, 2-3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00361
`IPR2019-00361
`
`‘334 Patent - Ground 1
`'334 Patent - Ground 1
`
`35
`
`
`
`Overview of Grounds
`
`The ’334 patent (-0361)
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`1
`
`6-9 and 18
`
`Obvious over Frey, Michelson, and Berry
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘334 Patent Previously Found Invalid
`
`EX1004 [IPR2013-00507 FWD], 13
`
`EX1005 [Fed. Cir. Op. IPR2013-00507, -00508], 17
`
`Source: Pet., 17-21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘334 Patent Previously Found Invalid
`
`EX1001 [’334 patent]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`
`
`Collateral Estoppel Applies to Claim 1
`
`MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d, 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`Source: Reply, 6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`
`
`Previous Petitioner Relied On Different Disclosure For Claim 18
`
`EX1004 [IPR2013-00507 FWD], 10
`
`Prior Petitioner did not:
`
`• cite the same evidence Federal
`Circuit relied on to invalidate
`claim 1 for claim 18
`
`• cite Michelson’s long-and-
`narrow modular disclosure for
`claim 18
`
`Federal Circuit did not:
`
`• address Michelson’s long-and-
`narrow modular disclosure for
`claim 18
`
`• affirm patentability of claim 18
`
`Source: Pet., 17-21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`
`
`Federal Circuit Dismissed Claim 18 Cross-Appeals
`
`EX1005 [Fed. Cir. Op. IPR2013-00507, -00508], 8
`
`Source: Pet., 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`
`
`Federal Circuit Dismissed Claim 18 Cross-Appeals
`
`EX1005 [Fed. Cir. Op. IPR2013-00507, -00508], 15-16
`
`Source: Pet., 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`
`
`Claim 1 Unpatentable Over Frey and Michelson
`
`EX1001 [’334 patent], claim 1
`
`Source: Pet., 17-21; Branch Decl. pgs. 40-56; IPR2019-00546 Pet., 31; Branch Decl. pgs. 40-56
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`
`
`Frey, Michelson, and Berry Render Obvious Claims 6–9, 16, and 18
`
`EX1001 [’334 patent]
`
`Dependent claims directed to:
`
`• medial support
`
`• second fusion aperture
`
`• fourth radiopaque marker
`(claim 16 – IPR2019-00546)
`
`• width of approximately 18 mm
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`
`
`Claims 6–7 and 9: Frey Discloses a “Medial Support”
`
`EX1001 [’334 Patent], claims 6-7
`
`EX1001 [’334 Patent], claim 9
`
`EX1040 [Frey], Fig. 55 (annotated)
`
`EX1040 [Frey], Fig. 63 (annotated)
`
`Source: Pet., 33-36, 38-40
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`
`
`Claims 6–7 and 9: Frey Discloses a “Medial Support”
`
`EX1040 [Frey], [0144]
`
`EX1040 [Frey], [0154]
`
`Source: Pet., 33-36, 38-40
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`
`
`The ‘334 Patent Claims Describe “Medial Support”
`
`EX1001 [’334 patent], claims 6-7
`
`“medial support” is not “medial plane”
`
`“medial support” need not intersect sidewalls “approximately at the midpoint”
`
`“positioned along” does not mean “proximate to the midpoint”
`
`Source: Pet., 33-36; Reply, 5-6; POR , 8-9, 51
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’334 Patent Defines “Central Region”
`
`EX1001 [’334 Patent], claim 1
`
`“central region” has no midpoint
`
`Source: Reply 5-6; POR, 8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`
`
`Claims 8–9: Frey Discloses “Fusion Aperture”
`
`EX1001 [’334 Patent], claim 8
`
`EX1001 [’334 Patent], claim 9
`
`EX1040 [Frey], Fig. 55 (annotated)
`
`EX1040 [Frey], Fig. 63 (annotated)
`
`Source: Pet., 36-40
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`
`
`Claims 8–9: Frey Discloses “Fusion Aperture”
`
`EX1040 [Frey], [0144]
`
`EX1040 [Frey], [0154]
`
`Source: Pet., 36-40
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s “Medial Support” Arguments
`
`EX1040 [Frey], Fig. 59
`
`EX1001 [‘334 Patent], claims 6, 7, 9
`
`* * *
`
`“medial support” need not separate fusion apertures from upper and lower
`surfaces completely
`
`“positioned along” does not mean “on a course parallel to the central region”
`
`Source: Pet., 33-36, 38-40; POR 51; Reply, 12-13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s “Fusion Aperture” Arguments
`
`EX1040 [Frey], Fig. 57
`
`EX1001 [‘334 Patent], claims 1, 8
`
`* * *
`
`“at least a first fusion aperture” means “one or more”
`
`“upper openings 1018a and 1018b” and “lower openings 1020a and 1020b”
`comprise the claimed “at least a first fusion aperture”
`
`Source: Pet., 36-38; POR, 48; Reply, 11-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`
`
`Claim 18: Frey, Michelson, and Berry Disclose Limitations
`
`EX1001 [’334 Patent], claim 18
`
` Frey discloses modular (multiple) implants in the disc space
`
` Michelson discloses modular, long-and-narrow implants
`
` Berry discloses vertebral dimensions
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`53
`
`
`
`Federal Circuit Recognized Michelson’s Modularity
`
`EX1005 [Fed. Cir. Op. IPR2013-00507, -00508], 13-14
`
`Source: Pet., 2-3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`54
`
`
`
`Federal Circuit Recognized Michelson’s Modularity
`
`EX1005 [Fed. Cir. Op. IPR2013-00507, -00508], 13-14
`
`Source: Pet., 2-3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`
`
`NuVasive’s Argument Re Modularity to Federal Circuit
`
`EX1005 [Fed. Cir. Op. IPR2013-00507, -00508], 16
`
`Source: Pet., 17-21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Argument Re Modularity in Current Proceedings
`
`POR, 12
`
`Source: POR, 12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`57
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Youssef Re Modularity
`
`EX2055 [Youssef Decl.], ¶ 92
`
`Source: POR, 36
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`58
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. McMillin Re Modularity
`
`EX1051 [McMillin Dep. Tr.], 54:2–17
`
`Source: Reply, 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`59
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Argument Against 18 mm Width
`
`POR, 51
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`60
`
`
`
`Claim 18: Frey Discloses Modular Implants
`
`EX1040 [Frey], [0160]
`
`Source: Pet., 42-43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`61
`
`
`
`Claim 18: Michelson Discloses Modular Implants
`
`EX1032 [Michelson], 10:48-59
`
`Source: Pet., 40-43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`62
`
`
`
`Claim 18: Michelson Discloses Modular Implants
`
`EX1032 [Michelson], 5:34-39
`
`Source: Reply, 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`63
`
`
`
`Claim 18: Michelson Discloses Modular Implants
`
`EX1032 [Michelson], Figs. 16, 18, 19
`
`Source: Pet., 40-43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`64
`
`
`
`Claim 18: Michelson’s Width "approximates depth of the vertebrae”
`
`EX1032 [Michelson], 10:36-40
`
`Source: Pet., 30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`65
`
`
`
`Claim 18: Frey, Michelson, and Berry Disclose Limitations
`
`EX1001 [’334 Patent], claim 18
`
`EX1022 [Berry], Table 1
`
`Petitioner never suggested inserting 2
`implants each having 18.95 mm width
`
`L4-L5 Implant Width Range
`L4 (lower (“D”)) –> (35.6 – 3.1) / 2 = 16.25 mm*
`L5 (upper (“E”)) –> (35.1 + 2.8) / 2 = 18.95 mm
`
`Longitudinal Length
`L4 (lower (“C”)) –> 50.9 – 4.6 = 46.3 mm, which is “at least two and a half
`times greater than said maximum lateral width” as required by claim 1
`
`*The value “16.15 mm” at Petition 42 should
`properly be 16.25 mm as calculated above.
`
`Source: Pet., 40-43; Reply, 9-10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`66
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine
`Frey, Michelson, and Berry
`
`67
`
`
`
`Obviousness Analysis Requires Assessment of Background Knowledge
`
`Pet. Sup. Sur-Sur Reply, 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`68
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Modular Implants with Vertebral Dimensions
`
`EX1040 [Frey], [0160]
`
`EX1032 [Michelson], Fig. 19
`
`EX1022 [Berry], Table 1
`
`Source: Pet., 30-31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`69
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Increased Safety and Decreased Invasiveness
`
`EX1040 [Frey], [0183]
`
`EX1032 [Michelson], 3:61-65
`
`Source: Pet., 30; Reply, 8-9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`70
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Increased Safety and Decreased Invasiveness
`
`Pet., 31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`71
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Argument Against Motivation to Combine
`
`POR, 44-45
`
`Source: POR, 44-45
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`72
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Youssef on State of the Art
`
`EX1050, 57:12-22
`
`Source: Supp. Sur-Sur-Reply, 2; IPR2019-00362 Supp. Sur-Sur-Reply, 2; IPR2019-00546 Supp. Sur-Sur-Reply, 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`73
`
`
`
`Obviousness Analysis Requires Assessment of Background Knowledge
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
`
`Source: Supp. Sur-Sur-Reply, 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`74
`
`
`
`POSAs Aware of Side-By-Side Lateral Insertion of Non-Bone Implants
`
`EX1054 [McAfee], Fig. 5
`
`EX1054 [McAfee], Fig. 4
`
`Source: Reply, 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`75
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00361
`IPR2019-00361
`
`’334 Patent - Ground 2
`'334 Patent - Ground 2
`
`76
`
`
`
`Overview of Grounds
`
`The ’334 patent (-0361)
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`2
`
`6-9 and 18
`
`Obvious over Brantigan, Baccelli,
`Berry, and Michelson
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`77
`
`
`
`Claim 1: Brantigan Discloses a “Spinal Fusion Implant”
`
`EX1001 [’334 Patent], claim 1
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], Figs. 1, 6 (annotated)
`
`Source: Pet., 48-52
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`78
`
`
`
`Claim 1: Brantigan Discloses a “Spinal Fusion Implant”
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 4:1-14
`
`Source: Pet., 48-52
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`79
`
`
`
`Claim 1: Brantigan Discloses a “Spinal Fusion Implant”
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], Figs. 1, 6 (annotated)
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 3:30-35
`
`Source: Pet., 56-57, 61-64
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`80
`
`
`
`Claim 1: Brantigan Discloses Claimed “Central Region”
`
`EX1001 [’334 Patent], claim 1
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], Figs. 1, 6 (annotated)
`
`Source: Pet., 48-52
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`81
`
`
`
`Claim 1: Brantigan Discloses Claimed “Central Region”
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 4:1-14
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 5:36-43
`
`Source: Pet., 48-52
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`82
`
`
`
`Claim 1: Brantigan, Michelson, and Berry Disclose Claimed Dimensions
`
`EX1001 [’334 Patent], claim 1
`
`EX1001 [’334 Patent], claim 1
`
`Source: Pet., 56-57, 61-64
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`83
`
`
`
`Claim 1: Brantigan, Michelson, and Berry Disclose Claimed Dimensions
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], Figs. 1, 6 (annotated)
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 3:30-35
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 1:18-21
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 1:68-2:4
`
`Source: Pet., 56-57, 61-64
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`84
`
`
`
`Claim 1: Brantigan Discloses Modular Implants
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 2:7-11
`
`Source: Pet., 61-62
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`85
`
`
`
`Claim 1: Michelson Discloses Modular Implants
`
`EX1032 [Michelson], 5:34-39
`
`Source: Reply, 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`86
`
`
`
`Claim 1: Michelson Discloses Modular Implants
`
`EX1032 [Michelson], Figs. 16, 18, & 19
`
`Source: Pet., 61-62
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`87
`
`
`
`Claim 1: Michelson’s Width "approximates depth of the vertebrae”
`
`EX1032 [Michelson], 10:36-40
`
`Source: Pet., 62
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`88
`
`
`
`Claim 1: Brantigan, Michelson, and Berry Disclose Claimed Dimensions
`
`EX1001 [’334 Patent], claim 1
`
`EX1001 [’334 Patent], claim 1
`
`EX1022 [Berry], Table 1
`
`L4-L5 Implant Width Range
`L4 (lower (“D”)) –> (35.6 – 3.1) / 2 = 16.25 mm*
`L5 (upper (“E”)) –> (35.1 + 2.8) / 2 = 18.95 mm
`
`Longitudinal Length
`L4 (lower (“C”)) –> 50.9 – 4.6 = 46.3 mm, which is “at least two and a
`half times greater than said maximum lateral width”
`
`* The value “16.15 mm” at Petition 63 should
`properly be 16.25 mm as calculated above
`
`Source: Pet., 61-64
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`89
`
`
`
`Claim 1: Brantigan Discloses Claimed “Fusion Aperture”
`
`EX1001 [’334 Patent], claim 1
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], Figs. 1, 6 (annotated)
`
`POR: Fig. 1 is “unassembled precursor”
`requiring connecting bar 15
`
`• Brantigan does not require connecting bar
`• In any case, aperture length is greater than
`aperture width
`Source: Pet., 64-66; Reply 14-15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`90
`
`
`
`Brantigan’s Implants Do Not Require Connecting Bar 15
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan] claim 10
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan] claim 12
`
`Source: Reply, 14-15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`91
`
`
`
`Claim 1: Baccelli Discloses Claimed Markers
`
`
`
`EX1001 [‘334 Patent], claim 1EX1001 [’334 Patent], claim 1
`
`Baccelli is not mis-labeled
`
`Longitudinal length defined by insertion
`
`Pet., 45 citing Ex. 1008, Figs. 1–2 (annotated)
`
`Source: Pet., 22-24, 67-70
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`92
`
`
`
`Federal Circuit: Implant “Length” is “Insertion” to “Trailing” End
`
`EX1019 [Fed. Cir. Op. IPR2013-00206 re Michelson ‘997 Patent], 5
`
`Source: Pet., 22-24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`93
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Youssef on Insertion Path
`
`EX1050 [Youssef Dep. Tr.], 23:9-17
`
`Source: Pet., 22-24, Reply, 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`94
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. McMillin on Insertion Path
`
`EX1051 [McMillin Dep. Tr.], 43:13-20, 44:21-25
`
`Source: Pet., 22-24; Reply, 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`95
`
`
`
`Claim 1: Baccelli Discloses Claimed Markers
`
`EX1008 [Baccelli], [0050]
`
`EX1008 [Baccelli], [0051]
`
`Source: Pet., 67–70
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`96
`
`
`
`Claims 6–9: Brantigan Discloses Limitations
`
`EX1001 [’334 Patent], claims 6-9
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], Fig. 6 (annotated)
`
`Source: Pet., 70-73
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`97
`
`
`
`Claim 18: Brantigan, Michelson, and Berry Disclose Claimed Dimensions
`
`EX1001 [’334 Patent] claim 18
`
`EX1022 [Berry], Table 1
`
`L4-L5 Implant Width Range
`L4 (lower (“D”)) –> (35.6 – 3.1) / 2 = 16.25 mm*
`L5 (upper (“E”)) –> (35.1 + 2.8) / 2 = 18.95 mm
`
`Longitudinal Length
`L4 (lower (“C”)) –> 50.9 – 4.6 = 46.3 mm, which is “at least two and a half
`times greater than said maximum lateral width” as required by claim 1
`
`* The value “16.15 mm” at Petition 74 should
`properly be 16.25 mm as calculated above
`
`Source: Pet., 73-74
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`98
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine
`Brantigan, Michelson, Baccelli, and Berry
`
`99
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Increased Safety and Decreased Invasiveness
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 3:30-35
`
`EX1032 [Michelson], 3:61-65
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 7:4-6
`
`Source: Pet., 43-48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`100
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Modular Implants with Vertebral Dimensions
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 1:18-21
`
`EX1032 [Michelson], Fig. 19
`
`EX1022 [Berry], Table 1
`
`Source: Pet., 43-48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`101
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Markers to Identify Implant Position
`
`EX1008 [Baccelli], [0050]
`
`EX1008 [Baccelli], [0051]
`
`Source: Pet., 43-48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`102
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Argument Against Motivation to Combine
`
`POR, 55
`
`Source: Reply, 2-3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`103
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Youssef on State of the Art
`
`EX1050, 53:16-25
`
`Source: Supp. Sur-Sur-Reply, 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`104
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Youssef on State of the Art
`
`EX1050, 54:1-15
`
`Source: Supp. Sur-Sur-Reply, 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`105
`
`
`
`Marker Argument Not Hindsight: POSAs Knew Benefits
`
`EX1002 [Branch Decl.], ¶ 27
`
`EX1054 [McAfee], Fig. 4
`
`Source: Pet., 43-48, Reply, 2-3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`106
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00546
`IPR2019-00546
`
`’334 Patent - Grounds 1 and 2
`'334 Patent - Grounds 1 and 2
`
`107
`
`
`
`Overview of Grounds
`
`The ’334 patent (-0546)
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`1
`
`2
`
`16
`
`16
`
`Obvious over Frey, Michelson, and Baccelli
`
`Obvious over Brantigan, Baccelli, Berry, and Michelson
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`108
`
`
`
`Previous Petitioner Relied On Different Disclosure For Claim 16
`
`EX1005 [Federal Circuit Op. IPR2019-00507, -00508], 5
`
`Source: Pet., 18-19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Board: claim 16 unpatentable
`
`• Federal Circuit remanded for
`further proceedings
`
`Prior Petitioner did not:
`
`• cite the same evidence Federal
`Circuit relied on to invalidate
`claim 1 for claim 16
`
`• cite Michelson’s long-and-
`narrow modular disclosure for
`claim 16
`
`Federal Circuit did not:
`
`• address Michelson’s long-and-
`narrow modular disclosure for
`claim 16
`
`109
`
`
`
`Federal Circuit Previously Remanded Claim 16–Parties Settled
`
`EX1005 [Federal Circuit Op. IPR2019-00507, -00508], 17
`
`Source: Pet., 1-2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`110
`
`
`
`Claim 16 Adds Only A Fourth Marker To Central Region of Claim 1
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`The ’334 patent (-0361)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`6-9 and 18
`
`Obvious over Frey, Michelson, and Berry
`
`6-9 and 18
`
`Obvious over Brantigan, Baccelli, Berry, and Michelson
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`The ’334 patent (-0546)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`16
`
`16
`
`Obvious over Frey, Michelson, and Baccelli
`
`Obvious over Brantigan, Baccelli, Berry, and Michelson
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`111
`
`
`
`Baccelli Discloses Claimed Fourth Marker
`
`EX1001 [’334 Patent], claim 16
`
`Pet., 45 citing Ex. 1008, Figs. 1–2 (annotated)
`
`Source: Pet., 63-70
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`112
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine:
`(1) Frey, Michelson, and Baccelli
`(2) Brantigan, Michelson, Baccelli, and Berry
`
`113
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Modular Implants with Markers
`
`EX1040 [Frey], [0156]
`
`EX1008 [Baccelli], Figs. 1, 2 (annotated)
`
`EX1032 [Michelson], Fig. 19
`
`Source: Pet., 29-31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`114
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Modular Implants with Vertebral Dimensions
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 1:18-21
`
`EX1032 [Michelson], Fig. 19
`
`EX1022 [Berry], Table 1
`
`Source: Pet., 38-42, 54-57
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`115
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Markers to Identify Implant Position
`
`EX1008 [Baccelli], [0050]
`
`EX1008 [Baccelli], [0051]
`
`Source: Pet., 38-42
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`116
`
`
`
`Estoppel Applies
`Estoppel Applies
`
`117
`
`
`
`Collateral Estoppel Applies In Administrative Context
`
`Board decisions holding certain
`claims unpatentable “affirmed by
`[the Federal Circuit], are binding
`in this proceedings, as a matter
`of collateral estoppel.”
`
`Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 1373,
`MaxLinear,
`1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`Source: IPR2019-00361 Pet., 32; Reply 6-8; IPR2019-00546 Pet., 31-32; Reply, 6-8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Issue is identical
`Claim 1 of the ‘334 patent invalidated over Frey and
`Michelson in IPR2013-00507
`
`Issue was actually litigated, and resolution was
`essential to a final judgment
`Patent Owner did not appeal Federal Circuit’s affirmance of
`claim 1 invalidity
`
`Patent Owner had full and fair opportunity to litigate
`Patent Owner participated at the Board, Federal Circuit and
`opted not to appeal to Supreme Court
`
`Equities favor preclusion
`Congress intended agencies and courts to issue definitive
`judgments
`B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 575 U.S. 138, 148 (2015)
`Sur-reply in IPR2013-00507 would have made no
`difference because Patent Owner was on notice
`Changes in law do not prohibit preclusion
`
`118
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00362
`IPR2019-00362
`
`’156 Patent - Ground 1
`'156 Patent - Ground 1
`
`119
`
`
`
`Overview of Grounds
`
`The ’156 patent (-0362)
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`1
`
`1-3, 5, 9, 10, 12-21,
`23, 24, and 27
`
`Obvious over Brantigan, Baccelli, and Berry
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`120
`
`
`
`‘334 Patent and ‘156 Patent Challenged Claims Substantially Similar
`
`IPR2019-00362 EX1001 [’156 patent], claim 1
`
`Dependent claims directed to:
`
`• radiopaque marker orientation
`
`• “receiving aperture” for mounting tool
`
`• width of approximately 18 mm
`
`• PEEK composition
`
`• shape of implant and fusion apertures
`
`• medial support
`
`• anti-migration elements
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`121
`
`
`
`Claim 1: Brantigan “A Spinal Fusion Implant”
`
`EX1001 [’156 Patent], claim 1
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], Figs. 1, 6 (annotated)
`
`Source: Pet., 33-41
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`122
`
`
`
`Claim 1: Brantigan Discloses Claimed Dimensions
`
`EX1001 [’156 Patent], claim 1
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], Figs. 1, 6 (annotated)
`
`Source: Pet., 41-44
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`123
`
`
`
`Claim 1: Brantigan Discloses Claimed Dimensions
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan] 5:30-35
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 1:18-21
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 1:68-2:4
`
`Source: Pet., 56-57, 61-64
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`124
`
`
`
`Claim 1: Brantigan Discloses Claimed “Fusion Aperture”
`
`EX1001 [’156 Patent], claim 1
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], Figs. 1, 6 (annotated)
`
`POR: Fig. 1 is “unassembled precursor”
`requiring connecting bar 15
`
`• Brantigan does not require connecting bar
`• In any case, aperture length is greater than
`aperture width
`
`Source: Pet., 46-48; POR 17, 28; Reply, 8-10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`125
`
`
`
`Claims 1–3: Baccelli Discloses Marker Limitations
`
`EX1001 [’156 Patent], claim 1
`
`EX1001 [’156 Patent], claims 2–3
`
`EX1008 [Baccelli], Figs. 1–2 (annotated)
`
`Source: Pet., 49-54
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`126
`
`
`
`Claims 1–3: Baccelli Discloses Marker Limitations
`
`EX1008 [Baccelli], [0050]
`
`EX1008 [Baccelli], [0051]
`
`Source: Pet., 49-54
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`127
`
`
`
`Claim 5: Brantigan and Berry Disclose Claimed Dimensions
`
`EX1001 [’156 Patent], claim 5
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], Fig. 8
`
`Lumbar longitudinal length is greater than 40 mm
`
`EX1022 [Berry], Table 1
`
`Source: Pet., 54-56
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`128
`
`
`
`Claim 9: Brantigan and Berry Disclose Claimed Dimensions
`
`EX1001 [’156 Patent], claim 9
`
`EX1022 [Berry], Table 1
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 1:68-2:4
`
`Source: Pet., 56
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`129
`
`
`
`Claims 10, 12–13: Brantigan Discloses Claimed Limitations
`
`EX1001 [‘156 Patent], claims 10, 12, 13
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 3:9-12
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], Figs. 7, 8, 10 (annotated)
`
`Source: Pet., 57-58
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`130
`
`
`
`Claim 14–18: Brantigan Discloses Claimed Limitations
`
`EX1001 [’156 Patent], claims 14, 15
`
`EX1001 [’156 Patent], claims 16-18
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], Figs. 7, 8, 10 (annotated)
`
`Source: Pet., 59-62
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`131
`
`
`
`Claim 19–21: Brantigan and Baccelli Disclose Claimed Limitations
`
`EX1001 [’156 Patent], claims 19-21
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 4:15-18
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], Fig. 10 (annotated)
`
`EX1008 [Baccelli], [0020]-[0021]
`
`Source: Pet., 63-65
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`132
`
`
`
`Claims 23–24: Brantigan and Berry Disclose Claimed Limitations
`
`EX1001 [‘156 Patent], claims 23-24
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], Figs. 1, 6 (annotated), 2:19-22
`
`EX1022 [Berry], Table 1
`
`Source: Pet., 66-67
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`133
`
`
`
`Claim 27: Brantigan Discloses Osteoinductive Material
`
`EX1001 [’156 Patent], claim 27
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], Fig. 11
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 2:14-18
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 6:37-40
`
`Source: Pet., 68-69
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`134
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine
`Brantigan, Baccelli, and Berry
`
`135
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Implants Sized to Conform with Vertebrae
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 3:30-35
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 1:18-21
`
`EX1022 [Berry], Table 1
`
`Source: Pet., 28-30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`136
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Markers to Identify Implant Position
`
`EX1008 [Baccelli], [0050]
`
`EX1008 [Baccelli], [0051]
`
`Source: Pet., 30-33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`137
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00362
`IPR2019-00362
`
`’156 Patent - Ground 2
`'156 Patent - Ground 2
`
`138
`
`
`
`Overview of Grounds
`
`The ’156 patent (-0362)
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`2
`
`9
`
`Obvious over Brantigan, Baccelli, Berry, and Michelson
`
` Brantigan discloses modular (multiple) implants in the disc space
`
` Michelson discloses modular, long-and-narrow implants
`
` Berry discloses vertebral dimensions
`
` Baccelli discloses claimed markers
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`139
`
`
`
`Claim 9: Brantigan’s Implants Sized to Conform with Vertebrae
`
`IPR2019-00362 EX1001 [’156 Patent], claim 9
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 1:18-21
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 1:68-2:4
`
`Source: Pet., 70-75
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`140
`
`
`
`Claim 9: Brantigan Discloses Modular Implants
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 2:4-11
`
`Source: Pet., 70-75
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`141
`
`
`
`Claim 9: Michelson Discloses Modular Implants
`
`EX1032 [Michelson], 10:48-59
`
`Source: Pet., 40-43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`142
`
`
`
`Claim 9: Michelson’s Width "approximates depth of the vertebrae”
`
`EX1032 [Michelson], 10:36-40
`
`Source: Pet., 30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`143
`
`
`
`Claim 9: Berry Discloses “Direct Dimensional Measurements”
`
`IPR2019-00362 EX1001 [’156 Patent], claim 9
`
`EX1022 [Berry], Table 1
`
`Petitioner never suggested inserting 2
`implants each having 18.95 mm width
`
`L4-L5 Implant Width Range
`L4 (lower (“D”)) –> (35.6 – 3.1) / 2 = 16.25 mm*
`L5 (upper (“E”)) –> (35.1 + 2.8) / 2 = 18.95 mm
`
`*The value “16.15 mm” at Petition 75 should properly be 16.25 mm as calculated above.
`
`Source: Pet., 70-75; Reply 16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`144
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine
`Brantigan, Baccelli, Berry, and Michelson
`
`145
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Increased Safety and Decreased Invasiveness
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 3:30-35
`
`EX1032 [Michelson], 3:61-65
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 7:4-6
`
`Source: Pet., 69-70
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`146
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Modular Implants with Vertebral Dimensions
`
`EX1007 [Brantigan], 1:18-21
`
`EX1032 [Michelson], Fig. 19
`
`EX1022 [Berry], Table 1
`
`Source: Pet., 28-30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`147
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine: Markers to Identify Implant Position
`
`EX1008 [Baccelli], [0050]
`
`EX1008 [Baccelli], [0051]
`
`Source: Pet., 30-33
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`148
`
`
`
`Lack of Nexus Forecloses
`Secondary Considerations
`
`149
`
`
`
`Objective Indicia Arguments Do Not Establish Non-Obviousness
`
` Patent Owner relies on several secondary considerations arguments – each lacks nexus
`
` Development of XLIF and CoRoent XL
`
`• Success of XLIF is not the same success of CoRoent implant
`
` Skepticism
`
`• No evidence that skepticism linked to implant size, rather than access path
`
` Commercial Success
`
`• No evidence that implant sales are separate from “success” of unclaimed XLIF features
`
`• No evidence that implant sales are separate from surgeon education and training
`
` Copying
`
`• No evidence of copying
`
`• “Not every competing product that arguably falls within the scope of the patent is evidence of
`copying. Otherwise every infringement suit would automatically confirm the nonobviousness of
`the patent.” - Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir 2004)
`Source: Reply, 17-20
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`150
`
`
`
`Dr. Youssef: ”XLIF” Comprises Multiple Products
`
`EX2055 [Youssef Decl.], ¶ 84
`
`Source: Reply, 17-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`151
`
`
`
`Mr. Link: ”XLIF” Success Due to Surgeon Training
`
`EX1065 [Link Decl.], ¶ 24
`
`Source: Reply, 17-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`152
`
`
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
