`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________
`
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC. and ALPHATEC SPINE, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`NUVASIVE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00361 (Patent No. 8,187,334)
`Case No. IPR2019-00362 (Patent No. 8,361,156)
`Case No. IPR2019-00546 (Patent No. 8,187,334)
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`ERRATA SHEET FOR THE TRANSCRIPT
` OF THE RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NUVASIVE - EXHIBIT 2062
`IPR2019-00362 - Alphatec Holdings Inc. et al. v. NuVasive, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`ERRATA SHEET FOR THE TRANSCRIPT OF:
`
`Case Name: ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC. et al. v. NUVASIVE, INC.
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`
`Hearing Date: April 3, 2020
`
`Page: 27
`
` Line: 14
`
` Reads: “apothecial ring”
`
`Should Read: “apophyseal ring”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 27
`
` Line: 18
`
` Reads: “and subjective to (inaudible)”
`
`Should Read: “and subject to questions”
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 28
`
` Line: 5
`
` Reads: “our petition materials”
`
`Should Read: “our responsive materials”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 32
`
` Lines: 5-6
`
` Reads: “so I don’t believe that the issues that are presented here
`
`necessarily presented in the prior case”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Should Read: “so I don’t believe that the issues that are presented here necessarily were
`
`presented in the prior case”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 32
`
` Line: 16
`
` Reads: “can I just ask”
`
`Should Read: “can I just add”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 34
`
` Line: 14
`
` Reads: “meet the claim structure”
`
`Should Read: “meet the claimed structure”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 35
`
` Lines: 13-14 Reads: “attempted to be addressed in the petition materials
`
`entirely by a true reliance on the Baccelli reference”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Should Read: “attempted to be addressed in the petition materials entirely by a pure
`
`reliance on the Baccelli reference”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 35
`
` Lines: 16-18 Reads: “particularly that that supports a marker configuration that
`
`is claimed and a marker configuration, if imported over to the primary references”
`
`
`
`Should Read: “particularly that that supports a marker configuration that is claimed and a
`
`marker configuration that, if imported over to the primary references”
`
`Page: 36
`
` Line: 18
`
` Reads: “central mid plane”
`
`Should Read: “sagittal midplane”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 39
`
` Line: 11
`
` Reads: “that still fails because the claims are pointing to still
`
`require two more”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Should Read: “that still fails because the claims are going to still require two more”
`
`Page: 40
`
` Lines: 11-12 Reads: “what we’ve also identified as the language that was
`
`presented looked to be lifted entirely as a virtual cut and paste”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Should Read: “what we’ve also identified is the language that was presented looked to be
`
`lifted entirely as a virtual cut and paste”
`
`
`
`Page: 40
`
` Line: 13
`
` Reads: “involving ’156”
`
`Should Read: “involving the ’156 patent”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 40
`
` Lines: 15-20 Reads: “but it’s particularly important in the context of that case
`
`because one of the reasons is if it’s specifically rejected is because that was a rationale
`
`that was not supported by any prior art, but came from the testimony of a NuVasive
`
`doctor who is talking about some of the benefits he had perceived from that configuration
`
`after the filing date”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Should Read: “but it’s particularly important in the context of that case because one of
`
`the reasons it was specifically rejected is because that was a rationale that was not
`
`supported by any prior art, but came from the testimony of a NuVasive doctor who is
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`talking about some of the benefits he had perceived from that configuration after the
`
`filing date”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 40
`
` Line: 20
`
` Reads: “that’s unsupported assertion”
`
`Should Read: “that’s an unsupported assertion”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 40
`
` Lines: 20-21 Reads: “if there is any record that goes with this”
`
`Should Read: “if there is any evidence of record that goes to this”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 40
`
` Lines: 21-22 Reads: “evidence that’s not properly available with (inaudible)
`
`rationale”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Should Read: “evidence that’s not properly available with hindsight rationale”
`
`Page: 42
`
` Line: 6
`
` Reads: “what’s missing from the petition materials in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`evidence”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Should Read: “what’s missing from the petition materials and the evidence”
`
`
`
`Page: 42
`
` Lines: 9-11
`
` Reads: “the more likely result would be decrease in safety or
`
`compromise in safety, and increases invasiveness”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Should Read: “the more likely result would be a decrease in safety or compromise in
`
`safety, and increased invasiveness”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 44
`
` Lines: 11-12 Reads: “sequential assertion”
`
`Should Read: “sequential insertion”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 44
`
` Line: 20
`
` Reads: “I’m glad that question is specifically proposed”
`
`Should Read: “I’m glad that question was specifically proposed”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 45
`
` Lines: 8-9
`
` Reads: “a modular combination as being anything other than a
`
`combination into standardized parts that are assembled together”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Should Read: “a modular combination as being anything other than a combination of
`
`standardized parts that are assembled together”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 48
`
` Line: 3
`
` Reads: “why this modularity of Michelson combinations failed”
`
`Should Read: “why these modularity of Michelson combinations failed”
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 49
`
` Lines: 21-22 Reads: “if you’re linearly inserting these specific or a hollow tube
`
`as they suggest”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Should Read: “if you’re linearly inserting these specific implants through a hollow tube
`
`as they suggest”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 50
`
` Line: 2
`
` Reads: “same surgical profile as you would with Michelson’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`much larger.”
`
`Should Read: “same surgical profile as you would with Michelson’s much larger
`
`implant.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 50
`
` Lines: 2-3
`
` Reads: “You end up the full assembly”
`
`Should Read: “you end up with the full assembly”
`
`Page: 50
`
` Line: 24
`
` Reads: “claim 9 of ’156”
`
`Should Read: “claim 9 of the ’156 patent”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 51
`
` Line: 16
`
` Reads: “implant that is about 18 millimeters-plus in length”
`
`Should Read: “implant that is about 18 millimeters -plus in width”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 52
`
` Line: 23
`
` Reads: “sizing that’s as much smaller than what’s being proposed”
`
`Should Read: “sizing that is much smaller than what’s being proposed”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 53
`
` Lines: 12-13 Reads: “This is for Michelson’s oversized implants which he still
`
`deliberately making larger”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Should Read: “This is for Michelson’s oversized implants which he is still deliberately
`
`making larger”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 59
`
` Lines: 1-2
`
` Reads: “still am not clear on what this envisioned as the
`
`modularity”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Should Read: “still am not clear on what is envisioned as the modularity”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 60
`
` Lines: 22-23 Reads: “you’re looking at two claims:, one (inaudible) earlier”
`
`Should Read: “you’re looking at two claims:, one cancelled earlier”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 60
`
` Line: 24
`
` Reads: “the argument of collateral estoppel is going to be applied”
`
`Should Read: “the argument if collateral estoppel is going to be applied”
`
`
`
`Page: 62
`
` Lines: 1-2
`
` Reads: “make a showing that the subject matter there is no
`
`meaningful, substantial difference in scope”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Should Read: “make a showing that the subject matter there has no meaningful,
`
`substantial difference in scope”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Errata Sheet for the transcript of
`
`the Record of Oral Hearing was served on May 12, 2020, at the following
`
`electronic service addresses:
`
`Jovial Wong
`Nimalka R. Wickramasekera
`David P. Dalke
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`Alphatec-IPRs@winston.com
`
`
`
`Dated: May 12, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
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
