Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01804/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01804-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMY ABDOU,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-1804 BEN (RBB)

ORDER: 

(1) CONSTRUING CLAIMS

(2) SETTING HEARING ON

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

vs.

ALPHATEC SPINE, INC.,

Defendant.

In this patent infringement action, the parties seek construction of ten sets of

claim terms found in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,951,153 and 8,172,855. This matter was heard

on January 17, 2014. Having considered the papers filed by the parties and oral

argument on the motion, the Court construes the terms as follows.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Samy Abdou, M.D., alleges that Defendant Alphatec Spine, Inc.

willfully infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7,951,153 (“the ’153 patent”) and 8,172,855 (“the

’855 patent”), both of which are entitled, “Devices and Methods for Inter-Vertebral

Orthopedic Device Placement.” The patents at issue are directed toward the treatment

of diseases of the spine. 

The spine consists of a vertebral column and a spinal cord. The vertebral column

provides support for the body and protects the spinal cord. Posterior to the vertebral

column is the spinal cord, and anterior to the vertebral column is the aorta and vena

- 1 - 12-CV-1804

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 04/07/14 Page 1 of 21
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

cava, the body’s two major blood vessels. The vertebral column is made up of

individual vertebral bones, which are separated by an intervertebral disc space. The

disc space permits movement between vertebral bones and absorbs shock fromthe load

transmitted through the vertebral column. Many medical problems involving the spine

result from a problem of the interverebral disc (e.g., herniation) or compression of

surrounding nerves. Treatment of these issues include implanting devices between

vertebrae in order to adjust, align, and maintain the spatial relationship between them. 

Abdou is the named inventor in the ’153 and ’855 patents. The ’153 and ’855

patents teach and claim devices and methods to target, access, and perform surgical

work in the intervertebral space with minimal tissue dissection. The ’153 patent

discloses devices by which a surgeon may access the intervertebral space by using a

curved or arced portal (“insertion device”) that allows for placement of a sizeable

implant. The insertion device contains an internal bore or guide shaft, which extends

from the proximal opening (nearest the surgeon) toward the distal end (at the disc

space). An orthopedic implant is advanced through the bore and into the targeted disc

space. The ’855 patent discloses methodsfor targeting and accessing a location within

the spinal column, including between vertebrae, and for delivering an orthopedic

implant into that location, using devices similar to those described in the ’153 patent. 

Abdou brings this action for infringement of the ’153 and ’855 patents. The

parties have submitted competing constructionsfor ten sets of claim terms found in the

’153 and ’855 patents.

DISCUSSION

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the

invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Phillips v. AWH

Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Courts determine the meaning of disputed claimterms fromthe perspective of a person

of ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent isfiled. Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Lear

- 2 - 12-CV-1804

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 04/07/14 Page 2 of 21
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

Corp., 516 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Claim terms “are generally given their

ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (internal quotation marks

omitted). 

When construing claim terms, the court should first look to sources in the

intrinsic record. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir.

1996). First, “the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning

of particular claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Second, the claims “must be

read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.” Id. at 1315 (internal

quotation marks omitted). The specification is usually “dispositive,” as “it isthe single

best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Third, the court should consider the patent’s prosecution history, which is the record

of proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and includesthe prior

art cited during the patent examination. Id. at 1317. However, “because the

prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the

applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of

the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.” Id. 

If the intrinsic evidence resolves the ambiguity in the disputed claim terms, then

“it is improper to rely on extrinsic evidence.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583. If

ambiguities in the claim terms remain, however, courts may consider extrinsic

evidence. Id. at 1584. Extrinsic evidence includes expert testimony, inventor

testimony, dictionaries, and scientific treatises. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. 

II. THE ’153 AND ’855 PATENTS

The parties dispute ten sets of claim terms found in the ’153 and ’855 patents. 

A. Claim Terms Relating toWhether theDevicesAttach Inside the

Body

Five sets of claimterms address whether the “mount,” “anchor device,” “fixation

member,” and “first member” limitations of the claimed devices are mountable,

positionable, or attachable only inside the body. Alphatec argues that the “mount,”

- 3 - 12-CV-1804

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 04/07/14 Page 3 of 21
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

“anchor device,” “fixation member,” and “first member” limitations are attachable only

inside the body, while Abdou argues that they are attachable both inside and outside

of the body. 

The Court concludes that the “mount,” “anchor device,” “fixation member,” and

“first member” limitations of the claimed devices are mountable, positionable, or

attachable both inside and outside of the body. The claim language is agnostic as to

whether the point of attachment isinside or outside of the body. (See, e.g., ’153 patent,

at 7:35-37 (“a first mount . . . mountable to a defined anatomical position relative to the

target space”); id. at 8:31-33 (“a mount that is positionable at a defined anatomical

relationship relative to the targetspace between the skeletalsegments”); id. at 8:61-65

(“anchor device having . . . a second region [that] attaches onto a surface with defined

spatial relationship to the disc space”); ’855 patent, at 15:38-40 (“positioning an

implant insertion assembly in proximity to the target location”); id. at 17:1-2

(“positioning . . . a first member of a targeting apparatus in proximity to the first

vertebral bone”).) In addition, the specificationsindicate that no particular attachment

location isrequired. (See, e.g., ’153 patent, at 5:45-49 (“The coupler 110 of the device

100 is then attached to an attachment point. It should be appreciated that the

attachment point need not be the disc space itself. The coupler 110 can be attached

directly to one of the vertebrae or to some other reference location.”); ’855 patent, at

13:66-14:1 (“In other embodiments, one or more anchors may be placed into the interspinous ligament, lateral to the inter-spinous space, into the pedicles or any other

suitable anchor point.”).)

Alphatec’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. First, Alphatec argues

that the ’153 and ’855 patents exclusively contain exemplary embodiments describing

or depicting the mount, anchor device, fixation member, and first member as attaching

inside the body. Although this is true, the patents do not contain any disavowal of

anchoring the devices outside of the body. “The words of a claim are generally given

their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in

- 4 - 12-CV-1804

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 04/07/14 Page 4 of 21
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

the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner

v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “There are

only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and

acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a

claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. “Absent a clear

disavowal in the specification or the prosecution history, the patentee is entitled to the

full scope of its claim language.” Id. at 1366 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

“[E]ven where a particular structure makes it particularly difficult to obtain certain

benefits of the claimed invention, this does not rise to the level of disavowal of the

structure. It is likewise not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the

embodiments, contain a particular limitation.” Id. (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“[W]e have expressly rejected

the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the

patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment.”). The embodiments

contained in the patents are examples only, and the patents do not contain any

disavowals limiting the scope of the claim language. (See, e.g., ’153 patent, at 4:30

(“[a]n exemplary embodiment”); id. at 5:38 (“[a]n exemplary method”).) 

Second, Alphatec argues that the purposes of the invention—such as accurate

targeting of the intervertebral space—support construing the claims as disclosing

devices that attach only to locations inside of the body. As explained above, the

embodiments describing the devices as attaching inside of the body are examples only;

the patents do not contain any disavowal of anchoring the devices outside of the body.

Although these embodiments may offer a benefit, this does not amount to a disclaimer

or otherwise limit the claim scope. i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831,

843 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Generally, a claim is not limited to the embodiments described

in the specification unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the

claim’s scope with words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction. By the

same token, not every benefit flowing froman invention is a claimlimitation.” (internal

- 5 - 12-CV-1804

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 04/07/14 Page 5 of 21
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

quotation marks and citation omitted).) 

Third, Alphatec argues that the preferred embodiments—devices attachable

inside the body—should be read into the claims. “To the extent that . . . passages [in

the patent] refer to the preferred embodiment, they cannot be read into the claims

without some hook.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243,

1252 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Alphatec argues that in this present action, the necessary hooks

are the disputed claim terms: “anatomical position” / “anatomical relationship”;

“surface with defined spatial relationship to the disc space” / “surface with defined

spatial relationship to the target segment of the skeletal member”; “when attached to

the insertion device, the mount limits movement of the insertion device relative to the

skeletalsegments/member” / “the anchor, when attached to the insertion device, limits

the movement of the insertion device relative to” / “the fixation member limits

movement of the implant insertion member relative to the target location in at least one

plane”; and “in proximity to the first vertebral bone.” The necessary hooks, however,

are not the disputed claim terms, but the requirement that the devices have a particular

point of attachment. For example, claim 8 of the ’153 patent discloses that the second

region of the anchor device “attaches onto a surface with defined spacial relationship

to the disc space.” (’153 patent, at 8:64-65 (emphasis added).) Many of the disputed

claims do not contain a requirement that the devices have a particular point of

attachment. (See, e.g., id. at 7:33-67 (claim 1), 8:13-41 (claim 6).) Accordingly, the

Court declines to read the preferred embodiments into the claims.

The Court will consider the five sets of claim terms that address whether the

devices are mountable, positionable, or attachable only inside the body.

1. “anatomical position” / “anatomical relationship”

The parties dispute the terms “anatomical position” (claim 1 of the ’153 patent)

and “anatomical relationship” (claims 6 and 21 of the ’153 patent). Alphatec proposes

the following construction, while Abdou argues that these terms should be given their

plain and ordinary meaning. In the alternative, Abdou proposes a competing

- 6 - 12-CV-1804

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 04/07/14 Page 6 of 21
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

construction. The Court declines to construe these terms.

Term Abdou’s Proposed

Construction 

Alphatec’s Proposed

Construction 

“anatomical position” /

“anatomical relationship”

Plain and ordinary

meaning. 

If construction is

necessary, then “position

relative to the body.”

“position within the

body”

Claim 1 recites: “An instrument . . . comprising: . . . a first mount comprising an

elongate body having a distal end mountable at a defined anatomical position relative

to the target space.” (’153 patent, at 7:33-37 (emphasis added).) Claim 6 recites: “An

instrument . . . comprising: . . . a mount that is positionable at a defined anatomical

relationship relative to the target space between the skeletal segments . . . .” (Id. at

8:13-37 (emphasis added).) Claim 21 recites: “An instrument set . . . comprising: . . .

a mount having a first segment and a second segment, wherein the first segment of the

mount is positionable at a defined anatomical relationship relative to the target

segment of the skeletal member . . . .” (Id. at 10:44-65 (emphasis added).)

TheCourt findsthat no construction is necessary because the claimlanguage has

a plain and ordinary meaning. Alphatec argues that because the end of the mount must

be attached at a location inside of the body, the “anatomical position” and “anatomical

relationship” must be inside of the body as well. As explained above, however, the end

of the mount does not need to be attached at a location inside of the body. There is

nothing in the claim language that addresses where the point of attachment must be as

long as a defined anatomical relationship is achieved. 

///

///

///

///

- 7 - 12-CV-1804

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 04/07/14 Page 7 of 21
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

2. “surface with defined spatial relationship to the disc

space” / “surface with defined spatial relationship to the

target segment of the skeletal member”

The parties dispute the terms “surface with defined spatial relationship to the

disc space” (claims 8 and 12 of the ’153 patent) and “surface with defined spatial

relationship to the targetsegment ofthe skeletal member” (claim20 of the ’153 patent). 

Alphatec proposes the following construction, while Abdou argues that these terms

should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. In the alternative, Abdou proposes

competing constructions. The Court declines to construe these terms.

Term Abdou’s Proposed

Construction 

Alphatec’s Proposed

Construction 

“surface with defined

spatial relationship to the

disc space”

Plain and ordinary

meaning.

If construction is

necessary, then “surface

at a defined position

relative to the space

between two vertebral

bodies.”

“Surface within the body,

at or near a bony

landmark.” 

Alternatively, indefinite.

“surface with defined

spatial relationship to the

target segment of the

skeletal member”

Plain and ordinary

meaning.

If construction is

necessary, then “surface

at a defined position

relative to the targeted

segment of bone

structure.”

“Surface within the body,

at or near a bony

landmark.” 

Alternatively, indefinite.

Claims 8 and 12 recite: “at least one anchor device having . . . a second region

[that] attaches onto a surface with defined spatial relationship to the disc space.” (’153

patent, at 8:61-65, 9:31-34.) Claim 20 recites: “at least one anchor device having . . .

a second segment that is adapted to attach onto a surface with defined spacial

- 8 - 12-CV-1804

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 04/07/14 Page 8 of 21
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

relationship to the target segment of the skeletal member.” (Id. at 10:28-32.) The

Court finds that no construction is necessary because the claim language has a plain

and ordinary meaning. 

Alphatec argues that one end of the anchor device must attach to a surface within

the body. In addition, Alphatec argues that if its construction is not adopted, any

“surface” would have a defined spacial relationship to the target space/skeletal

member. As a result, this limitation would be functionally meaningless and therefore

indefinite. As explained above, however, the end of the anchor device does not need

to be attached at a location inside of the body. Moreover, declining to construe these

terms would not render thislimitation functionally meaningless. The end of the anchor

device must be attached to a surface with a defined spatial relationship to the disc

space. This means that the anchor device must be positioned so that the curved portion

of the device accurately targets the surgical site. 

3. “when attached to the insertion device, the mount limits

movement of the insertion device relative to the skeletal

segments/member” / “the anchor, when attached to the

insertion device, limits the movement of the insertion

device relative to” / “the fixation member limits

movement of the implant insertion member relative to

the target location in at least one plane”

The parties dispute the terms “when attached to the insertion device, the mount

limits movement of the insertion device relative to the skeletal segments/member”

(claims 6 and 21 of the ’153 patent), “the anchor, when attached to the insertion device,

limits the movement of the insertion device relative to” (claims 8, 12, and 20 of the

’153 patent), and “the fixation member limits movement of the implant insertion

member relative to the target location in at least one plane” (claim6 of the ’855 patent). 

Alphatec proposes the following constructions, while Abdou argues that these terms

should be given their plain and ordinarymeaning. The Court declinesto construe these

- 9 - 12-CV-1804

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 04/07/14 Page 9 of 21
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

terms. 

Term Abdou’s Proposed

Construction 

Alphatec’s Proposed

Construction 

“when attached to the

insertion device, the

mount limits movement

of the insertion device

relative to the skeletal

segments/member”

plain and ordinary

meaning

“The mount is attached to

a surface within the body

such that, when attached

to the insertion device,

the mount limits the

movement of the

insertion device relative

to the skeletal member to

one plane”

“the anchor, when

attached to the insertion

device, limits the

movement of the

insertion device relative

to”

plain and ordinary

meaning

“The anchor is attached

to a surface within the

body such that, when

attached to the insertion

device, the anchor limits

the movement of the

insertion device relative

to . . . to one plane”

“the fixation member

limits movement of the

implant insertion member

relative to the target

location in at least one

plane”

plain and ordinary

meaning

“The fixation member is

attached to a surface of a

skeletal segment, such

that it prevents the

implant insertion member

and the target location

from moving relative to

one another in at least

one plane” 

The mount, anchor device, and fixation member limit movement of the insertion

device. In regard to the mount, claim 6 of the ’153 patent recites: “a mount that is

positionable at a defined anatomical relationship relative to the target space between

the skeletal segments, . . . and, when attached to the insertion device, the mount limits

movement of the insertion device relative to the skeletal segments.” (’153 patent, at

8:31-37.) Claim 21 of the ’153 patent recites a “mount having a first segment and a

second segment, . . . wherein the second segment of the mount attachesto the proximal

- 10 - 12-CV-1804

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 04/07/14 Page 10 of 21
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

segment of the insertion device, and, when attached to the insertion device, the mount

limits movement of the insertion device relative to the skeletal member.” (Id. at 10:58-

65.)

In regard to the anchor, claim 8 of the ’153 patent recites an “anchor, when

attached to the insertion device, [that] limits the movement of the insertion device

relative to the disc space.” (Id. at 8:65-67.) Claim 12 of the ’153 patent recites an

“anchor, when attached to the insertion device, [that] limits movement of the insertion

device relative to the disc space.” (Id. at 9:34-36.) Claim 20 of the ’153 patent recites

an “anchor device, when attached to the insertion device, [that] limits the movement

of the insertion device relative to the target segment of the skeletal member.” (Id. at

9:33-35.) 

In regard to the fixation member, claim 6 of the ’855 patent recites a “fixation

member [that] limits movement of the implant insertion member relative to the target

location in at least one plane.” (’855 patent, at 15:50-53.) 

TheCourt findsthat no construction is necessary because the claimlanguage has

a plain and ordinary meaning. 

As a preliminary matter, Alphatec argues that the claims must be construed

because words of degree—“relative to”—are used. According to Alphatec, the Court

must determine whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for

measuring that degree. However, a court is only prevented from adopting the plain and

ordinary meaning when doing so would fail to resolve the issue of scope. See O2

Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir.

2008) (“A determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the ‘plain and

ordinary meaning’ may be inadequate when a term has more than one ‘ordinary’

meaning or when reliance on a term’s ‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the parties’

dispute.”). Here, adopting the plain and ordinarymeaning resolves the parties’ dispute.

Alphatec’s proposed constructions would require that the mount, anchor, and

fixation member be attached within the body and limit movement of the insertion

- 11 - 12-CV-1804

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 04/07/14 Page 11 of 21
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

device/member such that the insertion device/member could only move in one plane. 

According to Alphatec, if the device were movable in more than one plane, this would

result in increased tissue dissection and damage as well as decreased likelihood of

optimal device placement within the intervertebralspace. The Court declines to adopt

Alphatec’s proposed construction for several reasons. 

First, as explained above, the end of the mount, anchor device, and fixation

member do not need to be attached at a location inside of the body.

Second, neither the claim language nor the specification require limiting

movement to one plane. Even assuming that the embodiments in the patents limit the

movement of the insertion device/member to one plane, the embodiments contained in

the patents are examples only, and there are no disavowals limiting the scope of the

claim language.

Third, in regard to Alphatec’s argument that its constructions are supported by

the purposes of the inventions, the embodiments describing the devices as limiting the

movement of the insertion device/member to one plane are examples only; the patents

do not contain any disavowal limiting the scope of the claim language. Although these

embodiments may offer a benefit, this does not amount to a disclaimer or otherwise

limit the claim scope. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 598 F.3d at 843. 

Fourth, in regard to the ’153 patent, Alphatec’s “within the body” constructions

are improper statements of intended use that do not alter the scope of the claims. The

’153 patent contains apparatus claims for implanting an orthopedic implant. 

“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard

Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Statements of

intended use in apparatus claims are not limiting “because the patentability of an

apparatus . . . depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that

structure.” Watson & Chalin Mfg., Inc. v. Boler Co., 227 F. Supp. 2d 633, 639 (E.D.

Tex. 2002). Alphatec’s proposed constructions requiring that “the mount / anchor is

attached to a surface within the body” impermissibly describe how the device is to be

- 12 - 12-CV-1804

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 04/07/14 Page 12 of 21
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

used, not what the claimed structure is. 

Accordingly, no construction ofthe terms “when attached to the insertion device,

the mount limits movement of the insertion device relative to the skeletal

segments/member,” “the anchor, when attached to the insertion device, limits the

movement of the insertion device relative to,” and “the fixation member limits

movement of the implant insertion member relative to the target location in at least one

plane” is necessary.

4. “first surface”

The parties dispute the term“firstsurface” (claim6 ofthe ’855 patent). Alphatec

proposesthe following construction, while Abdou argues that thistermshould be given

its plain and ordinary meaning. The Court declines to construe this claim. 

Term Abdou’s Proposed

Construction 

Alphatec’s Proposed

Construction 

“first surface” plain and ordinary

meaning

“A surface of a skeletal

segment”

Claim 6 recites: “A method for the delivery of an orthopedic implant onto a

target location within a spinal column of a subject, comprising: . . . a fixation member,

having a first segment that attaches onto a proximal segment of the implant insertion

member and a second segment that attaches onto a first surface . . . .” (’855 patent, at

15:34-50 (emphasis added).) TheCourt findsthat no construction is necessary because

the claim language has a plain and ordinary meaning. 

The Court declines to adopt Alphatec’s proposed construction. As explained

above, the fixation member does not need to be attached at a location inside of the

body.

Alphatec argues that if its proposed construction is not adopted, the limitation

would be functionally meaningless. According to Alphatec, the limitation is only

meaningful if the “firstsurface” isinside of the body, because everything has a surface. 

- 13 - 12-CV-1804

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 04/07/14 Page 13 of 21
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

Giving this term its plain and ordinary meaning, however, does not mean that the

limitation must be interpreted in a way that would allow the fixation member to attach

to anything. Per the claim language, after attachment to the “firstsurface,” the fixation

member must limit movement of the implant insertion member relative to the target

location. (Id. at 15:49-53.) The fixation member may be attached to a surface outside

of the body and limit movement of the implant insertion member “relative to the target

location.” 

5. “in proximity to the first vertebral bone”

The parties dispute the term “in proximity to the first vertebral bone” (claim 28

ofthe ’855 patent). Alphatec proposesthe following construction, while Abdou argues

that thistermshould be given its plain and ordinarymeaning. In the alternative, Abdou

proposes a competing construction. The Court declines to construe this term. 

Term Abdou’s Proposed

Construction 

Alphatec’s Proposed

Construction 

“in proximity to the first

vertebral bone”

Plain and ordinary

meaning.

If construction is

necessary, then “near the

first vertebral bone.”

“Inside the subject’s

body, at or near the first

vertebral bone.”

Alternatively, indefinite.

Claim 28 recites: “A method to target and access a spinal segment of a subject,

comprising: . . . positioning at least a first member of a targeting apparatusin proximity

to the first vertebral bone.” (’855 patent, at 16:63-17:2.) The Court finds that no

construction is necessary because the claimlanguage has a plain and ordinarymeaning. 

The Court declines to adopt Alphatec’s proposed construction. As explained

above, the first member of the targeting apparatus does not need to be attached at a

location inside of the body.

Alphatec argues that if its proposed construction is not adopted, the meaning and

scope of this term will be ambiguous, rendering the term indefinite. According to

- 14 - 12-CV-1804

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 04/07/14 Page 14 of 21
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

Alphatec, there will be no clear bounds for how close the first member of the targeting

apparatus must be to the first vertebral bone in order to be “in proximity” to it. 

However, whether the patent sufficiently describes the invention so that a person

skilled in the art is able to make and use it goes toward enablement and is more

appropriately addressed on summary judgment. See In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 735

(Fed. Cir. 1988).

B. “arcuate internal bore” / “internal bore” / “bore”

During the hearing, the parties agreed that no construction of the terms “arcuate

internal bore,” “internal bore,” and “bore” is necessary. (Hearing Transcript [Docket

No. 66], at 61-62.) The Court declines to construe these terms.

C. “plunger”

The parties dispute the term “plunger” (independent claims 1 and 12 and

dependent claims 4, 9, and 10 of the ’153 patent). Alphatec proposes the following

construction, while Abdou argues that this term should be given its plain and ordinary

meaning. In the alternative, Abdou proposes a competing construction. The Court

declines to construe this claim. 

Term Abdou’s Proposed

Construction 

Alphatec’s Proposed

Construction 

“plunger” Plain and ordinary

meaning.

If construction is

necessary, then “a device

that slideably fits through

the internal bore of the

curvilinear member.”

“An elongated device

with a handle and tapered

tip that is used to push

the insertion device into

contact with the target

space”

Claim 1 of the ’153 patent recites: “an arcuate plunger that slidably fits within

the arcuate internal bore of the curved elongate body, the plunger having a proximal

end and a conical distal end and wherein, when the plunger is positioned in the arcuate

internal bore, the proximal end of the plunger protrudes out of the proximal opening

- 15 - 12-CV-1804

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 04/07/14 Page 15 of 21
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

of the arcuate internal bore and a conical distal end of the plunger protrudes out of the

distal opening of the arcuate internal bore, and wherein the plunger prevents delivery

of the implant by the insertion device through the arcuate internal bore when the

plunger is positioned within the arcuate internal bore.” (’153 patent, at 7:53-64.)

Claim 12 of the ’153 patent recites: “a plunger that slidably positions within the

arcuate internal bore of the curved elongate body, and wherein, when the plunger is

positioned in the arcuate internal bore, a proximal end of the plunger protrudes out of

the proximal opening of the insertion devise and a distal end of the plunger protrudes

out of the distal opening of the insertion device, and wherein the plunger, when

positioned within the arcuate internal bore, prevents delivery of the implant by the

insertion device through the arcuate internal bore.” (Id. at 9:37-46.)

TheCourt findsthat no construction is necessary because the claimlanguage has

a plain and ordinary meaning. The term “plunger” is defined by the surrounding claim

language that describes the characteristics of the plunger.

Alphatec argues that the written description defines “plunger” as an elongated

device with a handle and tapered tip that is used to push the insertion device into

contact with the target space. In support of its argument, Alphatec cites to an example

shown in the specification, namely that drawn in Figures 8, 9, and 10B. This example

describes a plunger that “has a tapered tip 815 on a distal end and a handle 820 on a

proximal end.” (’153 patent, at 5:27-28.) The handle is “used to push the insertion

device 120 such that the insertion device 120 rotates toward the skin S about the pivot

axis F.” (Id. at 6:34-36.) 

Alphatec’s proposed construction, however,impermissiblylimitsthe claimscope

to one preferred embodiment. Specifically, it aims to limit the claims to the examples

drawn in Figures 8, 9, and 10B. See Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366-67 (“We do not read

limitations from the specification into claims . . . [absent] clear and unmistakable

disclaimer.”). Moreover, the specification identifies the exampleAlphatec imports into

the claim language as just that: “[a]n exemplary method of using the device.” (’153

- 16 - 12-CV-1804

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 04/07/14 Page 16 of 21
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

patent, at 5:38-39.) 

In addition, Alphatec’s proposed addition of the verbiage “is used to push the

insertion device into contact with the target space” improperly imports a functional

limitation into an apparatus claim. See Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566

F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Construing a non-functional term in an apparatus

claim in a way that makes direct infringement turn on the use to which an accused

apparatus is later put confuses rather than clarifies, frustrates the ability of both the

patentee and potential infringers to ascertain the propriety of particular activities, and

is inconsistent with the notice function central to the patent system.”).

D. “curvilinear member”

The parties dispute the term “curvilinear member” (independent claim 28 and

dependent claims 36, 37, and 42 of the ’855 patent). Alphatec proposes the following

construction, while Abdou argues that this term should be given its plain and ordinary

meaning. The Court declines to construe this claim. 

Term Abdou’s Proposed

Construction 

Alphatec’s Proposed

Construction 

“curvilinear member” plain and ordinary

meaning

“An elongated device

with a handle and tapered

tip that is used to push

the insertion device into

contact with the target

space”

Claim 28 of the ’855 patent recites a “pivot member” that has an “elongated arm

[that] contains at least one bore that is adapted to receive a curvilinear member,

wherein the curvilinear member extends from a proximal end to a distal tip.” (’855

patent, at 17:10-13.) Claim 28 further recites “rotating the pivot member about the

pivot axis and advancing the distal tip of the curvilinear member from a skin entry site

to the target location within the subject.” (Id. at 17:39-41.) The Court finds that no

construction is necessary because the claimlanguage has a plain and ordinarymeaning.

- 17 - 12-CV-1804

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 04/07/14 Page 17 of 21
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

Alphatec argues that the curvilinear member is the same as the ’153 patent’s

“plunger.” The ’855 and ’153 patents, however, are two distinct patents, with different

specifications and prosecution histories. The “curvilinear member” of the ’855 patent

is not identical to the “plunger” of the ’153 patent. In addition, similar to Alphatec’s

proposed construction for “plunger,” Alphatec’s proposed construction for “curvilinear

member” improperly injects limitations into the claims and impermissibly limits the

claim scope to one preferred embodiment. See Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366-67. 

E. “anchor device”

The parties dispute the term “anchor device” (independent claims 8, 12, and 20

and dependent claims 14-16, and 18-19 of the ’153 patent). Alphatec proposes the

following construction, while Abdou argues that thistermshould be given its plain and

ordinary meaning. In the alternative, Abdou proposes a competing construction. The

Court declines to construe this claim. 

Term Abdou’s Proposed

Construction 

Alphatec’s Proposed

Construction 

“anchor device” Plain and ordinary

meaning.

If construction is

necessary, then “support

device.”

“the coupler (110) and

mount (115)”

Claim9, a representative claim, recites: “at least one anchor device having a first

region that attaches with the proximal end of the insertion device at the proximal end

of the insertion device and a second region attaches onto a surface with defined spatial

relationship to the disc space, wherein the anchor, when attached to the insertion

device, limits the movement of the insertion device relative to the disc space.” (’153

patent, at 8:61-67.)

TheCourt findsthat no construction is necessary because the claimlanguage has

a plain and ordinary meaning. Each independent claim’s recitation of “anchor device”

- 18 - 12-CV-1804

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 04/07/14 Page 18 of 21
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

is immediately followed by the open transitional term “having,” with the remainder of

the limitation describing the structure and function of the anchor device. Moreover,

the term “anchor” is used throughout the specification to describe embodiments that

“anchor” relative to a target location and attach to the insertion device. (Id. at 2:36-49;

Figs. 1, 2, 7, 9, 10B.)

Alphatec argues that the “anchor device” refers to the “the coupler (110) and

mount (115).” This proposed construction, however, improperly limits the claims to

one embodiment in the specification. The claim language defines the structure of the

“anchor device” more broadly than “coupler and mount.” In addition, the specification

contains no disavowal of the claim scope.

F. “distance adjustment feature”

The parties dispute the term “distance adjustment feature” (claim 28 of the ’855

patent). Alphatec proposes the following construction, while Abdou argues that this

term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. The Court declines to construe

this claim. 

Term Abdou’s Proposed

Construction 

Alphatec’s Proposed

Construction 

“distance adjustment

feature”

plain and ordinary

meaning

“a screw”

Claim 28 of the ’855 patent recites: “a distance adjustment feature [that] is

adapted to adjust a distance between the first and second members, wherein

advancement of the adjustment feature in a first direction increases and retrains the

increased distance between the pivot axis ofthe second member and the target location,

and wherein advancement ofthe adjustment feature in a second direction decreases and

retains the decreased distance between the pivot axis and the target location[.]” (’855

patent, at 17:17-25.) The Court finds that no construction is necessary because the

claim language has a plain and ordinary meaning.

- 19 - 12-CV-1804

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 04/07/14 Page 19 of 21
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

Alphatec argues that Abdou expressly defined “distance adjustment feature”

during prosecution as “a screw.” Alphatec points to the Response to Office Action

mailed May 10, 2011, which states, “When the first and second members are coupled,

the distance between them is adjustable through the use of an adjustment feature, such

as screw 415.” (Buccigross Decl., Exh. 2, at 61.) In addition, Alphatec points to the

fact that Abdou did not provide any other examples of a “distance adjustment feature”

in addition to a screw in the specification or during prosecution. Rather, the only

distance adjustment feature that the patent discloses is the screw. (See ’855 patent, at

7:10-26.)

On the contrary, Abdou did not expressly define “distance adjustment feature”

as “a screw.” A screw is merely mentioned in the specification as a preferred

embodiment. The specification describes “a vertical adjustment actuator, such as a turn

screw,” which “is positioned in the shaft of the sheath . . . .” (’855 patent, at 7:1-3

(emphasis added).) The Federal Circuit has held that the use of “such as” in describing

one embodiment does not limit claims. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v.

Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 811 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim term not limited to

embodiment disclosed in specification preceded by “such as”). Moreover, a turn screw

is described by the patent as “[a]n exemplary configuration” of the vertical adjustment. 

(’855 patent, at 7:9.) 

In addition, the ’855 patent uses claim differentiation to show that the “distance

adjustment feature” of claim 28 is not limited to “a screw.” Dependent claim 34

claims: “A method as in claim 28, wherein the adjustment feature of the targeting

apparatus adjusts the distance between the first and second members using a threaded

member.” (’855 patent, at 8:9-11 (emphasis added).) The fact that dependent claim 34

claims the adjustment feature as “using a threaded member” (i.e., a screw) suggeststhat

independent claim 28 is broader and not limited to “a screw.”

///

///

- 20 - 12-CV-1804

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 04/07/14 Page 20 of 21
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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the terms at issue shall be construed as indicated

above.

Alphatec previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 51),

which has been fully briefed. In its Motion for Summary Judgment, Alphatec argues

that if the Court construes the asserted claims to permit mounting the device outside

of the body, the claims are invalid for failure to meet the written description and

enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). A hearing on the Motion for Summary

Judgment is set for May 1, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 7, 2014

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

- 21 - 12-CV-1804

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 74 Filed 04/07/14 Page 21 of 21