Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00347/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00347-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1 

3:18-CV-347-CAB-MDD

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

NUVASIVE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. 

ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC. et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-CV-347-CAB-MDD

ORDER RE NUVASIVE’S MOTION 

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

[Doc. No. 250] 

This is a patent infringement case in which NuVasive, Inc. (“NuVasive”) asserts that 

Alphatec Holdings, Inc. (“Alphatec”) infringes seven of NuVasive’s United States 

patents.1

 Discovery has concluded, and NuVasive now moves for summary adjudication 

of infringement of three of the asserted patents, U.S. Patent No. 8,439,832; U.S. Patent No. 

8,355,780; and U.S. Patent 8,753,270.2

 Additionally, NuVasive moves for summary 

 

1 U.S. Patent No. 7,819,801; U.S. Patent No. 8,355,780; U.S. Patent No. 8,439,832; U.S. Patent No. 

9,833,227; U.S. Patent No. 8,753,270; U.S. Patent No. 9,924,859; and U.S. Patent No. 9,974,531. 

2 At Doc. Nos. 1-8; 1-6; and 1-12, respectively. 

Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 281 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of

15
2 

3:18-CV-347-CAB-MDD

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

adjudication of the validity of all seven of the asserted patents. Finally, NuVasive moves 

for summary adjudication of Alphatec’s inequitable conduct affirmative defense. [Doc. 

No. 250.] Alphatec opposed. [Doc. No. 260.] NuVasive filed a reply. [Doc. No. 262.] 

The Court held oral argument on March 13, 2020. Having considered the submissions of 

the parties and the arguments of counsel, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED 

IN PART. 

The patents-at-issue generally claim a surgical access system including a tissue 

distraction assembly and a tissue retraction assembly, both of which may be equipped with 

one or more electrodes for use in detecting the existence of (and optimally the distance 

and/or direction to) neural structures before, during, and after the establishment of an 

operative corridor to a surgical target site.3

 In particular, the systems are designed for use 

in creating an operative corridor in a lateral, trans-psoas path to the lumbar spine. 

NuVasive accuses Alphatec’s Battalion Lateral Lumbar Spacer System (“Battalion 

System”) of infringing various claims of the patents at issue and moves for summary 

judgment of infringement of claims 1, 3, 9 and 10 of the ‘832 patent, claims 21, 22, 24 and 

27 of the ‘780 patent, and claims 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 of the ‘270 patent.

I. Summary Judgment of Infringement

Pursuant of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate when “there is 

no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” To prove direct infringement a patentee must establish, by a preponderance 

of the evidence, that one or more claims of the patent read on the accused device literally 

or under the doctrine of equivalence. See Adv. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., v. Scimed Life 

Sys., Inc. 261 F.3d 1329, 1336 (Fed Cir. 2001). Summary judgment for the plaintiff on the 

issue of infringement is proper when no reasonable jury could not find that every limitation 

recited in a properly construed claim is found in the accused device either literally or under 

 

3 See Abstract, ‘832 Patent; Abstract ‘780 Patent; Abstract ‘270 patent.

Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 281 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of

15
3 

3:18-CV-347-CAB-MDD

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 doctrine of equivalents. See PC Connector Solutions LLC v. Smartdisk Corp., 406 F.3d 

1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

Determining whether a claim has been infringed requires a two-step analysis. First 

the claim must be properly construed to determine its scope and meaning. Second, the 

claim as properly construed must be compared to the accused device. Id. at 1362.

A. The ‘832 Patent 

The ‘832 patent is for a “Surgical Access System and Related Methods.” The system 

is designed to establish an operative corridor through or near any of a variety of tissues 

having neural structures which, if contacted or impinged, may result in neural impairment 

for the patient. [Doc. No. 1-8, at Col. 2:65- Col. 3:3.] A specific intended use of the system 

of the ‘832 patent, as set forth in claim 1, is to create an operative corridor in a lateral, 

trans-psoas path to the lumbar spine. NuVasive alleges Alphatec’s Battalion System 

literally infringes the following claims. 

Claim 1. A system for forming an operating corridor to a lumber spine, 

comprising:

a distraction assembly to create a tissue distraction corridor in a lateral, transpsoas path to a lumbar spine, wherein said distraction assembly includes an 

elongate inner element and a plurality of dilators, the plurality of dilators 

being configured to sequentially advance along the lateral, trans-psoas path to 

the lumbar spine, the elongate inner element being positionable in a lumen of 

an initial dilator of the plurality of dilators, wherein at least one instrument 

from the group consisting of said elongate inner element and said dilators 

includes a stimulation electrode that outputs electrical stimulation for nerve 

monitoring when the at least one instrument is positioned in the psoas muscle;

a three-bladed retractor tool slidable over an exterior of an outermost 

sequential dilator of the dilator system toward the targeted spinal disc along 

the lateral, trans-psoas path, the three-bladed retractor assembly including:

 a blade-holder assembly, and

 a posterior-most retractor blade, a cephalad-most retractor blade, and a 

caudal-most retractor blade that extend from the blade-holder assembly, 

wherein the posterior-most, cephalad-most, and caudal-most retractor blades 

are slidably advanced over the exterior of the outermost sequential dilator 

while in a first position, wherein the blade-holder assembly is adjustable to 

Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 281 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of

15
4 

3:18-CV-347-CAB-MDD

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

move the posterior-most, cephalad-most, and caudal-most retractor blades to 

a second position in which the cephalad-most and caudal-most retractor 

blades are spaced apart from the posterior-most retractor blade to define an 

operative corridor,

wherein three-bladed retractor tool is configured to define the operative 

corridor along the lateral, trans-psoas path to the lumbar spine in which a 

space extending to the targeted spinal disc between the posterior-most, 

cephalad-most, and caudal-most refractor [sic] blades is dimensioned so as to 

pass an implant through the operative corridor along the lateral, trans-psoas 

path to the lumbar spine.

Claim 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the elongate inner member is 

advanced along the lateral, trans-psoas path to the targeted spinal discs such 

that a distal tip portion of the elongate inner member penetrates into an 

annulus of the targeted spinal disc. 

Claim 9. The system of claim 1, further comprising a fourth retractor blade 

that couples with the blade-holder assembly only after the blade-holder 

assembly moves the posterior-most, cephalad-most and caudal-most retractor 

blades to the second position.

Claim 10. The system of claim 1, further comprising a fixation element to 

releasably engage with one of said retractor blades so that at least a portion of 

the fixation element extends distally into the lumbar spine, wherein the 

fixation element is configured to releasably engage with the posterior-most 

retractor blade after the posterior-most retractor blade is advanced along the 

lateral, trans-psoas path to the lumbar spine. 

[Doc. No. 1-8 at Col. 14:31- Col.15:45.] NuVasive contends that all the elements of claims 

1, 3, 9 and 10 of the ‘832 patent are present in the Battalion System.

Alphatec’s Surgical Technique Guide describes the Battalion System as including: 

(1) sequential dilators used to split and advance through the psoas muscle until flush to the 

disc space; (2) the dilators having neuromonitoring capability; (3) a K-wire (i.e., an 

elongate inner element) introduced through the dilators and inserted half-way into the 

target disc; and (4) a three-blade retractor system introduced over the second dilator flush 

with the disc space, the blades of which can be adjusted to define an operative corridor. 

[Doc. No. 250-42.] The Squadron Retractor, as described in the surgical guide, includes 

Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 281 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of

15
5 

3:18-CV-347-CAB-MDD

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

an intradiscal shim (i.e., fixation element) to stabilize the retractor and an optional fourth 

blade. 

1. Distraction Assembly Limitation

Alphatec contends that the Battalion System does not meet the limitations of claim 

1 because it teaches a lateral, trans-psoas approach in which the surgeon is instructed to 

first use blunt scissors and/or a finger to “dissect the subcutaneous tissue” to reach the 

“retroperitoneal space” and then use a finger as a guide to insert an initial dilator to the 

psoas muscle. [Doc. No. 250-42 at 5-7.] The initial dilator is then used to traverse the psoas 

muscle to a position flush with the disc space. Alphatec argues that the “distraction 

assembly” of the accused Battalion System therefore does not meet the distraction 

assembly claim limitation as the system employs the use of scissors and/or the surgeon’s 

finger to distract the tissues in the lateral path between the skin of the patient and the psoas 

muscle, not just the use of sequential dilators.

To meet the limitations of claim 1, the distraction assembly must include sequential 

dilators, an elongate element, and the retractor in accordance with the claim limitations. 

“Includes” is the equivalent of “comprising” and is therefore not limiting. See Lucent 

Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 525 F.3d 1200, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“including” and 

“comprising” have the same meaning namely, that the listed elements are essential but 

other elements may be added). The distraction assembly of claim 1 does not preclude the 

addition of a scissor or finger to assist in the creation of the distraction corridor, provided 

the distraction assembly also utilizes the elongate inner element and the plurality of 

dilators. It is undisputed that the Battalion System includes the essential elements. It is 

also undisputed that these elements of the accused system are capable of creating a 

distraction corridor in a lateral, trans-psoas path to the patient’s spinal target, with or 

without the addition of the scissors or a finger to dissect the subcutaneous tissue. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Battalion System meets the distraction assembly 

limitation.

Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 281 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of

15
6 

3:18-CV-347-CAB-MDD

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. Electrodes That Output Electrical Stimulation Limitation 

Alphatec also argues that the Battalion System does not meet the claim limitation of 

“electrodes that output electrical stimulation for nerve monitoring when [. . .] positioned in 

the psoas muscle.” [Doc. No. 1-8 at Col. 14:42-45.] Because the Battalion System does 

not include a source of electrical stimulation, Alphatec contends the electrodes on its 

dilators of the system do not “output electrical stimulation” as required by the claim.

The question, however, is whether “all of the elements of the claim are present in 

the accused system.” Omega Patents, LLC v. CalAmp Corp., 920 F.3d 1337, 1345 (Fed. 

Cir. 2019). “To infringe a claim that recites capability and not actual operation, an accused 

device need only be capable of operating in the described mode.” Finjan Inc. v. Secure 

Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, claim 1 requires only that 

the elongate inner element or at least one of the dilators have a stimulation electrode 

capable of outputting electrical stimulation for nerve monitoring when positioned in the 

psoas muscle. Claim 1 does not recite as an element a source for generating the electrical 

stimulation to the electrodes. There is no dispute that the electrodes on the dilators of the 

Battalion System are capable of outputting electrical stimulation when positioned in the 

psoas muscle if the electrodes are connected to the “appropriate neuromonitoring 

platform.” [Doc. No. 250-42 at 6.] Thus, the Batallion System’s lack of a neuromonitoring 

platform does not render it non-infringing because a source of electrical stimulation is not 

an element of Claim 1. 

In light of the foregoing, and because Alphatec did not raise any other disputed facts, 

NuVasive’s motion for summary judgment of infringement of ‘832 patent by the Battalion 

System is GRANTED. 

B. The ‘780 Patent 

The ‘780 patent is also for a “Surgical Access System and Related Methods.” The 

system is designed to establish an operative corridor through or near any of a variety of 

tissues having neural structures which, if contacted or impinged, may result in neural 

impairment for the patient. [Doc. No. 1-6, at Col. 2:65- Col. 3:4.] A specific intended use 

Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 281 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of

15
7 

3:18-CV-347-CAB-MDD

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 system of the ‘780 patent, as set forth in claim 21, is to create an operative corridor 

in a lateral, trans-psoas path to the lumbar spine. NuVasive alleges Alphatec’s Battalion 

System literally infringes the following claims. 

Claim 21. A system for forming an operating corridor to a lumber spine, 

comprising:

a dilator system to create a distraction corridor along a lateral, trans-psoas path 

to a lumbar spine, wherein said dilator system comprises at least two dilators 

of sequentially larger widths deliverable to a spinal disc along the lateral, 

trans-psoas path to the lumbar spine, a second dilator of said at least two 

dilators being slidably engageable with an exterior of the first of said at least 

two dilators, at least one of the first and second dilators including a stimulation 

electrode to deliver electrical stimulation for nerve monitoring when the 

stimulation electrode is positioned along the lateral, trans-psoas path to the 

lumbar spine;

a three-bladed retractor assembly slidable over the dilator system toward the 

spinal disc along the lateral, trans-psoas path, the three-bladed retractor 

assembly including:

 a blade holder assembly and first, second and third retractor blades that 

extend generally perpendicularly relative to arm members of the blade holder 

assembly,

wherein the three-bladed retractor assembly is adjustable from a first position 

in which the first, second and third retractor blades are adjacent to one another 

and slidable over the dilator system to a second position in which the second 

and third retractor blades are moved away from the first retractor blade to 

enlarge the distraction corridor and thereby form an operative corridor along 

the lateral, trans-psoas path to the lumbar spine,

 wherein the first retractor blade is linearly movable relative to the second 

and third retractor blades in response to rotation of a knob element on the 

blade holder assembly,

 wherein the second refractor [sic] blade is movable relative to the first blade 

in response to pivoting movement of the first pivotable arm member of said 

arm members which is coupled to the second retractor blade, and wherein the 

third retractor blade is movable relative to the first blade in response to 

pivoting movement of the second pivotable arm member of said arm members 

which is coupled to the third retractor blade; and

wherein when the three-bladed retractor assembly is adjusted to the second 

position to form the operative corridor along the lateral, trans-psoas path to 

Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 281 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of

15
8 

3:18-CV-347-CAB-MDD

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 lumbar spine, the first retractor blade is a posterior-most retractor blade of 

the first, second, and third retractor blades and the operative corridor is 

dimensioned so as to pass an implant through the operative corridor and into 

the lumbar spine. 

Claim 22. The system of claim 21, wherein when the three-bladed retractor 

assembly is adjusted to the second position to form the operative corridor, the 

first retractor blade is the posterior-most retractor blade, the second blade is a 

cephalad-most retractor blade, and the third blade is a caudal-most retractor 

blade. 

Claim 24. The system of claim 21, wherein said arm members of the blade 

holder assembly further comprise a translating arm member coupled to the 

first retractor blade, wherein the rotation of the knob element of the blade 

holder assembly causes the translating arm member to linearly adjust a 

position of the first retractor blade relative to the second and third retractor 

blades.

Claim 27. The system of claim 21, further comprising an elongate member 

deliverable to a spinal disc along a lateral, trans-psoas path to the lumbar spine 

such that a distal tip region of the elongate member is configured to penetrate 

into an annulus of the spinal disc, said first dilator being configured to slidably 

engage an exterior of the elongate member. 

[Doc. No. 1-6, at Col. 15:3- Col.16:36.]

As discussed supra, the Battalion System includes: (1) sequential dilators used to 

split and advance through the psoas muscle until flush to the disc space; (2) the dilators 

having neuromonitoring capability; (3) a K-wire introduced through the dilators and 

inserted half-way into the target disc; and (4) a three-blade retractor system introduced over 

the second dilator flush with the disc space, the blades of which can be adjusted to define 

an operative corridor. NuVasive contends that all the elements of claims 21, 22, 24 and 27 

are present in the Battalion System.

1. Distraction Assembly and Electrode Stimulation Limitations

In its opposition Alphatec raises the some of the same arguments for noninfringement of this patent that it made with respect to the ‘832 patent: (1) the Battalion 

System does not create a distraction corridor with only the use of dilators and therefore 

does not meet the claim’s dilator system limitation; and (2) it does not include a source of 

Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 281 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of

15
9 

3:18-CV-347-CAB-MDD

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

electrical stimulation so it does not “deliver electrical stimulation for nerve monitoring 

when the stimulation electrode is positioned along the lateral, trans-psoas path to the 

lumbar spine.” For the reasons discussed supra regarding the ‘832 patent, these arguments 

do not preclude a finding of infringement of the ‘780 patent. 

2. Slidably Engageable Limitation

Alphatec additionally contends that NuVasive has not demonstrated that the 

Battalion System meets the ‘780 patent’s claim limitation of “a second dilator of said at 

least two dilators being slidably engageable with an exterior of the first of said at least two 

dilators.” The Court previously construed “slideably engageable” as “slides to contact.” 

[Doc. No. 167.] In the Battalion System a secondary dilator is advanced over an initial 

dilator’s exterior in a clockwise, counter-clockwise motion. [Doc No. 250-42 at 9.]

 Although Alphatec does not dispute that the secondary dilator of the Alphatec 

system is advanced by sliding it over the initial dilator, Alphatec contends that the dilators 

do not contact one another. Alphatec asserts that the dilators are designed to have a gap or 

clearance such that they are easily slideable and that NuVasive has not demonstrated that 

the secondary dilator sufficiently contacts the exterior of the initial dilator to meet the claim 

limitation. Although the Court finds Alphatec’s argument weak, it is for a jury to resolve 

the factual dispute as to whether the circumferential differences between the sequential 

dilators of the Battalion System result in contact between the interior of the secondary 

dilator and the exterior of the initial dilator as the secondary dilator is slidably advanced 

over the initial dilator. 

3. Pivoting Movement Limitation

Alphatec also challenges NuVasive’s assertion that the Squadron Retractor of the 

Battalion System meets the claim limitation requiring that the arm members of the retractor 

assembly move in a pivoting manner – the retractor blade “is movable... in response to 

pivoting movement of the... pivotable arm member.” [Doc. No. 1-6 at Col. 15:37-39.] 

The Squadron Retractor has three arm members to which the retractor blades are attached. 

The retractor blades are positioned to slide over the dilator and then the arm members are 

Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 281 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of

15
10

3:18-CV-347-CAB-MDD

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

adjusted to move two of the blades away from the third to form the operative corridor. 

[Doc. No. 250-42 at 16.] Alphatec contends that although the arm members of the 

Squadron Retractor move away from each other, the movement is not a “pivoting 

movement.”

The Court was not asked to construe “pivoting movement” at the claim construction 

hearing. “Pivoting movement,” although used in claim 21, does not appear in the body of 

the specification of the ‘780 patent. NuVasive contends it has a plain and ordinary meaning 

and requires no further explanation. Alphatec references PCT application WO 

2006/042241, related to the ‘780 patent, which describes in the summary of the invention 

that the cephalad-most and/or caudal-most blade may pivot or “rotate outward from a 

central axis of insertion” such that the operative corridor may be further expanded. [Doc. 

No. 260-11 at 9.] This definition of “pivoting movement”—to rotate outward or turn away 

from a central axis of insertion—is adopted by the Court. 

The evidence presented, including a demonstration at the oral argument of the 

operation of the Squadron Retractor, establishes that the retractor arms to which the blades 

are affixed, once the blades are inserted into the distraction corridor, are operable to move 

outward from that insertion point to expand the distraction corridor into an operative 

corridor. The parties dispute whether the movement of the retractor arms of the accused 

device meets the pivot limitation, i.e., whether they a rotate or turn away from the central 

axis of insertion. This material factual dispute must be resolved by a jury.

In light of the foregoing, NuVasive’s motion for summary adjudication of 

infringement of claim 21 is DENIED. Because claims 22, 24 and 27 depend from claim 

21, summary adjudication of infringement of those claims is also DENIED.

C. The ‘270 Patent 

The ‘270 patent is also for a “Surgical Access System and Related Methods.” The 

system is designed to establish an operative corridor through or near any of a variety of 

tissues having neural structures which, if contacted or impinged, may result in neural 

impairment for the patient. [Doc. No. 1-12 at Col. 3:1-6.] The claims of the ‘270 patent 

Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 281 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

15
11

3:18-CV-347-CAB-MDD

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

are specifically directed at a shim device designed to augment the structural stability of the 

retractor blades. [Id. at Col. 4:56-62.] NuVasive alleges the Battalion System’s intradiscal 

shim literally infringes the following claims. 

Claim 1. A spinal shim device configured to releasably attach to spinal access 

retractor blade and to penetrate into a spinal disc space for anchoring the 

spinal access retractor blade to the disc space, the shim device comprising:

 a proximal portion configured to releasably attach to a spinal access 

refractor [sic] blade, a distal extension configured to extend distally of the 

spinal access retractor blade and penetrate into a disc space between two 

adjacent vertebrae, and a maximum longitudinal length extending from a 

proximal-most end of the proximal portion to a distal-most end of the distal 

extension and extending parallel to a longitudinal axis of the shim device, 

wherein the maximum longitudinal length of shim device is less than a 

maximum longitudinal length of the spinal access retractor blade to which the 

proximal portion is configured to releasably attach;

 the distal extension including: a tapered tip region, and a maximum lateral 

width of the distal extension located proximally away from the distal-most 

end;

 the proximal portion having a proximal lateral width that is greater than the 

maximum lateral width of the distal extension, the proximal portion defining 

a forward surface portion, and the proximal portion including a rearwardly 

extending ridge structure to releasably engage with a corresponding groove 

along an interior face of the spinal access refractor [sic] blade when the 

proximal portion releasably attaches to the spinal access retractor blade, the 

ridge structure having a length extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of 

the shim device and being bisected by a longitudinal plane passing through 

the longitudinal axis of the shim device. 

Claim 2. The spinal shim device of claim 1, wherein the proximal lateral width 

of the proximal portion is defined between opposing lateral sides of the 

proximal portion, the rearwardly extending ridge structure being centered 

between the opposing lateral sides of the proximal portion.

Claim 3. The spinal shim device of claim 2, wherein the length of the 

rearwardly extending ridge structure is greater than a lateral width of the ridge 

structure and greater than a rearwardly extending thickness of the ridge 

structure.

Claim 6. The spinal shim device of claim 1, wherein the distal extension 

includes a distal lateral width that is generally consistent along a portion of 

Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 281 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

15
12

3:18-CV-347-CAB-MDD

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 distal extension that is adjacent to the tapered tip region, the distal lateral 

width being the maximum lateral width of the distal extension.

Claim 12. The spinal shim device of claim 1, wherein a maximum lateral 

width of the proximal portion extends in a lateral plane that extends 

perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis and passes through the ridge structure.

[Doc. No. 1-12, at Col. 14:30 – Col. 16:21.] 

The intradiscal shim of the Battalion System has a rearward extending structure that 

releasably engages with a corresponding groove on the interior face of a retractor blade. 

[Doc. No. 250-42 at 20; Doc. No. 253-7 at 2.] The parties dispute whether that structure 

meets the claim limitation of a rearwardly extending ridge structure having “a length 

extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of the shim device.” [Doc. No. 1-12 at 14:57-

58.]

NuVasive contends that claim 1 does not require the rearward extending ridge 

structure to have a specific length of parallel extension along the longitudinal axis, and that 

therefore the structure identified by Alphatec meets the limitation. Moreover, NuVasive 

contends that the rearward extending structure of the Alphatec shim is not limited, as 

Alphatec asserts, to the portion that engages into the retractor blade groove. As highlighted 

in yellow below, NuVasive contends that the rearward extending ridge structure of the 

Alphatec shim includes the entire portion of the shim that extends rearward from the 

surface portion, thereby having a length extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of the 

shim device. [Doc. No. 253-7 at 2, highlighting added.]

Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 281 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

15
13

3:18-CV-347-CAB-MDD

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 contends that the structure of its shim that engages with a corresponding 

groove in the retractor is not a parallel extension from the shim device. The releasable 

structure of the shim is only that portion that extends perpendicularly from the surface 

portion as highlighted in yellow below. [Id., highlighting added.] 

 

Therefore, according to Alphatec, the intradiscal shim of the Battalion System does not 

meet the claim limitation. 

The Court finds a material factual dispute at to whether the accused device meets all 

the limitations of claim 1. NuVasive’s motion for summary adjudication of infringement 

of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 3, 6 and 12 is DENIED. 

II. Summary Adjudication of Invalidity Defenses

Each claim of a patent is presumed valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282. The party challenging 

the validity of a patent claim must prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. 

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 108-09 (2011). A patent claim is invalid 

as obvious if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that 

the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date 

of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed 

invention pertains. 35 U.S.C. § 103.

NuVasive moves for summary adjudication that Alphatec’s invalidity challenges 

against all seven patents at issue fail as a matter of law to establish invalidity based on 

obviousness by clear and convincing evidence. To prevail on its motion, NuVasive must 

establish that Alphatec, “who bears the burden of proof at trial, failed to produce clear and 

Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 281 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

15
14

3:18-CV-347-CAB-MDD

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

convincing evidence on an essential element of a defense upon which a reasonable jury 

could invalidate the patent.” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 962-63 (Fed. 

Cir 2001). 

As to each asserted patent, NuVasive contends that Alphatec’s evidence of 

obviousness, provided by Dr. Charles Branch, is insufficient and relies only upon his 

conclusory and unsupported opinions that a person of skill in the art would be motivated 

to combine the various prior art references he puts forth. Alphatec’s opposition however 

is persuasive that its evidence challenging the validity of the patent claims at issue is 

sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude the patents are obvious. NuVasive has not 

demonstrated that Alphatec’s invalidity defenses fail as a matter of law. The motion for 

summary adjudication of the validity of the patents at issue, or more accurately an 

adjudication dismissing Alphatec’s affirmative defenses of invalidity as to each patent, is 

DENIED.

III. Summary Adjudication of the Inequitable Conduct Defense

NuVasive moves for summary adjudication of Alphatec’s affirmative defense of 

inequitable conduct during the prosecution of the ‘227, ‘531, ‘832 and ’859 patents. The 

Court finds many material facts in dispute regarding this defense. Further, because it is an 

equitable defense for the Court’s determination, it will be bifurcated from the jury trial and 

heard separately as a bench trial at the conclusion of the jury case. The motion is therefore 

DENIED. 

IV. Conclusion

 For the reasons stated above and on the record at the hearing on this motion, 

NuVasive’s motion for summary adjudication is:

1. GRANTED as to infringement of the ‘832 Patent;

2. DENIED as to infringement of the ‘780 Patent;

3. DENIED as to infringement of the ‘270 Patent;

4. DENIED as to Alphatec’s invalidity defenses; and

Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 281 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

15
15

3:18-CV-347-CAB-MDD

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

5. DENIED as to Alphatec’s inequitable conduct defense.

It is SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 10, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 281 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of

15