Globus Medical Inc v. Alphatec Spine Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Globus Medical, Inc. (Delaware) and NuVasive, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Alphatec Spine, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Proskauer Rose LLP
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-01522, S.D. Cal., 01/05/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant Alphatec Spine, Inc. resides in the Southern District of California, has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the District, and maintains a regular and established place of business there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s spinal surgery systems, including surgical retractors and expandable interbody spacers, infringe six U.S. patents related to minimally invasive spinal fusion technologies.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to surgical instruments and implants for minimally invasive spinal fusion, a procedure used to treat degenerative disc disease and other spinal conditions by fusing adjacent vertebrae.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents through various means, including the employment of former high-level executives from Plaintiff NuVasive, and through citations made during Defendant’s own patent prosecution activities. This First Amended Complaint follows an initial complaint filed on June 12, 2025.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,357,184 - Method and Apparatus for Performing Spinal Surgery (Issued Jan. 22, 2013)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses challenges in constructing posterior spinal fixation systems under minimally invasive conditions, which can make it difficult for a surgeon to align and seat a fixation rod into the heads of spinal anchors (e.g., pedicle screws) (’184 Patent, col. 1:58-66).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a surgical method where bone anchors are first connected to retractor blades outside the patient's body. This assembly is then advanced as a single unit to the target vertebrae, where the anchors are secured into the bone (’184 Patent, col. 2:1-5). This technique uses the bone-anchored retractor blades to establish a stable surgical corridor, which can then be expanded or distracted by a separate retractor body (Compl. ¶34; ’184 Patent, col. 2:9-14).
• Technical Importance: This method provides surgeons with a stable operative window anchored directly to the patient's anatomy, which serves as a fixed landmark and reduces the risk of retractor movement relative to the spine during surgery (Compl. ¶34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶63).
• The essential method steps of Claim 1 include:
  • connecting a first bone anchor to a first retractor blade, advancing the anchor and blade together to a first vertebra, and anchoring the bone anchor;
  • repeating the process for a second bone anchor, second retractor blade, and second vertebra;
  • connecting a retractor body to the blades and operating it to expand an operative corridor;
  • adjusting the angle of the operative corridor until it is parallel to the intervertebral disc; and
  • linking the first and second bone anchors with a spinal rod (Compl. ¶64).
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims of the ’184 Patent but follows the common practice of alleging infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶86).

U.S. Patent No. 9,050,146 - Method and Apparatus for Performing Spinal Surgery (Issued June 9, 2015)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: This patent, which is part of the same family as the ’184 patent, addresses the same technical challenges related to establishing stable, minimally invasive access for posterior spinal fixation procedures (’184 Patent, col. 1:58-66).
• The Patented Solution: The ’146 Patent claims the apparatus for creating the stable surgical corridor, rather than the method of using it. The invention is a posterior spinal retractor with arms and blades where the distal ends of the blades are "temporarily anchorable" to the spine through a "coupled engagement" with bone anchors. This coupling is designed to permit "angular adjustability" of the blade relative to the anchor (Compl. ¶92). A related patent describes this adjustability as being controlled by a splay unit that allows a surgeon to pivot the blade to a desired angle (U.S. Patent No. 10,660,628, col. 3:49-4:12). The claimed retractor also includes a third, moveable blade for additional, orthogonal retraction (Compl. ¶92).
• Technical Importance: The apparatus provides a mechanically stable and highly adjustable retractor system that anchors directly to the spine, offering surgeons customized exposure and a fixed frame of reference for minimally invasive procedures (Compl. ¶34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶91).
• The essential elements of the apparatus of Claim 1 include:
  • a retractor with first and second movable arms and corresponding attachable retractor blades;
  • wherein the distal end of the first blade is temporarily anchorable to a first pedicle via coupled engagement with a first bone anchor, with the coupling permitting angular adjustability;
  • wherein the distal end of the second blade is similarly anchorable to a second pedicle via a coupled engagement with a second bone anchor permitting angular adjustability; and
  • a third retractor blade movable relative to the first two blades in an orthogonal direction (Compl. ¶92).
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’146 patent (Compl. ¶93).

Multi-Patent Capsules

• U.S. Patent No. 8,556,979 (Issued Oct. 15, 2013) & U.S. Patent No. 8,518,120 (Issued Aug. 27, 2013)

  • Titles: "Expandable Fusion Device and Method of Installation Thereof"
  • Technology Synopsis: These related patents describe an expandable intervertebral implant for spinal fusion. The device comprises two endplates and a translation member with angled surfaces. Movement of the translation member pushes against contact surfaces on the endplates, causing them to expand outwardly to restore disc height in situ (’979 Patent, Abstract; ’120 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 of the ’979 Patent; Claim 1 of the ’120 Patent (Compl. ¶¶119, 132).
  • Accused Features: The Calibrate™ LTX system is accused of infringing by allegedly incorporating the claimed expandable implant technology (Compl. ¶¶119, 132).

• U.S. Patent No. 9,204,974 (Issued Dec. 8, 2015)

  • Title: "Expandable Fusion Device and Method of Installation Thereof"
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an intervertebral implant with a translation member that causes expansion, but adds "two stabilization members" that extend from the translation member and are received in slots within the implant's side walls. This feature is intended to provide stability during and after expansion (’974 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶144).
  • Accused Features: The Calibrate™ LTX system is accused of infringing by allegedly incorporating this expandable implant design (Compl. ¶144).

• U.S. Patent No. 11,890,203 (Issued Feb. 6, 2024)

  • Title: "Expandable Fusion Device and Method of Installation Thereof"
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an expandable intervertebral implant where an actuator screw drives a translator, which in turn has expansion portions that engage the endplates. Rotation of the screw causes the translator to move longitudinally, which expands the implant from a contracted state at a first angle to an expanded state at a second, greater angle, thereby creating lordosis (’203 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶157).
  • Accused Features: The Calibrate™ LTX system is accused of infringing by allegedly incorporating this screw-driven, lordotic-creating expandable implant technology (Compl. ¶157).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies two categories of accused products:
  1. Accused Retractor Products: ATEC’s Sigma Access System, Single Step fixation system, Invictus fixation system, Invictus MIS Modular fixation system, and Arsenal fixation system (Compl. ¶¶63, 94).
  2. Accused Spacer Products: ATEC’s Calibrate™ LTX system (Compl. ¶¶119, 132, 144, 157).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Retractor Products are systems used by spinal surgeons to perform Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) procedures (Compl. ¶¶27, 32, 79). The complaint alleges these products "bear a striking resemblance" to and are "virtually identical" to Plaintiff NuVasive's patented MAS TLIF system (Compl. ¶39). A side-by-side photograph in the complaint shows Plaintiff's MAS TLIF system next to the ATEC Sigma Access System (Compl. p. 7).
• The Accused Spacer Products are expandable interbody fusion devices used in spinal fusion procedures (Compl. ¶¶40, 124). The complaint alleges these products are "functionally identical" to Plaintiff Globus's patented CALIBER-L™ spacer products (Compl. ¶44). A side-by-side photograph shows Plaintiff's CALIBER-L Spacer next to the ATEC Calibrate LTX product (Compl. p. 8). ATEC is alleged to have launched its Calibrate LTX system on or around October 16, 2023 (Compl. ¶43).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,357,184 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement theory is for induced infringement of a method claim. A central question will be whether Defendant's instructions, marketing, and training materials direct users to perform every step of the claimed method in the sequence recited.
  • Technical Questions: A potential point of dispute may arise over the "advancing... together" step. The analysis could focus on whether Defendant's system requires the bone anchor and retractor blade to be pre-assembled before insertion, as claimed, or if they can be assembled in situ. Another question may be whether Defendant’s instructions specifically teach adjusting the corridor to be "parallel to the intervertebral disc," or if they merely teach general angular adjustment.

U.S. Patent No. 9,050,146 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: As this is an apparatus claim, the dispute may center on the construction of key terms. The meaning of "temporarily anchorable," "coupled engagement," and "permitting angular adjustability" will likely be contested. The question for the court may be whether the specific mechanism by which the accused products' blades attach to bone anchors and allow for adjustment falls within the scope of these terms as defined by the patent.
  • Technical Questions: While the complaint alleges the products are "virtually identical" (Compl. ¶39), a technical question for the court will be whether the mechanism of action in the accused devices is the same as that covered by the claim. For example, does the "angular adjustability" in the accused products function in the same way and achieve the same result as the patented invention?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• For the ’184 Patent:

  • The Term: "advancing the first bone anchor and first retractor blade together"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the method claim, requiring that the anchor and blade be advanced as a unit. Infringement may depend on whether Defendant's instructions teach this specific sequence, as opposed to a method where the components are advanced separately and connected within the patient. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if there is a sequence-of-steps defense.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the nature of the connection, only that they are advanced "together," which could be argued to cover any method where they are moved simultaneously, even if loosely coupled.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a method where "the bone anchor may be coupled to the anchor blades prior to introduction into the surgical target site" (’184 Patent, col. 39:20-22). This language may be used to argue that "together" requires a pre-operative, secure coupling.

• For the ’146 Patent:

  • The Term: "coupled engagement permitting angular adjustability"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core functionality of the patented retractor—that the connection between the blade and the bone anchor is not merely for anchoring but also allows for controlled angular movement. The case may turn on whether the accused device's connection mechanism provides an equivalent function.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional. An argument may be made that it covers any form of coupling that allows the blade's angle to be adjusted relative to the anchor point on the spine.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent family's specification describes a specific "splay unit" with a "threaded jack screw" and a rotatable "cap" to achieve this adjustability (U.S. Patent No. 10,660,628, col. 3:49-4:12). A defendant may argue that "permitting angular adjustability" should be construed as limited to this disclosed mechanism or its equivalents, rather than any and all forms of adjustment.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all asserted patents. The factual basis for inducement includes Defendant's publication of surgical techniques, Instructions for Use ("IFUs"), product videos, surgical training courses, and other marketing activities that allegedly instruct and encourage surgeons to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 77-80, 105-108, 124-125, 137-138, 149-150, 162-163). The complaint also alleges infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1) based on allegations that Defendant supplies components from the U.S. for combination abroad (Compl. ¶¶ 83, 110, 126, 139, 151, 165).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of the ’184 and ’146 patents (Compl. ¶¶ 88, 116; Prayer for Relief ¶B). The basis for willfulness is alleged pre-suit knowledge. For the ’184 patent, this knowledge is alleged to stem from as early as December 12, 2013, when Defendant allegedly submitted an Information Disclosure Statement citing the published application for the ’184 patent during its own patent prosecution (Compl. ¶55). For the ’146 patent, knowledge is alleged from as early as January 18, 2018, when the published application for the ’146 patent was cited in an office action during prosecution of one of Defendant's patents (Compl. ¶59). Knowledge is also alleged through Defendant's employment of former NuVasive executives familiar with the patented technology (Compl. ¶¶ 56, 60). Post-suit knowledge is alleged based on the filing of the original complaint on June 12, 2025 (Compl. ¶61).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the functional term "coupled engagement permitting angular adjustability" in the '146 patent be interpreted broadly to read on the specific connection and adjustment mechanism in ATEC's retractor systems, or will the court limit its scope to the splay-unit mechanism detailed in the patent specification?
• A central evidentiary question for the method patents, such as the '184 patent, will be one of induced infringement: does the evidence from ATEC’s product manuals, training videos, and other instructional materials demonstrate that ATEC actively encouraged and instructed surgeons to perform the complete, ordered sequence of steps required by the claims?
• Given the specific allegations of pre-suit knowledge based on Defendant's own patent prosecution history, a key question for the case will be willfulness: what evidence exists regarding Defendant's state of mind after it became aware of the patents-in-suit, and can Plaintiff show that Defendant's continued alleged infringement was objectively reckless, potentially justifying enhanced damages?