IP Law Daily, PATENT—S.D. Cal.: Dismissal mostly granted in spinal surgery device dispute, (Dec 4, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Induced and willful infringement claims were dismissed, for the most part, because the complaint failed to plausibly allege pre-suit knowledge or do more than recite the bare elements of induced infringement.

A seller of spinal surgery devices was entitled to dismissal of the majority of the induced and willful infringement claims brought against it, the U.S. District Court in San Diego has held. The complaint lacked sufficiently specific allegations of induced infringement and plausibly alleged pre-suit knowledge of only two out of the eight asserted patents. Both parties develop and market products used by surgeons during minimally invasive spine surgery. An amended complaint, if filed, must be filed by January 5, 2026 (Globus Medical, Inc. v. Alphatec Spine, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-01522-CAB-DDL (S.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2025)).

Globus Medical, Inc. and Nuvasive, LLC (collectively, Nuvasive) were the owners of eight patents related to methods and devices for performing spinal surgery, U.S. Patents Nos. 8,357,184 (the ’184 patent), 9,050,146 (the ’146 patent), 10,660,628 (the ’628 patent), 8,556,979 (the ’979 patent), 8,518,120 (the ’120 patent), 9,039,771 (the ’771 patent), 9,204,974 (the ’974 patent), and 11,890,203 (the ’203 patent). Nuvasive brought suit against Alphatec Spine, Inc. (ATEC), alleging that ATEC’s Sigma Access System and Calibrate LTX products bore a striking resemblance to Nuvasive’s own products. ATEC moved to dismiss the willful and induced infringement claims brought against it.

Pre-suit knowledge. ATEC argued that the complaint lacked the necessary allegations of pre-suit knowledge to support either willful or induced infringement claims. The court found that, with regard to the ’979, ’120, ’771,’974, and ’203 patents, there were in fact no allegations relating to pre-suit knowledge in the complaint, so those claims were dismissed. As to the ’184, ’146, and ’628 patents, however, the court found that certain senior employees of ATEC had been previously employed at Nuvasive at the time the ’184 and ’146 patents were filed and had worked in development of that product area, so their knowledge could plausibly be attributed to ATEC. The ’628 patent, while related to that same product development, did not actually issue until after the named employees had left Nuvasive, so the court did not attribute knowledge of it to ATEC.

Induced infringement. ATEC argued that Nuvasive’s allegations of induced infringement were insufficient. The complaint contained allegations that ATEC had published training materials teaching the use of the accused products in an infringing manner but lacked any direct quotes or attached copies of those training materials. The court held that such training materials could amount to induced infringement, but without more specific information the allegation was simply a formulaic legal conclusion cast in the form of a factual allegation and was therefore not required to be credited at the motion to dismiss stage. The court granted the motion to dismiss the induced infringement claims.

The court dismissed induced infringement claims as to all of the asserted patents, and dismissed the willful infringement claims as to all but the ’184 and ’146 patents.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-01522-CAB-DDL.

Judge: Bencivengo, C.

Attorneys: Colin Cabral (Proskauer Rose LLP) for Globus Medical, Inc. Brian J. Nisbet (Winston & Strawn LLP) for Alphatec Spine, Inc.

Companies: Globus Medical, Inc.; Alphatec Spine, Inc.

Cases: Patent CaliforniaNews