Alphatec Spine v. NuVasive CA4/1

── Alphatec Spine v. NuVasive CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/23/26 Alphatec Spine v. NuVasive CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ALPHATEC SPINE INC., D084368 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2017- 00038583-CU-BC-CTL) NUVASIVE INC., Defendant and Appellant. APPEALS from an amended judgment and order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard S. Whitney, Judge. Affirmed. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, Kendra J. Hall, and Jeff S. Hood for Defendant and Appellant. Winston & Strawn, Nimalka Wickramasekera, Brian Nisbet, Libby Deshaies, Michael Meneghini, and Michael J. Woodrum for Plaintiff and Respondent. NuVasive Inc. (NuVasive) appeals from the trial court’s amended judgment and a postjudgment order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). NuVasive argues the court erred in concluding its posttrial motions for JNOV and new trial were untimely. Additionally, it asserts the jury’s special verdict finding that Alphatec Spine Inc. (Alphatec) intentionally interfered with the contractual relationship between Kenneth Kormanis, a sales representative, and inoSpine, LLC (inoSpine), an exclusive distributor of NuVasive products in North Carolina, is inconsistent with its verdict that Alphatec did not violate North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NCUDTPA) by tortiously interfering with the contracts Michael Jones and Kormanis had with inoSpine. In its view, the court should have required the jury to clarify its verdict when NuVasive raised the issue at trial. It contends the court further erred by not granting JNOV in its favor on its claim under the NCUDTPA based on the jury’s finding on a separate cause of action that Alphatec tortiously interfered with Kormanis’s contract. Alphatec responds that the court’s order should be affirmed because the posttrial motions were not timely filed and the court did not otherwise err. We conclude NuVasive’s posttrial motions were timely, but the verdicts were not inconsistent. We further conclude that JNOV could not lawfully be granted on the NCUDTPA claim based on the jury’s verdict on the separate intentional interference claim. Accordingly, we affirm the amended judgment and order denying JNOV. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 A. Factual Background Alphatec and NuVasive are competitors in the medical device market. Both offer surgical tools and procedures used to treat spinal disease. NuVasive hires distributors and direct salespeople who exclusively represent 1 The background section is limited to only those facts relevant to the issues on appeal. 2 NuVasive and are essentially given a franchise to cover the doctors and hospitals in certain geographical areas. Because its sales representatives form relationships with surgeons in their respective territories, NuVasive’s contracts with its distributors and representatives prohibit them from promoting competitors’ products. The contracts also include post-termination restrictions preventing former distributors from selling competing products and soliciting former NuVasive customers. Kormanis and Jones worked as sales representatives for inoSpine, an exclusive distributor of NuVasive product