DCT

2:25-cv-02893

Neuropro Spinal Jaxx Inc v. Medtronic PLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-02893, W.D. Tenn., 09/22/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Medtronic has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains regular and established places of business in Memphis, Tennessee, including its “Spinal and Biologics Business Worldwide Headquarters.”
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s expandable spinal fusion cages and associated delivery instruments infringe three patents related to expandable interbody fusion devices and methods for their use.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns medical devices for spinal fusion surgery, specifically expandable cages that are inserted between vertebrae to restore disc height and facilitate bone growth, a procedure used to treat degenerative disc disease.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a lengthy pre-suit history beginning in October 2010, during which Plaintiff presented its patented and patent-pending technology to Medtronic representatives on multiple occasions in the context of a potential business relationship. Plaintiff alleges that Medtronic was provided confidential design and patent portfolio information, including specific identification of the ’280 and ’321 Patents, before and during the time Medtronic was developing the accused products.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-02-16 ’280 Patent Priority Date
2010-06-01 U.S. Patent No. 7,727,280 Issues
2010-10-01 Plaintiff presents its technology, including the ’280 Patent, to Medtronic
2011-04-01 Plaintiff and Medtronic representatives meet at Spine Arthroplasty Society meeting
2011-10-01 Plaintiff and Medtronic representatives meet at Congress of Neurological Surgeons meeting
2017-01-18 ’321 and ’289 Patents Priority Date
2019-02-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,213,321 Issues
2020-05-01 Plaintiff presents its patent portfolio, including the ’280 and ’321 Patents, to Medtronic
2021-10-12 U.S. Patent No. 11,141,289 Issues
2025-09-22 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,727,280 - "Bone Fusion Device"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge that traditional spinal fusion cages required highly invasive surgical procedures with significant recovery times (Compl. ¶¶26, 31).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an expandable fusion cage designed for minimally invasive surgery. The device can be inserted between vertebrae in a compact state and then expanded in situ to restore the proper separation and provide structural stability (Compl. ¶31). The expansion is achieved through a mechanism involving moveable tabs that are pushed outward by an internal extending block, which is manipulated by a rotating positioning element, as illustrated in the patent’s Figures 14A (compact) and 14B (expanded) (Compl. ¶32; ’280 Patent, col. 6:29-50).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for smaller surgical incisions, which can lead to shorter patient recovery times compared to traditional spinal fusion procedures (Compl. ¶31).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶61).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 15, as alleged, include:
    • a hollow body having one or more holes along a length of the hollow body
    • one or more moveable tabs each attached to the hollow body by a pin and a slot
    • the moveable tabs comprising specific geometry (an outer surface, an angled inner surface, a larger first side end, and a smaller second side end)
    • a positioning element coupled through the hollow body
    • an extending block coupled to the positioning element, comprising angled surfaces that abut the tabs to move them when the positioning element is rotated
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims but notes its allegations are not limited to claim 15 (Compl. ¶61).

U.S. Patent No. 10,213,321 - "Bone Fusion System, Device and Method Including Delivery Apparatus"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical problem of securely positioning a bone fusion device between vertebrae using an insertion instrument with minimal risk of the instrument slipping off the device during the procedure (’321 Patent, Abstract).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system comprising a bone fusion device and a corresponding insertion instrument that are secured to each other via a coupling mechanism (Compl. ¶37). This secure coupling allows for precise placement and manipulation of the fusion device. The system also includes a delivery apparatus for inserting bone graft material through the insertion tool and into the fusion device after it has been placed (’321 Patent, col. 3:4-14; Compl. ¶103). The overall assembly is illustrated in Figure 13 of the patent (Compl. ¶38).
  • Technical Importance: By creating a secure, integrated system for implant placement and bone graft delivery, the invention aims to improve the reliability and efficiency of minimally invasive spinal fusion surgery (Compl. ¶103).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 11 (Compl. ¶102).
  • The essential steps of independent claim 11, as alleged, include:
    • providing a bone fusion device with specific features (a body, channels, a positioning element with an aperture, and extendable tabs)
    • providing a delivery apparatus with a docking rod and a delivery member
    • detachably coupling the docking rod to the bone fusion device by inserting its tip into the positioning aperture
    • detachably coupling the delivery member to the docking rod so an exit aperture on the delivery member aligns with one of the device channels
    • providing a funneling chamber in the delivery member that provides a path to the exit aperture
  • The complaint notes its allegations are not limited to claim 11 (Compl. ¶102).

U.S. Patent No. 11,141,289 - "Bone Fusion System, Device and Method Including Delivery Apparatus"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11141289, "Bone Fusion System, Device and Method Including Delivery Apparatus," issued October 12, 2021.
  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the application that led to the ’321 Patent, this patent relates to a similar method, system, and device for fusing vertebrae (Compl. ¶¶39, 43). The technology involves a bone fusion device and an insertion instrument that are securely coupled, allowing for stable positioning and delivery of bone graft material with minimal risk of slippage (Compl. ¶43).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent method claim 11 (Compl. ¶125).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the method of using Medtronic's Catalyft expandable interbody system in conjunction with its Grafton DBF Inject delivery system to place the implant and deliver bone graft material (Compl. ¶¶126-130).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The Medtronic Accused Instrumentalities include expandable fusion cages, such as those marketed as Elevate, Catalyft PL, and Catalyft PL40, and associated insertion products like the Grafton DBF Inject system (Compl. ¶¶9, 55).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Catalyft products are described as expandable titanium alloy interbody devices used for lumbar fusion surgeries (Compl. ¶¶62, 64). They feature a hollow central cavity for bone graft material and are designed to be expanded after insertion to restore vertebral spacing (Compl. ¶¶64, 70). The complaint alleges these devices are used as part of an integrated system with the Grafton DBF Inject product, which is a delivery apparatus used to fill the expanded Catalyft implant with bone graft material (Compl. ¶¶67, 103). A marketing brochure depicts the integrated workflow of the Catalyft implant and the Grafton DBF Inject system (Compl. p. 25).
  • The Elevate product is described as an expandable cage made of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium, also designed for lumbar intervertebral body fusion and featuring a hollow geometry for bone graft (Compl. ¶78). The complaint provides a screenshot from a product video illustrating the "Standard" and "Extra-lordotic" versions of the Elevate implant in their expanded states (Compl. ¶81, p. 40).
  • The complaint alleges these products are used in minimally invasive procedures and are promoted by Medtronic for their "Active Expansion Technology for dialed-in correction to restore sagittal balance" (Compl. ¶¶50, 105).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’280 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a hollow body having one or more holes along a length of the hollow body The Catalyft PL and Elevate implants are designed with a hollow center region to house bone graft and have holes along their length. ¶¶70, 81 col. 4:1-12
one or more moveable tabs each attached to the hollow body by a pin and a slot The Catalyft PL and Elevate implants have moveable tabs attached to the main body, which the complaint alleges function as a pin and slot mechanism. A product animation screenshot shows this connection point. ¶¶71, 82, p. 33 col. 4:13-19
wherein each of the one or more moveable tabs comprises an outer surface, an angled inner surface, a first side end and a second side end, wherein each of the one or more moveable tabs is shaped such that the first side end is substantially larger than the second side end... The tabs on the Catalyft PL and Elevate implants are alleged to have the claimed shape, which gradually decreases in size from a larger end to a smaller end. ¶¶73, 84 col. 5:11-19
a positioning element coupled through the hollow body and substantially within the hollow body The Catalyft PL and Elevate implants contain an internal positioning element, visible in product animations, that is coupled through the hollow body. ¶¶74, 85 col. 4:47-51
an extending block coupled to the positioning element and comprising one or more angled surfaces abutting against the one or more tabs for moving the one or more moveable tabs when the positioning element is rotated... The Catalyft PL and Elevate implants allegedly have an internal extending block that moves along the positioning element. This block has angled surfaces that push against the inner surfaces of the tabs, causing them to expand outward when the element is rotated. ¶¶75, 86 col. 4:52-61

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may focus on whether the structures in the accused Catalyft and Elevate products meet the specific definitions of the claim terms. For example, a question for the court could be whether the mechanism connecting the tabs to the body of the accused devices constitutes a "pin and a slot" as contemplated by the patent.
  • Technical Questions: A central technical question may be whether the internal expansion mechanism of the accused products, which appears to be a screw-driven wedge system based on visuals, functions as the claimed "positioning element" coupled to an "extending block with...angled surfaces." The complaint provides a screenshot of the Catalyft PL's internal mechanism, showing a central threaded component and articulating links (Compl. ¶71, p. 33), raising the question of how this structure maps to the claimed elements.

’321 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
providing a bone fusion device having a body with one or more device channels, a positioning element having a positioning aperture and one or more extendable tabs... Medtronic provides the Catalyft PL, a bone fusion device with channels for bone graft, an aperture in its positioning element, and tabs that can be extended. ¶¶104, 105 col. 2:48-54
detachably coupling a docking rod with the bone fusion device by inserting a tip of the docking rod within the positioning aperture of the device Medtronic’s system includes a docking rod (part of the Grafton DBF Inject system) that is detachably coupled to the Catalyft PL device by inserting its tip into the device's positioning aperture. ¶106 col. 3:10-14
detachably coupling a delivery member to the docking rod such that the exit aperture aligns with one of the device channels when the rod is coupled to the bone fusion device The Grafton DBF Inject delivery member is detachably coupled to the docking rod, and this coupling allegedly aligns the exit aperture of the delivery member with a channel on the Catalyft device. A marketing image shows the delivery member coupled to the implant (Compl. ¶109, p. 55). ¶¶107, 109 col. 3:15-21
wherein the delivery member includes a funneling chamber having a threaded chamber end, wherein the elongated hollow shaft provides a path from the funneling chamber to the exit aperture The Grafton DBF Inject delivery member allegedly includes a funneling chamber with a threaded end that provides a path for bone graft material to flow through a hollow shaft to the exit aperture. ¶110 col. 3:35-40

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: As this is a method claim, the dispute may center on whether the sequence of actions performed by a surgeon using the Medtronic system is captured by the claim language. A question may arise regarding the interpretation of "detachably coupling," and whether the specific interactions between the Grafton DBF Inject components and the Catalyft implant satisfy this limitation.
  • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question may be whether the "exit aperture" of the accused delivery member "aligns with one of the device channels" in the manner required by the claim when the system is assembled for use. The complaint provides a brochure image suggesting this alignment (Compl. ¶¶108, 109).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "extending block" (’280 Patent, Claim 15)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed expansion mechanism. The infringement allegation hinges on mapping this term onto the internal component of the accused devices that translates rotational motion from the "positioning element" into the outward movement of the tabs. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused products' animated visuals suggest a potentially different mechanical linkage than a simple "block" (Compl. ¶75, p. 36).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the extending block’s function as having "angled surfaces 111" that "push the respective tabs 130 apart" (’280 Patent, col. 8:46-49). This functional description could support an interpretation covering any component that uses angled surfaces to achieve this result, regardless of its specific shape.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, such as Figure 3, show the extending blocks (110, 112) as distinct, separate components from the positioning element (screws 102, 104) and the tabs (130). This could support a narrower construction requiring a physically separate component that fits the description of a "block."

The Term: "moveable tabs each attached to the hollow body by a pin and a slot" (’280 Patent, Claim 15)

  • Context and Importance: The nature of the connection between the tabs and the device body is a specific limitation. The infringement case requires showing that the articulating joints on the Catalyft and Elevate products meet this "pin and a slot" definition. The complaint's visuals show a pivot point, and the court will need to determine if this structure meets the claim language (Compl. ¶71, p. 33).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the tabs are secured by "one or more second pins 118" that "fit within the one or more pin slots 132 and are able to travel along the interior" thereof (’280 Patent, col. 10:46-51). This language describes a component that both pivots and translates, which could support a broader reading on various articulating joints.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 3 depicts the pin slot (132) as a distinct, elongated opening separate from the pin itself (118, not explicitly shown but implied). A defendant may argue this requires a structure with both a separate pin and an elongated slot allowing for translation, not just a simple pivot point.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges inducement of infringement by Medtronic through affirmative acts of encouraging its customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner. These acts allegedly include providing marketing materials, brochures, surgical technique guides, and "Instructions for Use" manuals that instruct surgeons and hospitals on how to perform the patented methods and use the patented devices (Compl. ¶¶88, 90, 112, 115). For example, the complaint references a brochure showing end users how to use the Catalyft cages with the Grafton DBF Inject System (Compl. ¶¶90, 114).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint makes detailed allegations of willful infringement based on Medtronic's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents. The basis includes a series of meetings and presentations starting in October 2010 where Plaintiff allegedly disclosed its technology and identified the ’280 Patent to Medtronic representatives (Compl. ¶¶45-49, 96). The complaint further alleges that in a May 2020 meeting, Plaintiff specifically identified both the ’280 and ’321 Patents to Medtronic, putting it on notice before the '289 patent issued (Compl. ¶51). The complaint asserts Medtronic acted with "blatant disregard and conscious avoidance" of Plaintiff's patent rights (Compl. ¶96).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the mechanical elements of the ’280 Patent, such as an “extending block” and a tab attachment via “a pin and a slot,” be construed to cover the specific internal expansion mechanisms and articulating joints used in Medtronic’s Catalyft and Elevate products? The resolution will likely depend on detailed claim construction and expert testimony on the technical operation of the accused devices.
  • Another central question will be one of procedural mapping: does the step-by-step method of using Medtronic’s Catalyft implant with its Grafton DBF Inject delivery system, as instructed in Medtronic’s own user guides, meet every limitation of the method claims in the ’321 and ’289 Patents?
  • A key factual question for damages will be knowledge and intent: what was the extent of Medtronic's knowledge of the asserted patents during the development and commercialization of the accused products, based on the extensive pre-suit interactions alleged in the complaint? The answer will be critical to Plaintiff’s claim for willful infringement and potential enhanced damages.