PTAB

IPR2015-01721

Globus Medical Inc v. Flexuspine Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Artificial Functional Spinal Unit Assemblies
  • Brief Description: The ’714 patent discloses expandable artificial intervertebral implants used to restore and maintain height in the disc space between vertebrae. The device includes upper and lower bodies, an insert, an expansion member, and a set screw that work together to expand the implant after insertion into the spine.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1 and 2 are obvious over Larsen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Larsen (Patent 5,782,832).
  • Core Argument:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Larsen discloses all elements of the challenged claims. Larsen teaches a spinal fusion implant with an upper support member (402) and a lower support member (404). A screw (418) is rotated to advance an expansion member in the form of a camming block (412). This camming block engages an inclined surface (416) on the upper body, causing the upper and lower bodies to separate and expand the implant. Petitioner contended that this structure meets the limitations of an upper body, lower body, expansion member, and a set screw that increases the separation distance. Petitioner further argued that Larsen’s upper body includes an integral insert in the form of a block with the inclined surface (416). As the camming block advances, the upper body articulates via a pin-and-slot arrangement (432, 424), thereby allowing for the claimed "increased articulation." The dependent claim 2 limitation, which requires the insert to interact with the upper or lower body to increase separation, was argued to be met for the same reasons as claim 1.
    • Motivation to Combine: Although a single-reference ground, Petitioner's argument centered on an obvious modification of Larsen. Petitioner asserted that even if Larsen’s integral insert was not considered to meet the claim limitation of a distinct "insert," a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to modify Larsen to use a separate, modular insert. The motivation would be to provide the added benefit of surgical flexibility, allowing a surgeon to select inserts of varying sizes and angles at the time of surgery. This would reduce the need to maintain a large inventory of different-sized implants, a well-known concept in the orthopedic industry.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that substituting a modular insert for the integrated one in Larsen would be a simple substitution of known components. A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the modification would predictably increase the device's functionality without altering its fundamental operation.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1 and 2 of the ’714 patent as unpatentable.