PTAB

IPR2021-01452

Stryker Corp v. OsteoMed LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Bone Plate with a Transfixation Screw Hole
  • Brief Description: The ’716 patent describes systems and plates for orthopedic fixation, specifically for securing two discrete bones across a joint. The invention features an elongate plate with a central bridge portion, ends configured to conform to bone geometry, and a transfixation screw hole designed to direct a screw across the joint to absorb tensile loads.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 9-13, and 16-19 are anticipated by Slater.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Slater (WO 2007/131287).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Slater, which discloses an ankle fusion plate, teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Slater’s plate was described as a system for securing two discrete bones (tibia and talus) across a joint. It allegedly discloses an elongate spine with first and second ends having inner surfaces that conform to the bone, a bridge portion spanning the joint, and a transfixation screw hole (opening 26) for a screw (25) that passes through both bones. Petitioner contended that Slater explicitly teaches that the bridge portion of the plate is thickest at the joint to handle high loads, directly mapping to the "depth" limitation of the independent claims. Dependent claims were allegedly met by Slater's disclosure of specific screw trajectory angles and the use of lag screws.

Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 6, 8-12, and 16-18 are anticipated by Falkner.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Falkner (Application # 2005/00171544).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Falkner, which was not considered during prosecution, anticipates the claims. Falkner teaches a bone plate that can be sized and shaped to conform to bones and may be used to span a joint. The plate includes a first end, a second end, and an intermediate bridge portion. Petitioner argued that Falkner’s disclosure of varying the plate’s thickness for structural stability meets the "depth" limitation. The oblique opening (44) for a threaded fastener (42) was identified as the claimed transfixation screw hole. Furthermore, Falkner’s express teaching of threaded openings to lockably engage screw heads was argued to anticipate dependent claims 6 and 8.

Ground 3: Claims 1-5, 9-13, and 16-19 are obvious over Arnauld in view of Slater.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Arnauld (EP 1897509) and Slater (WO 2007/131287).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Arnauld discloses an arthrodesis plate for a metatarsophalangeal joint that teaches every element of the independent claims except for a bridge portion having a depth greater than the ends of the plate. Slater was introduced to supply this missing element, as it explicitly teaches thickening the bridge portion of a bone plate at the joint to increase strength and durability where loading is highest.
    • Motivation to Combine: Arnauld’s stated purpose is to provide a simple and durable fixation for a joint subject to cyclical bending stress. A POSITA seeking to improve the durability of Arnauld's plate would combine it with Slater's known technique of thickening the bridge portion. This modification would directly address the stress concentration at the joint, which Arnauld identifies as a problem.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as combining the teachings involved applying a known strengthening feature (Slater's thickened bridge) to a conventional bone plate (Arnauld) to achieve the predictable result of a stronger, more durable fixation system.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims 6 and 8 are obvious over Slater in view of Weaver (for its teachings on locking screws); that claims 4, 5, 13, and 19 are obvious over Falkner in view of Arnauld (for its teachings on specific transfixation screw angles); and that claims 6 and 8 are obvious over Arnauld, Slater, and Weaver.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner contended that no terms required explicit construction and that all terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
  • It was argued that a POSITA would understand the claim term "depth" to be synonymous with "thickness" based on the ’716 patent's specification, which repeatedly discusses the "thickness" of the bone plate, and based on Slater's interchangeable use of the terms.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §325(d), asserting that the primary prior art references were not substantively considered during prosecution. Falkner was not cited, while Slater and Arnauld were allegedly "buried" among hundreds of references and never applied in a rejection, meaning the Office erred in failing to consider their relevance.
  • Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, stating that the parallel district court litigations were in their infancy with no trial dates set and minimal investment. An FWD would therefore issue long before any potential trial. To mitigate overlap, Petitioner agreed not to pursue any instituted grounds in the parallel litigation.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-6, 8-13, and 16-19 of the ’716 patent as unpatentable.