PTAB

IPR2026-00121

Medtronic Inc v. Moskowitz Family LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Artificial Spinal Implant System
Brief Description: The ’755 patent discloses an expandable intervertebral fusion device used to maintain spacing between adjacent vertebrae. The device includes two shells and an internal expansion mechanism that is actuated by rotating a tool, which engages the mechanism to expand the device in situ.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Schäfer (Patent 7,056,343).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Schäfer discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Schäfer’s "extendable spinal implant" is described as having outer sleeves (the claimed "first and second shells") with spinous extensions (the "engagement features"). An expansion mechanism, comprising inner sleeves and a supporting ring, is positioned between the shells. A tool engages a tool-engagement surface (a radial opening) to turn a bevel gear formed by teeth on the inner sleeves (the "turning mechanism"). The petition asserted that Schäfer explicitly teaches rotating this tool about its longitudinal axis to drive expansion, thereby meeting the key limitation the Examiner relied upon for allowance. Dependent claims were also argued to be disclosed, such as the bevel teeth constituting a "rotatable gear" (claim 8) and perforations for bone growth constituting "means for placement of a bone fusion material" (claim 10).

Prior Art Relied Upon: Yeh (Application # 2003/0045877) and Berry (Application # 2004/0059271).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Yeh discloses a primary spinal implant with most claimed features, including top and bottom seats ("shells") and an expansion mechanism (an adjustment ring). However, Yeh does not disclose the specific design of the tool used to rotate the adjustment ring. Berry was introduced to supply a tool that rotates about its longitudinal axis to expand a similar implant. The combination of Yeh’s implant and Berry’s tool allegedly renders the claims obvious.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Berry's improved, less invasive tool with Yeh’s implant to reduce patient trauma, minimize the size of the surgical wound, and decrease procedure time. The petition noted that the art, including Schäfer, recognized the clinical undesirability of tools requiring lateral movement or repeated re-insertion, which Berry’s tool was designed to avoid.
- Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success because Berry's tool was designed for the analogous purpose of expanding a cylindrical implant via rotation. The tool could be readily adapted to engage the tool holes in Yeh's adjustment ring with little to no modification, as both operate on a similar mechanical principle.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Schäfer (Patent 7,056,343) and Suddaby (Patent 6,395,034).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Schäfer reference from Ground 1 to address the material limitations of claims 9 and 20. While Schäfer does not specify the material for its implant shells, Suddaby discloses a comparable intervertebral implant "made of titanium."
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to make Schäfer’s shells from titanium because it was a well-known, standard, and preferred material for spinal implants at the time. Suddaby taught that titanium was "easy to manufacture from common materials," and other art confirmed its "outstanding features" such as excellent biocompatibility and corrosion resistance.
- Expectation of Success: Success would have been reasonably expected, as titanium was the industry standard for such intervertebral devices due to its proven strength, light weight, and biocompatibility. Fabricating Schäfer’s device from titanium would have been a routine and predictable design choice.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations of Schäfer and Yeh (for conical engagement features); Yeh, Berry, and Schäfer (for continuously curving shells); and Yeh, Berry, and Suddaby (for titanium material).

"means for placement of a bone fusion material" (Claim 10): Petitioner argued this mean-plus-function limitation, agreed to during prosecution, requires construction. Based on the specification, Petitioner proposed that the corresponding structure is either an "elastomeric sheath" into which bone fusion material can be injected or, alternatively, an "orifice in the implant that can receive a bone fusion material." The petition's anticipation and obviousness arguments for claim 10 rely on the latter construction, mapping it to perforations disclosed in the prior art.

Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-6, 8-12, and 17-20 of the ’755 patent as unpatentable.