PTAB

IPR2026-00124

Medtronic Inc v. Moskowitz Family LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Expandable Implant and Tool System
  • Brief Description: The ’797 patent discloses a system for spinal surgery comprising an expandable intervertebral fusion device and a multi-part tool assembly used to insert, position, and expand the device between vertebrae.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

3.1. Ground 1: Claims 16 and 19 are obvious over McLuen in view of Michelson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: McLuen (Application # 2006/0253201) and Michelson (Patent 7,118,579).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that McLuen discloses the core features of the claimed expandable intervertebral fusion device. Specifically, McLuen teaches an implant with first and second movable portions (expandable tabs) and an expansion mechanism (a rotation screw with extending blocks) that moves the tabs apart. McLuen also discloses "tool engagement indentations" (channels) on the sides of its implant for a tool to secure it. However, Petitioner contended that McLuen does not disclose the specific three-part tool assembly recited in claim 16. To remedy this, Petitioner argued that the tool assembly taught by Michelson supplies the missing limitations. Michelson discloses a comprehensive tool system for an expandable spinal implant, including:

      • A "first tool" (outer sleeve 504) with engagement prongs for holding the implant.
      • A "second tool" (shaft 502) that passes through the first tool and locks it to the implant.
      • A "third adjusting tool" (expander driver 600) that passes through the second tool to engage and actuate the implant's expansion mechanism.
        Petitioner argued that combining McLuen’s implant with Michelson’s tool assembly renders claim 16 obvious. For dependent claim 19, Petitioner asserted that McLuen’s expansion mechanism, which uses extending blocks to push against the movable tabs, inherently discloses the claimed "angled wedge surface" and corresponding "wedge engagement portion."

    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner presented several rationales for why a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the teachings of McLuen and Michelson. First, both references are from the same field of expandable spinal implants and their associated surgical tools. Second, McLuen identifies a known problem—that screwdrivers used for expansion can slip—but only suggests a securing tool with channels, without providing specific details. Michelson's tool assembly directly addresses this problem by providing an integrated system that securely holds the implant (via the first and second tools) while it is being expanded (by the third tool). A POSITA would therefore look to a system like Michelson's to implement the securing function described in McLuen. Third, using an integrated tool assembly like Michelson's is advantageous because it allows a surgeon to both deliver and expand the implant without swapping instruments, which would be safer, faster, and less disruptive to the surgical site.

    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. The modifications required were allegedly routine. For example, Michelson states its expander driver tip can be of "any shape suitable to engage" the expander; a POSITA could have easily configured this tip as a screwdriver to engage the screw head of McLuen’s implant. Similarly, Michelson's implant holder uses prongs that engage slots, and Michelson explicitly states the holder could be adapted for different engagement structures. A POSITA could have readily modified these prongs to engage the external channels on McLuen's implant, a common design for securing implants at the time. Therefore, adapting Michelson’s tool for use with McLuen’s implant was presented as a straightforward design choice.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 16 and 19 of the ’797 patent as unpatentable.