PTAB

IPR2026-00162

Medtronic Inc v. Moskowitz Family LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Expandable Intervertebral Implant
  • Brief Description: The ’367 patent discloses an expandable intervertebral implant for spinal fusion surgery. The device uses a wedge mechanism that, when actuated by a rotation screw, moves between two hinged housing bodies to expand the implant and restore spacing between vertebrae.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation and Obviousness over Palmatier - Claims 8, 9, 13, and 17-21 are anticipated by, or in the alternative obvious over, Palmatier.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Palmatier (Patent 9,445,919).
  • Core Argument:
    • Prior Art Mapping (Anticipation): Petitioner argued that Palmatier discloses every limitation of the challenged claims, primarily through its implant 840 embodiment (Figs. 22-27). The Petitioner contended that during prosecution of the ’367 patent and a related patent, the Examiner overlooked this embodiment and focused on a different Palmatier embodiment that lacked certain key features. Specifically, Petitioner asserted that Palmatier's implant 840 teaches the core structure of the challenged claims:
      • A "first body" (Palmatier's piston component 846) and a "second body" (Palmatier's base component 848) are hingedly connected at one end.
      • A "wedge" (Palmatier's wedge 858) is positioned between the two bodies. When translated by a screw (892), the wedge's angled surface presses against an angled interior surface of the first body, causing it to pivot away from the second body and expand the implant.
      • Crucially, Petitioner argued the Examiner failed to appreciate that Palmatier's second body (base component 848) explicitly discloses a slot at its fourth end designed to receive the second end of the first body (piston component 846) when the device is in a compressed configuration, a key limitation of independent claims 8 and 17.
      • Dependent claims were also argued to be disclosed. For example, claim 9’s requirement for ridges to contact the vertebra in an expanded state was met by Palmatier’s endplate engaging surfaces, and claim 13’s parallel surfaces for wedge movement were shown in Palmatier's planar inner surfaces.
    • Prior Art Mapping (Obviousness Alternative): In the alternative, Petitioner argued that even if Palmatier’s implant 840 does not perfectly anticipate every limitation of claim 17 (specifically the axial alignment of all four ends), the claim is obvious. Palmatier discloses two other highly similar embodiments (implants 40 and 540) where the first, second, third, and fourth ends are axially aligned as claimed.
    • Motivation to Combine: For the obviousness argument regarding claim 17, Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the teachings of Palmatier's implant 840 embodiment with its implant 40 and 540 embodiments. The motivation was to increase the implant’s footprint (surface area). It was well-known in the art that a larger footprint improved biomechanical stability and reduced the risk of subsidence (the implant sinking into the vertebral bone). A POSITA would thus modify implant 840 to have the axially aligned ends of implants 40 and 540 to maximize its vertebral contact area.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because Palmatier itself taught that its embodiments were variations of the same system and that "various modifications may be made." The proposed modification—extending one end of the piston component to align with the base component—was a simple design choice that would not have altered the fundamental expansion mechanism, which was identical across all three Palmatier embodiments.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 8, 9, 13, and 17-21 of the ’367 patent as unpatentable.