Untitled case

The case IPR2022-00190 involves a challenge to U.S. Patent No. 9,351,776, owned by Osteomed LLC, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Osteomed LLC is a medical device manufacturer that specializes in the design and production of innovative orthopedic fixation, craniofacial titanium fixation, small bone drills and saws, and various implantable devices used in foot and ankle surgery, serving the global healthcare community and federal government through contracts. The procedural posture of this matter is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) before the PTAB, which has reached a Final Written Decision. This venue is significant as IPRs offer an alternative, often faster, mechanism to challenge patent validity compared to district court litigation, and their outcomes can have preclusive effects on subsequent legal proceedings.

To fully detail the case, the identity and business of the petitioner in IPR2022-00190, the specific accused product or technology, a precise technical sketch of the patent, and details of any related parallel district court litigation are still needed to complete the overview. The notability of this specific IPR also requires further investigation beyond the general importance of IPRs in patent disputes.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for IPR2022-00190

This case centers around an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2022-00190, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,351,776 (the '776 patent), owned by Osteomed LLC. This IPR was part of a series of challenges by Stryker Corporation and Wright Medical Technology, Inc. against Osteomed's patents, which also involved related district court litigation.

Parallel District Court Litigation

Before the IPRs, Osteomed LLC initiated patent infringement lawsuits against Stryker and Wright Medical:

• November 27, 2020: Complaint Filed (D. Del.)
  Osteomed LLC filed a complaint for patent infringement against Wright Medical Technology, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:2020cv01621). The asserted patents included U.S. Patent Nos. 8,529,608; 9,351,776; 9,763,716; and 10,245,085.
• Undated (prior to May 17, 2021): Complaint Filed (N.D. Ill.)
  Osteomed LLC also filed a patent infringement suit against Stryker Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:20-cv-06821). The asserted patents were the same four patents listed above, including the '776 patent.
• Initial Pleadings & Counterclaims (N.D. Ill.)
  Stryker Corp. answered Osteomed's complaint and asserted seven counterclaims. The first four counterclaims sought declarations of non-infringement and invalidity of Osteomed's four asserted patents. Stryker also alleged Osteomed infringed two of its own patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,078,713 and 9,168,074, in counterclaims V-VII.
• May 17, 2021: Motion to Intervene Granted (N.D. Ill.)
  The court granted a motion by Stryker's wholly-owned subsidiaries, Howmedica Osteonics Corp. and Stryker European Operations Holdings LLC, to intervene in the Northern District of Illinois case. Howmedica intervened as a defendant and counterclaim plaintiff, and Stryker European intervened as a counterclaim plaintiff.

PTAB IPR Proceedings and Federal Circuit Appeal

Stryker Corporation and Wright Medical Technology, Inc. subsequently filed a series of IPR petitions challenging Osteomed's patents, including IPR2022-00190 for the '776 patent.

• IPR Filing & Institution (Dates not explicitly found but occurred prior to appeal filings)
  Stryker and Wright Medical challenged four related patents owned by Osteomed in a series of IPRs, including IPR2022-00190, IPR2022-00189, and IPR2022-00191. The petitions for the '608, '716, and '776 patents specifically relied on two grounds: (1) anticipation by Slater and (2) obviousness over Falkner in view of Duncan.
• PTAB Final Written Decisions (Dates not explicitly found but prior to May/June 2023)
  The PTAB issued Final Written Decisions in the series of IPRs, finding some of the challenged claims patentable and others unpatentable. For the '608, '776, and '716 patents, the Board concluded that Stryker failed to demonstrate anticipation or obviousness of the "Tensile Transfer Limitations" in all challenged claims.
• May 22, 2023 - June 13, 2023: Appeals Filed at the Federal Circuit
  Stryker Corporation and Wright Medical Technology, Inc. filed appeals at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging the PTAB's patentability determinations for Osteomed's patents. Case No. 23-1926 was filed on May 22, 2023, Case No. 23-1979 on June 6, 2023, and Case No. 23-2011 on June 13, 2023. Osteomed LLC also filed a cross-appeal, challenging the PTAB's holdings of unpatentability.
• October 3, 2025: Federal Circuit Decision
  The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a split ruling on October 3, 2025, for the consolidated appeals (e.g., Case Nos. 23-1926, 23-2011, and 23-1979).
  • Stryker's Appeal: The Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB's finding that the Slater reference did not anticipate the independent claims of the '608, '716, and '776 patents, concluding that substantial evidence did not support this finding. The court vacated and remanded for further proceedings to evaluate whether the dependent claims were similarly anticipated by the cited prior art.
  • Osteomed's Cross-Appeal: The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's relevant claim constructions.
  • Overall Outcome: The Federal Circuit's decision was "affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and vacated & remanded-in-part," indicating a mixed outcome with some claims surviving for Osteomed, others being overturned, and some returning to the lower tribunal for further analysis. This fragmented outcome leaves the patentability of the remaining claims unsettled pending the remand proceedings.

The effect of the IPRs and the Federal Circuit's decision on the district court litigation is significant. A final written decision in an IPR, particularly one affirmed by the Federal Circuit, can lead to statutory estoppel, preventing a petitioner from raising the same invalidity grounds in district court that were raised or could have been reasonably raised during the IPR. The partial invalidation and remand of claims in the Federal Circuit's decision would directly impact the scope of Osteomed's asserted patents in any ongoing infringement litigation.

In IPR2022-00190, the petitioners are Stryker Corporation and Wright Medical Technology, Inc.. The counsel representing the petitioners in this case include:

• Jonathan R. Davies, Ph.D.

  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: Cooley LLP
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Dr. Davies specializes in patent litigation, particularly in pharmaceutical and biotechnology cases, including Hatch-Waxman litigation. He has deep experience in federal district court practice and advises clients on infringement and validity opinions. He also has extensive experience with proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• Jeffrey J. Van Winkle

  • Role: Shareholder
  • Firm: von Briesen & Roper, S.C. (Note: One search result lists a Chicago office for Jeff Van Winkle under "McDonald Hopkins", but his profile on von Briesen & Roper, S.C. and State Bar of Michigan lists von Briesen & Roper as his firm.)
  • Office Location: Chicago, IL
  • Experience Note: Jeffrey Van Winkle has over three decades of experience in business law, including mergers and acquisitions, international transactions, and providing general counsel services. While his primary focus appears to be on corporate law, the Van Winkle Law Firm (a different entity) has an established practice in patent and trademark infringement litigation and represents clients in proceedings before the USPTO.

It is also notable that Adam Strauss serves as the Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel at Stryker, managing global intellectual property and IP litigation, indicating an in-house counsel role for the petitioner Stryker Corporation.

Based on available information, the counsel of record representing Osteomed LLC in matters related to IPR2022-00190 includes the following:

• Devon C. Beane
  • Role: Counsel (argued for cross-appellant Osteomed LLC in related Federal Circuit appeal)
  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP
  • Office Location: Chicago, IL
  • Relevant Experience: Represented Osteomed LLC in an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning IPR2022-00190 and other related IPRs challenging patents owned by Osteomed.

While other patent attorneys and firms were identified in the search, Devon C. Beane of Alston & Bird LLP is directly linked to representing Osteomed LLC in the Federal Circuit appeal that encompassed IPR2022-00190. It is common for the same counsel to represent a party at both the PTAB and Federal Circuit stages of a patent dispute. To definitively confirm if Alston & Bird LLP and Devon C. Beane were counsel of record for Osteomed LLC specifically at the PTAB stage for IPR2022-00190, direct access to the PTAB's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) docket would be necessary. The provided search results confirm their role in the subsequent Federal Circuit appeal of the IPRs.