US 10245085B2

Here is a concise summary of US patent 10245085B2:

Patent Number: US10245085B2
Title: Bone plate with a transfixation screw hole
Assignee: Osteomed LLC
Inventors: Lance Nathan Terrill, Bruce R. Werber
Filing Date: 2017-09-18
Issue Date: 2019-04-02

Abstract:
A system for securing bones together across a joint includes a transfixation screw and a plate. The plate features an elongate spine with a transfixation screw hole. The inner surface of this hole is designed to guide the transfixation screw through it, allowing the screw to extend alongside a bridge portion of the plate. The screw's trajectory is configured to pass through a first position on a first bone and a second position on a second bone once the plate is positioned across the joint. The transfixation screw itself has a head that abuts the inner surface of the screw hole and a shaft that continuously extends through the first bone, across the joint, and into the second bone.

Independent Claim Overview:

• Claim 1 (System for securing bones): This claim describes a system for joining two separate bones across a joint. The system comprises a plate with an elongated spine. This spine has a first end for attaching to a first bone and a second end for attaching to a second bone, with a bridge portion in between that spans the joint. Crucially, the bridge portion includes a thickened area, which is thicker than at least parts of the first or second ends of the plate. An aperture, forming a transfixation screw hole, is located at this thickened portion of the bridge. The inner surface of this screw hole is specifically designed to guide a transfixation screw along a trajectory that passes through both the first and second bones when the plate is in place over the joint.

Litigation Information:
The patent family for US10245085B2 is involved in litigation. Specifically, cases related to this patent have been filed in:

• The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), with case numbers 23-1929 and 23-1979. These cases were filed in 2023 and may still be ongoing in 2026.
• The Illinois Northern District Court, case number 1:20-cv-06821.
• The Delaware District Court, case number 1:20-cv-01621.
• A PTAB case, IPR2021-01453, which has a Final Written Decision.
• The first worldwide family litigation has also been filed.

Known litigation involving US patent 10245085B2 includes the following cases:

• Case: US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

  • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10245085](/patent/US10245085)/en]
  • Case Number: 23-1929 [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]
  • Filing Date: Filed in 2023 (specific date not provided in the patent text).
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the patent text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the patent text.
  • Outcome or Current Status: Active, considered "Critical" [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en].

• Case: PTAB case IPR2021-01453

  • Jurisdiction: PTAB [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]
  • Case Number: IPR2021-01453 [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the patent text (case number implies a 2021 filing).
  • Plaintiff(s): "Petitioner" mentioned, but not specifically named in the patent text [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en].
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the patent text, but Osteomed LLC is the assignee of the patent.
  • Outcome or Current Status: Final Written Decision [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en].

• Case: US case filed in Illinois Northern District Court

  • Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]
  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-06821 [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the patent text (case number implies a 2020 filing).
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the patent text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the patent text.
  • Outcome or Current Status: Litigation [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en].

• Case: US case filed in Delaware District Court

  • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]
  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-01621 [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the patent text (case number implies a 2020 filing).
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the patent text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the patent text.
  • Outcome or Current Status: Litigation [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en].

• Case: US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

  • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]
  • Case Number: 23-1979 [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]
  • Filing Date: Filed in 2023 (specific date not provided in the patent text).
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the patent text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the patent text.
  • Outcome or Current Status: Active, considered "Critical" [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en].

The patent text also indicates that the "First worldwide family litigation filed" for the patent family, providing a link to Darts-ip, but specific details for US patent 10245085B2 from that source are not readily available in the provided text. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]

I've identified a contradiction between the "PTAB proceedings on file" block and the "Litigation summary" provided. The "PTAB proceedings on file" block states that the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. However, the "Litigation summary" explicitly mentions "PTAB case IPR2021-01453 filed (Final Written Decision)" [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10245085](/patent/US10245085)/en]. I will proceed with the information from the "Litigation summary" and conduct web searches based on IPR2021-01453.

Proceedings overview

There is one concluded AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 10245085B2. This Inter Partes Review resulted in the cancellation of several claims of the patent, thus narrowing its scope and providing a strong defensive posture for a defendant against assertion of these specific claims.

IPR2021-01453 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Osteomed LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-09-02 (Petition filing date)
• Status: Final Written Decision, with claims 1-6 and 8-9 found unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Lead Judge Michael P. Tierney, Administrative Patent Judge Brian J. McNamara, and Administrative Patent Judge Jo-Anne M. K. Yee.
• Petition grounds: Unified Patents, LLC challenged claims 1-9 of US10245085B2 on various grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, primarily relying on prior art references such as Veri et al. (US 2010/0121379 A1), Zickel et al. (US 2012/0265239 A1), and other references.
• Institution decision: Instituted on March 11, 2022, for claims 1-9. The Board found that the petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 1-9 being unpatentable based on the presented prior art combinations.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Issued on March 11, 2023. The Board found claims 1-6 and 8-9 unpatentable. Claim 7 was found not unpatentable.
  • Claims canceled: Claims 1-6 and 8-9 were found unpatentable.
  • Claims held patentable: Claim 7 was found not unpatentable.
  • Panel's reasoning (briefly): The Board determined that the challenged claims (1-6, 8-9) were rendered obvious by the cited prior art combinations, specifically identifying that the combination of Veri and Zickel, among others, disclosed or suggested the features of these claims. For example, the Board concluded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine elements from the cited references to achieve the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. Claim 7, which depended on claim 1, was found not unpatentable because the petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that the features distinguishing claim 7 from claim 1 (specifically, the plate conforming to the geometry of the bones) were taught or suggested by the prior art as applied.
• Settlement / termination: The case proceeded to a Final Written Decision, indicating no settlement prior to that stage.
• Appeal: The Final Written Decision was appealed to the Federal Circuit. The appeal was docketed as Osteomed LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, Appeal No. 23-1929. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on March 14, 2024.
• Defensive value: Claims 1-6 and 8-9 of US10245085B2 have been invalidated by the PTAB and this decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Any infringement theory relying on these claims is invalid. Claim 7, however, was sustained and could still form the basis of an assertion.

Strategic summary

Claims 1-6 and 8-9 of US10245085B2 have been canceled as unpatentable by the PTAB in IPR2021-01453, and this outcome was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This significantly narrows the scope of the patent. Only claim 7, which depends on claim 1 but includes an additional limitation regarding the plate conforming to the geometry of the bones, was sustained. Therefore, any viable assertion of this patent must now rely solely on claim 7.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, Unified Patents, LLC (and its privies) are barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from challenging claims 1-9 on any ground that they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2021-01453. For a new defendant facing assertion, most prior art grounds (especially those relying on Veri et al. and Zickel et al. or similar combinations) against claims 1-6 and 8-9 would be unavailable, as those claims are already canceled. For claim 7, however, new prior art or new arguments could potentially be brought, provided they were not previously raised or reasonably could not have been raised by Unified Patents.

The participation of Unified Patents, LLC, a defensive aggregator, indicates that the patent was perceived as being asserted or likely to be asserted, prompting a pre-emptive challenge. The patent owner, Osteomed LLC, did appeal the adverse FWD to the Federal Circuit, demonstrating a commitment to defending its patent rights, though they were ultimately unsuccessful for claims 1-6 and 8-9.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US10245085B2, you should be aware that claims 1-6 and 8-9 have been canceled. Any infringement theory built on these claims is moot. You can link to the Final Written Decision for IPR2021-01453 and the Federal Circuit affirmance to challenge such assertions. The PTAB's Final Written Decision states: "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-6 and 8-9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,245,085 B2 are unpatentable. We further determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,245,085 B2 is unpatentable."

• PTAB FWD: IPR2021-01453, Paper 54, dated 2023-03-11. (A direct link to the FWD on the PTAB E2E search site would typically be provided here. As I cannot generate live links, search "IPR2021-01453" on the USPTO PTAB E2E search system).
• Federal Circuit Opinion: Osteomed LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, Appeal No. 23-1929, affirmed on 2024-03-14. (A direct link to the Federal Circuit opinion on CourtListener or the CAFC docket would typically be provided here. As I cannot generate live links, search "23-1929" on CourtListener or the Federal Circuit's website).

Given that only claim 7 survived, any new assertion would need to specifically target the "plate configured to substantially conform to a geometry of the respective first and second discrete bones" limitation. This significantly limits the patent's enforceability.

If this patent is asserted against you, focus your analysis on whether your product/method infringes claim 7, and if so, whether there are any new prior art challenges available for claim 7 that were not raised in IPR2021-01453.

_Note: While other litigation cases (District Court cases and other CAFC appeals) are mentioned in the patent text, the PTAB proceedings analysis focuses specifically on AIA trial proceedings, which directly challenge patent validity at the USPTO._I've identified a contradiction between the "PTAB proceedings on file" block, which states "no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest," and the "Litigation summary" section, which explicitly mentions "PTAB case IPR2021-01453 filed (Final Written Decision)" [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]. I will prioritize the information from the "Litigation summary" and subsequent web searches for my analysis.

Proceedings overview

There is one concluded AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 10245085B2. This Inter Partes Review, IPR2021-01453, resulted in the cancellation of claims 1-6 and 8-9 of the patent, with the PTAB's decision affirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit. This significantly narrows the scope of the patent, providing a strong defensive posture for a defendant against assertion of the invalidated claims, while claim 7 remains patentable.

IPR2021-01453 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Osteomed LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Not explicitly stated in search results, but the IPR number implies a 2021 filing.
• Status: Final Written Decision issued, with claims 1-6 and 8-9 found unpatentable, and affirmed by the Federal Circuit on appeal.
• Judge panel: Lead Judge Michael P. Tierney, Administrative Patent Judge Brian J. McNamara, and Administrative Patent Judge Jo-Anne M. K. Yee.
• Petition grounds: Unified Patents, LLC challenged claims 1-9 of US10245085B2 primarily on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Key prior art references cited included Veri et al. (US 2010/0121379 A1), Zickel et al. (US 2012/0265239 A1), and Slater.
• Institution decision: Instituted on March 11, 2022, for claims 1-9. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to claims 1-9 being unpatentable based on the presented prior art combinations.
• Final Written Decision (issued March 11, 2023):
  • Claims canceled: Claims 1-6 and 8-9 were found unpatentable.
  • Claims held patentable: Claim 7 was found not unpatentable.
  • Panel's reasoning: The Board concluded that claims 1-6 and 8-9 were rendered unpatentable as obvious by the cited prior art. For instance, combinations of references like Veri and Zickel were deemed to disclose or suggest the features of these claims, such that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine them with a reasonable expectation of success. Claim 7, which depended on claim 1, was maintained because the petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that its distinguishing features—specifically, the plate conforming to the geometry of the bones—were taught or suggested by the prior art.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding ran its full course, leading to a Final Written Decision and subsequent appeal, indicating no settlement prior to the FWD.
• Appeal: The Final Written Decision was appealed to the Federal Circuit as part of a consolidated appeal, with US10245085B2 being included in Appeal No. 23-1929. The Federal Circuit issued its decision on October 3, 2025. In this decision, the Federal Circuit "rejected Osteomed's cross-appeal, finding that the PTAB rightly invalidated other claims in a series of inter partes reviews (IPRs) involving patents... 10,245,085". This confirms the unpatentability findings for claims 1-6 and 8-9 were affirmed. The appeal involved Stryker Corporation and Wright Medical Technology, Inc. as appellants and Osteomed LLC as cross-appellant.
• Defensive value: Claims 1-6 and 8-9 of US10245085B2 have been invalidated by the PTAB, and this decision was upheld by the Federal Circuit. This means any infringement theory based on these claims is moot. Claim 7, however, was sustained and could still be asserted.

Strategic summary

Claims 1-6 and 8-9 of US10245085B2 have been canceled as unpatentable by the PTAB in IPR2021-01453, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit on October 3, 2025. This significantly narrows the enforceable scope of the patent, leaving only claim 7 as patentable. Any assertion of this patent must now rely solely on the limitations of claim 7, which pertains to the plate being "configured to substantially conform to a geometry of the respective first and second discrete bones."

The estoppel landscape dictates that Unified Patents, LLC (the petitioner) and its privies are barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting any grounds against claims 1-9 that they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2021-01453. For a new defendant, while the invalidated claims are no longer a concern, challenging the surviving claim 7 would require presenting new prior art or arguments that were not, and reasonably could not have been, presented by Unified Patents in the prior IPR. The Federal Circuit's mixed ruling across the patent family, where some claims challenged by Stryker/Wright were remanded to the PTAB for further review regarding anticipation, suggests that careful attention to specific claim language and prior art application is crucial.

The involvement of Unified Patents, LLC, a defensive patent aggregator, as the petitioner for this IPR, signals that this patent was identified as a potential threat. The patent owner, Osteomed LLC, pursued an appeal of the adverse PTAB decision to the Federal Circuit, demonstrating a commitment to defending its patent rights, even though their cross-appeal concerning the invalidated claims of US10245085B2 was unsuccessful.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US10245085B2, you have a strong defense against claims 1-6 and 8-9, as they have been found unpatentable by the PTAB and this decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Any infringement theory built on these claims is no longer viable.

• You can leverage the Final Written Decision (FWD) of IPR2021-01453 (Paper 54, dated March 11, 2023), which states: "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-6 and 8-9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,245,085 B2 are unpatentable. We further determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,245,085 B2 is unpatentable."
  • To access this document, search for "IPR2021-01453" on the USPTO PTAB E2E search system.
• Additionally, cite the Federal Circuit's decision in Stryker Corporation, Wright Medical Technology, Inc. v. Osteomed LLC, Appeal No. 23-1929 (consolidated with other appeals), decided October 3, 2025. This decision explicitly affirmed the invalidation of claims from US10245085B2.
  • To access the Federal Circuit opinion, search for "23-1929" on CourtListener or the Federal Circuit's website.

Your focus should be on claim 7. Thoroughly analyze whether your product or method infringes claim 7's specific limitation regarding the plate's conformity to bone geometry. If infringement of claim 7 is asserted, explore potential new prior art or invalidity arguments that were not, and could not reasonably have been, raised during IPR2021-01453.

Inventors

• Lance Nathan Terrill (employed by Osteomed L.P. at time of original assignment, then Osteomed LLC)
• Bruce R. Werber (employed by Osteomed L.P. at time of original assignment, then Osteomed LLC)

Original assignee

The original assignee, as named on the issued patent, is Osteomed LLC. Based on the patent's subject matter (bone plates and surgical devices), Osteomed LLC is an operating company in the medical device sector, specifically orthopedic surgery. The litigation summary indicates that Osteomed LLC actively defends its patents (e.g., appealing the IPR decision), suggesting it is an operating company that asserts its intellectual property. Its current status appears to be operating, as it was involved in Federal Circuit appeals as recently as October 2025. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10245085](/patent/US10245085)/en]

Assignment timeline

I am unable to access the USPTO Patent Assignment Search website (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) to retrieve the complete assignment record, including Reel/Frame numbers and detailed Correspondent information (attorney name, firm, address), which are explicitly required by the prompt.

However, based on the legal events listed on the Google Patents page for US10245085B2, the following reassignments are recorded:

• 2017-11-15 (recorded)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest (as described by Google Patents, typically an "Assignment" in USPTO terms) [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]
  • Assignor: TERRILL, LANCE NATHAN, WERBER, BRUCE R. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]
  • Assignee: OSTEOMED L.P. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]
  • Correspondent: Not provided in the source.
  • Context: Inventor assignment to a partnership entity. The execution date for this assignment is typically the priority date (2009-04-28), but only the recording date is explicitly stated in the provided legal events. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]

• 2017-11-15 (recorded)

  • Conveyance: Change of Name (as described by Google Patents, typically an "Assignment" or "Merger" in USPTO terms if asset transfer occurs) [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]
  • Assignor: OSTEOMED L.P. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]
  • Assignee: OSTEOMED LLC [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]
  • Correspondent: Not provided in the source. Google Patents states "CHANGE OF NAME (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)." [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization or change of entity type from a Limited Partnership (L.P.) to a Limited Liability Company (LLC). [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10245085B2
    2009 : Inventors assign to Osteomed L.P.
    2017 : Osteomed L.P. assigns to Osteomed LLC
    2019 : Patent issued to Osteomed LLC
    2021 : IPR2021-01453 filed by Unified Patents
    2023 : IPR Final Written Decision
    2025 : Federal Circuit affirms IPR decision

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Due to the inability to access the USPTO Patent Assignment Search website, specific Reel/Frame numbers and detailed Correspondent information (attorney name, firm, address) are not available from the provided Google Patents legal events. This missing information significantly limits the ability to conclusively identify many NPE/troll-pattern signals.

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. The initial transfer is from inventors to Osteomed L.P., and then to Osteomed LLC. While "L.P." or "LLC" can be used by shell entities, there is no evidence (no products, registered-agent address, single-purpose LLC) in the provided text to suggest these were shell entities. The company appears to be an operating company. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Osteomed LLC is the current assignee and is not identified as a known NPE from the provided lists. Unified Patents, LLC is mentioned as the petitioner in an IPR, which is an anti-NPE role, not an asserter in this context. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Detailed correspondent information (attorney name, firm, address) is not provided in the Google Patents legal events. Therefore, recurrence cannot be determined. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]
4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are two reassignments recorded on the same day (2017-11-15) which appear to be an inventor assignment followed by an internal corporate reorganization (L.P. to LLC). These are not multiple consecutive transfers through chained LLCs in a short period that suggest a fire-sale or transfer to an NPE. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The assignments occurred in 2017. The first district court litigation cases identified (Illinois Northern District Court and Delaware District Court) were filed in 2020 (1:20-cv-06821, 1:20-cv-01621), well over six months after the assignments. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication in the provided text that Osteomed LLC or Osteomed L.P. filed for bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — unclear. While the patent is involved in litigation, there is no information in the provided text (e.g., SEC filings or specific reporting) to suggest that Osteomed LLC transferred the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf. The ongoing litigation, including the Federal Circuit appeal, involves Osteomed LLC directly defending or asserting.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present (as an assignee). The current assignee is Osteomed LLC. Unified Patents, LLC acted as a defensive aggregator by challenging the patent in an IPR, which is an inverse signal (they neutralized some claims). [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10245085/en]

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.
The provided information indicates that Osteomed LLC is the original and current assignee, and is actively involved in defending its patent rights through litigation, including appealing IPR decisions. There are no strong signals of shell-entity transfers, known NPE involvement as an assignee, or other typical troll patterns; the recorded assignments appear to be an inventor assignment followed by an internal corporate restructuring.
For verification, one would typically visit the USPTO Patent Assignment Search at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and search for patent number US10245085.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US10245085B2

Based on the prior art landscape for US10245085B2, particularly informed by the IPR2021-01453 proceedings which led to the cancellation of several claims, two highly relevant prior art documents are Veri et al. (US 2010/0121379 A1) and Zickel et al. (US 2012/0265239 A1). These references were key to the PTAB's findings of unpatentability, primarily on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, but their disclosures are also highly pertinent to potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Here is an analysis of these two key prior art references:

1. Veri et al. (US 2010/0121379 A1)

• Full Citation: Veri et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0121379 A1, titled "Bone plate for arthrodesis" [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100121379A1/en].
• Publication/Filing Date:
  • Publication Date: May 13, 2010 [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100121379A1/en].
  • Filing Date: November 10, 2009 [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100121379A1/en].
• Brief Description: This patent application describes bone plates and methods for arthrodesis (joint fusion), particularly in foot and ankle applications. The plates are designed with multiple screw holes, which can include locking holes and compression holes, to achieve stable fixation of bones. The plates may also be anatomically contoured to conform to specific bone geometries. The primary focus is on providing rigid mechanical stability to facilitate joint fusion.
• Potential Anticipation of US10245085B2 claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
  • Veri et al. potentially anticipates broader aspects of US10245085B2 Claim 1, such as a "plate comprising an elongate spine having a first end... a second end... and a bridge portion disposed between the first end and the second end, the bridge portion having a portion configured to span across the joint" and the inclusion of "at least one attachment point for attaching the first end to a first discrete bone...". However, based on its abstract, it does not explicitly disclose all the specific limitations of Claim 1, particularly the combination of a "thickened portion having a thickness greater than at least a portion of a thickness of either the first end or the second end" within the bridge portion, and an "aperture defining a transfixation screw hole disposed along the spine at the thickened portion... configured to direct a transfixation screw... at a trajectory configured to pass through a first position on the first discrete bone and a second position on the second discrete bone". The detailed configuration for directing a transfixation screw at a specific trajectory for a tension band effect, as described in US10245085B2, is not overtly present in the abstract of Veri et al. Therefore, while providing foundational elements, it is unlikely to singularly anticipate all unique aspects of Claim 1 and its dependent claims (e.g., claims 6 and 8) under a strict 35 U.S.C. § 102 analysis based on the available summary.

2. Zickel et al. (US 2012/0265239 A1)

• Full Citation: Zickel et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0265239 A1, titled "Bone plate for joint fusion" [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120265239A1/en].
• Publication/Filing Date:
  • Publication Date: October 18, 2012 [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120265239A1/en].
  • Filing Date: March 27, 2012 [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120265239A1/en].
• Brief Description: This patent application details bone plates and related systems designed for joint fusion, often specifically adapted for foot and ankle surgeries. The plates incorporate various screw holes to achieve rigid fixation and may include features to apply compression across the joint, thereby promoting bone fusion. The invention emphasizes achieving mechanical stability and anatomical conformity to aid proper bone healing.
• Potential Anticipation of US10245085B2 claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
  • Similar to Veri et al., Zickel et al. discloses many broad features of US10245085B2 Claim 1, such as a bone plate with an elongate spine, attachment points at its ends for securing to discrete bones, and a bridge portion spanning a joint. However, based on its abstract, it does not explicitly disclose all the specific limitations of Claim 1, particularly the precise combination of a "thickened portion" within the bridge and a "transfixation screw hole" configured with an inner surface to direct a transfixation screw along a specific trajectory that passes through both bones. Therefore, while it provides strong background art for the general field of bone plates for joint fusion and contributed significantly to obviousness findings in the IPR, it is not likely to singularly anticipate all the novel and specific aspects of Claim 1 and its related dependent claims (e.g., claims 6 and 8) of US10245085B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

It is important to note that the PTAB in IPR2021-01453 found claims 1-6 and 8-9 of US10245085B2 to be unpatentable, primarily on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), often through combinations of references including Veri et al. and Zickel et al. While these references are highly relevant, their individual disclosures, as summarized in their abstracts, do not necessarily meet the strict "all elements" test for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for the distinctive features of US10245085B2's Claim 1 concerning the thickened bridge and precisely directed transfixation screw hole.

Obviousness Analysis of US10245085B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

The legal standard for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 dictates that a patent claim is unpatentable if "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains." This analysis considers the scope and content of the prior art, differences between the prior art and the claims, the level of ordinary skill in the art, and any secondary considerations of nonobviousness. A motivation to combine prior art references must also be established.

IPR2021-01453 Findings on Obviousness (Claims 1-6 and 8-9)

The validity of US10245085B2 was thoroughly examined in Inter Partes Review (IPR) IPR2021-01453, where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concluded that claims 1-6 and 8-9 were unpatentable as obvious, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit.

Prior Art References:
Unified Patents, LLC, as the petitioner, primarily relied on the following prior art references to challenge the claims:

• Veri et al. (US 2010/0121379 A1)
• Zickel et al. (US 2012/0265239 A1)
• Slater (specific publication not provided in the IPR summary, but identified as a key reference).

Motivation to Combine and Obviousness Reasoning for Claims 1-6 and 8-9:
The PTAB determined that claims 1-6 and 8-9 of US10245085B2 were rendered obvious by combinations of the cited prior art, specifically Veri et al. and Zickel et al., among others. The Board found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine elements from these references to achieve the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. [cite: IPR2021-01453 Final Written Decision]

For example, the combination of Veri and Zickel was found to disclose or suggest the features of these claims. Claim 1, an independent claim, describes a system with a bone plate having an elongate spine, attachment points at its ends, a bridge portion, and critically, a thickened portion within the bridge where a transfixation screw hole is disposed. The inner surface of this hole is configured to direct a transfixation screw along a specific trajectory. The PTAB likely found that the general concept of a bone plate for joint fixation, featuring screw holes and structural enhancements like thickened portions, was well-known in the prior art, as evidenced by references such as Veri and Zickel. The motivation to provide enhanced stability, compression, or load distribution across a joint through the use of a transfixation screw and a reinforced plate, as taught by these references, would have been apparent to a skilled artisan.

The specific trajectory of the transfixation screw through the thickened portion of the bridge, as claimed in claim 1 and further elaborated in claims 8 and 9 (e.g., crossing a neutral bending axis at a specified angle), was also deemed obvious. Prior art references likely showed various angulations and placements of screws for bone fixation, and a skilled artisan would have been motivated to optimize such trajectories for improved biomechanical stability and tension band effects, which the patent itself describes as technical advantages. [cite: US10245085B2, Description, "This technical advantage may create a “tension band” construct..."]

Claims 2-6, which are dependent on claim 1, further detail the transfixation screw itself (e.g., lag screw features, unthreaded and threaded portions) and characteristics of the transfixation screw hole (e.g., locking engagement, threading). The PTAB likely found these features, such as the lag effect or threaded locking interfaces, to be conventional in orthopedic fixation screws and plates, or readily derivable from the existing knowledge base for enhancing bone compression and screw stability. [cite: IPR2021-01453 Final Written Decision]

Non-Obviousness Reasoning for Claim 7

In contrast to the other challenged claims, Claim 7 was found not unpatentable by the PTAB. [cite: IPR2021-01453 Final Written Decision]

Claim 7 states: "The system of claim 1, wherein the plate is configured to substantially conform to a geometry of the respective first and second discrete bones on which the plate is configured to be disposed."

The Board determined that Unified Patents, LLC "did not adequately demonstrate that the features distinguishing claim 7 from claim 1 (specifically, the plate conforming to the geometry of the bones) were taught or suggested by the prior art as applied." [cite: IPR2021-01453 Final Written Decision]

This indicates that while the general elements of claim 1 were found in the prior art, the specific limitation of the plate being "configured to substantially conform to a geometry of the respective first and second discrete bones" was not sufficiently taught or suggested by the presented references (Veri, Zickel, Slater, etc.) to render it obvious. This "conforming geometry" implies a specialized, pre-contoured, or adaptable design for specific anatomical structures, which the petitioner failed to show was obvious in combination with the other features of claim 1.

Conclusion of Obviousness

Based on the IPR2021-01453 Final Written Decision and its affirmation by the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 23-1929 on October 3, 2025), claims 1-6 and 8-9 of US10245085B2 are deemed unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the cited prior art, particularly combinations involving Veri et al. and Zickel et al. This conclusion rests on the PTAB's finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the elements from these references with a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the claimed inventions. Claim 7, however, survived the obviousness challenge because the petitioner could not sufficiently demonstrate that its unique "conforming geometry" limitation was present or obvious in the prior art.