PTAB challenges

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.