US 10695099

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent number and any litigation involving it.

I have good data. Let me retrieve the actual claim text and check for any 2026 CAFC litigation.

Let me retrieve the full claim set for this specific patent.

US Patent 10,695,099 — Analyst Summary

Important scope note: I retrieved the patent document itself and related family/assignment records. I did not find any USPTO proceeding (IPR/PGR) or Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2026 docket entry naming U.S. Patent No. 10,695,099. I also could not retrieve the complete, verbatim claim set (only independent claim 1 in partial form). Uncertainties are flagged below.

1. Bibliographic data

Family (continuations claiming priority to the '099):

• US 16/867,516 → US 11,376,045 B2
• US 17/718,933 → US 12,167,870 B2
• US 18/982,653 → US 2025/0114127 A1

Security interests: Multiple Bank of America, N.A. security-interest filings (2016-11-16, 2017-05-17, 2020-02-28) covering NuVasive and affiliated entities.

2. Abstract

I do not have the verbatim abstract text with high confidence. Based on the specification's "Summary" section and the claim-1 language, the disclosure is directed to a system for intraoperative planning/assessment of spinal deformity correction, combining (i) a spatial tracking system (infrared position sensor + IR-reflective tracking array on a surgical pointer) that digitizes implanted screws and anatomical reference points, and (ii) a control unit that converts the digitized data to rod-bend solutions. The specification also describes generating virtual anatomical reference lines (e.g., central sacral vertical line, CSVL), accepting spine-correction inputs, and outputting rod solutions shaped to engage screws at locations distinct from the digitized locations. Treat the exact wording of the abstract as unconfirmed.

3. Background / problem addressed (from the specification)

Computer-assisted rod bending systems (e.g., the system described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,957,831 to Isaacs) already existed to bend a rod to fit the digitized screw positions. The '099 frames its contribution as improving on that: enabling deformity/curvature correction, not just passive fit — i.e., letting the surgeon specify a desired correction (sagittal, coronal, global balance) so the rod is shaped to move the spine toward a planned alignment rather than merely conform to the current screw positions.

4. Plain-language overview of the independent claim(s)

Caveat: Only independent claim 1 is available to me, and only in part (via a secondary database excerpt). I cannot confirm the total number of claims or whether one or more independent method claims exist.

Claim 1 — System (partial text, quoted from secondary source)

Claim 1 is a system claim for use during a surgical procedure. In plain language, it recites:

1. A spatial tracking system made of:
   • an IR sensor that generates spatial positioning data; and
   • an IR tracking array with multiple IR-reflective spheres arranged at various locations so their position is selectively detectable by the sensor. The array is coupled to the proximal end of a surgical pointer tool, which digitizes the location of an implanted surgical device (e.g., a pedicle screw) based on the sensor detecting the spheres, and relays that digitized location back via the IR sensor.
2. A control unit that:
   • establishes a communication link with the IR sensor to control it,
   • receives the spatial positioning data over that link in order to generate one or more bends for a given rod (the data comprising digitized locations of multiple implanted devices), and
   • contains software on a machine-readable storage medium that converts the digitized implant locations into bend location data for a rod, via steps that begin with receiving, via user input, a first spinal parameter of a patient (the claim text I obtained breaks off here).

Plain-language gist: a navigation-tracked pointer "paints" the positions of the implanted screws, a computer (that also takes in a patient spinal parameter) turns those points into a set of bend instructions for a spinal rod.

Claim-dependency keywords indexed for this patent (Google Patents term-frequency data — suggests scope of dependent claims): "communication" (8 claims), "storage" (5), "pelvis" (3), "detection" (1). This is consistent with dependent claims adding machine-readable storage medium, communication features, and pelvic/anatomical parameters (e.g., pelvic incidence). This is inference from indexed terms, not verbatim claim reading.

Related independent subject matter disclosed (not necessarily claimed)

The specification's stated "broad aspect" describes a system for intraoperative planning and assessment of spinal deformity correction, comprising a spatial tracking system (IR sensor + IR tracking array on a pointer) plus a control unit configured to: (a) receive digitized locations of a plurality of implanted screws; (b) receive digitized location(s) of at least one anatomical reference point; (c) generate at least one virtual anatomic reference line (e.g., CSVL) from that reference point data; (d) accept one or more spine correction inputs (e.g., coronal-plane correction, aligning screws to CSVL); and (e) generate a rod solution output shaped to engage the screws at locations distinct from the digitized locations (i.e., the rod is shaped to move the screws, not just fit them). Whether this is embodied in an independent claim beyond claim 1, I cannot confirm.

5. Litigation / PTAB status (searched, nothing found for this number)

• No CAFC 2026 appeal and no USPTO IPR/PGR specifically naming 10,695,099 was found in my searches.
• NuVasive is involved in other, unrelated patent disputes that surfaced in the search (they do not name the '099):
  • Jackson, M.D. v. NuVasive, Inc. (D. Del.) — spinal-implant patents; in Aug. 2026 the court preserved in part and narrowed a jury verdict (Law360, Aug. 24, 2026). The patents at issue there are Jackson's, not the '099.
  • Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC (D. Del.) — active 2026 docket activity (e.g., D.I. 107–108), involving Moskowitz's patents.
  • Alphatec Holdings, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc. IPRs (e.g., IPR2019-00362 re the '156 patent) and NuVasive v. Warsaw Orthopedic IPRs (re the '997 patent) — different patents again.
• Conclusion: I have no authoritative evidence of any 2026 CAFC docket or USPTO proceeding involving the specific number 10,695,099. If such a proceeding exists, I could not verify it and you should confirm against the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and CAFC CM/ECF directly.

6. Explicit uncertainties

1. Verbatim abstract — not confirmed.
2. Full claim set / number of independent claims — not confirmed; claim 1 text is partial (from a secondary database).
3. Litigation — absence of results is not proof of absence; verify directly with PTAB and CAFC PACER. I did not find any matter naming 10,695,099.
4. Legal status / expiration — "Active, expires 2038-03-28" is taken from Google Patents and is expressly labeled there as an assumption, not a legal conclusion.

Sources consulted: Google Patents (US10695099B2), Justia Patents (patent/10695099), FreePatentsOnline (US 2017/0135770, US 2022/0265369), Patents-Review.com (US 2025/0114127, US 2025/0339210), uspto.report (grant 10,695,099), Law360/court dockets (Jackson v. NuVasive; Moskowitz v. NuVasive), and the patent text supplied in the prompt.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10695099 across patent litigation databases.

Initial results are not on point. Let me search litigation-specific databases directly.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases and case-specific sources.

Litigation search results for U.S. Patent No. 10,695,099

I could not identify any litigation (district court, ITC, PTAB, or CAFC appeal) specifically asserting or challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,695,099 ("the '099 patent").

What I searched

I ran targeted queries against patent-litigation-oriented sources, including Google Patents, USPTO/PTAB (PTACTS), CourtListener/RECAP, Docket Alarm, RPX Insight, Unified Patents' portal references, and general litigation-aggregator results, using the literal identifiers 10695099, US10695099, 10,695,099, US10695099B2, and combinations with the patent title and assignee (NuVasive). No hit named the '099 patent as a patent-in-suit, an IPR/PGR subject, or an appeal subject.

Important caveat about the searches I ran

The queries returned a large volume of NuVasive-related spinal patent litigation, but none of it involved the '099 patent. In particular, the results I retrieved concerned different patents, for example:

• Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. / Medtronic v. NuVasive, Inc., S.D. Cal. (e.g., No. 3:08-cv-01512) — patents-in-suit included the '973, '933, '586, '236 patents (implants, retractors, nerve monitoring), not the '099 patent.
• NuVasive, Inc. v. Cadwell — patents included the '953, '912, and '716 nerve-monitoring patents, not the '099 patent.
• Acantha LLC v. NuVasive, Inc., E.D. Mich. (No. 19-cv-10656) — asserted U.S. Patent No. RE43,008, not the '099 patent.
• Jackson v. Highridge Medical / NuVasive, D. Del. (e.g., 22-891-RGA) and related Jackson–Choice Spine/Zavation matters — screw/receiver patents such as the '932, '292, '856 patents, not the '099 patent.
• Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC, D. Del. (No. 1:25-cv-00711) — patents such as the '363, '293, '854 patents, not the '099 patent.

I am deliberately not treating any of these as litigation "involving US 10,695,099," because none of the sources I retrieved list the '099 patent among the asserted or challenged patents.

Current status

• Known litigation involving US 10,695,099: None found based on the sources available to me.
• Note on the patent itself: Per the Google Patents record, the '099 patent is Active (current assignee NuVasive, Inc.; application US 15/045,084; filed 2016-02-16; granted 2020-06-30; priority date 2015-02-13). Google Patents did not list any "Litigation" entries for this patent in the data I retrieved. That is consistent with my finding of no known suits, but it is not affirmative proof that none exist.

Limitations and recommendation

• My search tooling was capped during this session; the sources I could reach are aggregators that may lag or omit very recent filings, settlement-only matters, ITC §337 investigations, or cases where the patent is asserted in a counterclaim not captured by the indexes queried.
• This is not legal advice or a freedom-to-operate/clearance opinion. Before relying on a "no litigation" conclusion, you should confirm against primary sources:
  • PACER (district court dockets) for NuVasive, Inc. / NuVasive, LLC as plaintiff or defendant;
  • USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for IPR/PGR/CBM filings naming the '099 patent;
  • USITC EDIS for Section 337 investigations;
  • Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket for any appeal;
  • Unified Patents litigation portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) and RPX/Docket Navigator for license-and-settle or non-published assertions.

Bottom line: Based on the information I was able to retrieve, there is no known litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,695,099. I am flagging this as a negative finding subject to the coverage limitations above rather than a definitive statement.

I'll verify the canonical "no proceedings" entry against live sources before reporting.

Targeted searches on the patent number itself and the related family:

Let me check the related family members and any recent NuVasive rod-bending IPR activity.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings on file. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal, most recent ingest) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for US 10,695,099, and my independent web searches surfaced no petition, institution decision, FWD, or Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent. Breakdown: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied. The bottom-line defensive posture is therefore the opposite of the "hardened patent" scenario: there is no PTAB record to cite either way — no claim of the '099 patent has been tested, and no estoppel has attached in any petitioner's favor. A defendant facing assertion today must build its invalidity case from scratch (or rely on district-court Alice/§ 112/§ 103 defenses), and should treat the absence of IPRs as a signal of a patent that has not yet been broadly asserted in litigation rather than one that has been tried and survived.

No proceeding to report

I cannot list a proceeding number, petitioner, panel, or disposition because none exists in the structured data and none appeared in search. Consistent with the operating instruction — "Do not invent proceeding numbers" — I am not going to reconstruct one from the parallel NuVasive PTAB history, which concerns different patents in the same corporate family.

What I checked, and what turned up (none of it on the '099):

Distinguish these NuVasive PTAB matters — they are not the '099 patent (do not cite them as if they were):

• IPR2013-00206 / IPR2013-00208 — NuVasive v. Warsaw Orthopedic over U.S. Pat. 8,251,997 (lateral interbody implant methods); FWDs 2014-07-10, appealed at Fed. Cir. Nos. 2015-1049/-1050/-1058.
• IPR2013-00506 / -00507 / -00508 — Medtronic v. NuVasive over U.S. Pat. 8,361,156 and 8,187,334 (In re NuVasive, Inc., 841 F.3d 966 (Fed. Cir. 2016) — the APA due-process reversal).
• IPR2014-00034/-00035/-00073/-00074/-00075/-00076/-00081/-00087 — Medtronic/Globus challenges to various NuVasive lateral-access and retractor patents.
• IPR2019-00361 — Alphatec v. NuVasive, U.S. Pat. 8,187,334.

None of these involve the '099 patent's subject matter (intraoperative spatial tracking of pedicle screws to generate spinal rod bend instructions) or its specification.

Strategic summary

Claim status of the '099 patent: entirely UNTESTED. No claim of US 10,695,099 — independent or dependent — has been canceled, confirmed, or even substantively construed by the Board. Unlike the older NuVasive lateral-access patents, which were bled through repeated IPRs and reexaminations, this patent (priority 2015-02-13, filed 2016-02-16, granted 2020-06-30, inventor Thomas Scholl, assignee NuVasive, Inc., adjusted expiration 2038-03-28) has no adversarial PTAB history whatsoever. Its continuation/divisional progeny — US 11,376,045 (US16/867,516), US 12,167,870 (US17/718,933), and the pending publication US 2025/0114127 (US18/982,653) — likewise show no indexed AIA proceedings. The patent covers a fairly specific, hardware-plus-software workflow (IR-tracked digitizer pointer, CSVL/C7PL reference lines, color-coded coronal/sagittal balance feedback, and rod-bend instruction generation), which historically correlates with a narrower assertion footprint than the company's flagship lateral-fusion portfolio.

Estoppel landscape: wide open. Because no IPR was ever instituted, § 315(e)(2) estoppel has not attached to anyone. A defendant today may raise any prior-art ground, including art that a hypothetical petitioner "reasonably could have raised" — none of that is foreclosed. Conversely, there is also no FWD finding you can borrow: no claim has been held invalid, no claim has been held valid, and no claim has been construed by the Board (so no Phillips-vs-BRI gap to exploit either). Any invalidity theory must be built de novo against the '099 specification and prosecution history, and § 112/eligibility attacks should be evaluated independently, since the claims recite a spatial-tracking/control-unit architecture that may invite § 101 scrutiny.

Pattern signals. No serial-petitioner pattern, no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar entity appears anywhere in the chain on this patent), and no NuVasive PTAB-appeal activity tied to the '099. The absence of any IPR is itself the salient data point: well-asserted, high-revenue patents in this space eventually attract IPRs (as the 2013–2019 NuVasive docket demonstrates). No IPR here suggests either that the patent has not been asserted in a way that has drawn petitions, or that accused parties have chosen district-court invalidity, design-arounds, or licensing instead.

Recommended next steps

• Do not characterize the '099 as PTAB-tested. If a demand letter or complaint asserts the '099, respond on the merits; there is no FWD to cite and no canceled claim to point at. Any statement implying otherwise (e.g., "claim 1 was invalidated") would be unsupported.
• Verify freshness before relying on the null result. The ODP block is "as of the most recent ingest," and PTAB petitions can post-date it. Re-check USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board PTAB E2E / Patent Center for US Pat. 10,695,099 and the family members, and confirm via the PTAB public-information system. The canonical patent page is https://patents.google.com/patent/US10695099/en ; PTAB filing/decision lookup is at USPTO PTAB (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and decisions at USPTO PTAB Decisions. Any newly located proceeding should be verified against the Board's own filings before it is cited.
• If a petition is filed later, the milestone clock is statutory: institution decision ~6 months from the petition's filing/notification under § 314(b), oral hearing typically ~3 months before the deadline, and the FWD is due within 1 year of institution (§ 316(a)(11), extendable up to 6 months for good cause). Diarize the § 315(b) one-year bar date from the date your client was served with a complaint asserting the '099 — that is the window in which a defensive IPR must be filed.
• Bottom line: No PTAB activity on file for US 10,695,099. The absence is a neutral-to-informative signal, not a defensive asset. Treat the patent as fully intact and unadjudicated.

Caveats: I found no AIA proceeding for this patent and am not asserting one exists. Where search returned NuVasive PTAB matters, they concern other patents and should not be attributed to the '099. Details of any future proceeding (panel, grounds, disposition) should be confirmed directly from PTAB E2E and CourtListener rather than inferred.

I'll research this patent's assignment history and ownership chain. Let me run several searches in parallel.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records and litigation history.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 10,695,099 B2

Patent: US 10,695,099 B2 — Systems and methods for planning, performing, and assessing spinal correction during surgery
App. No.: 15/045,084 · Filed: 2016-02-16 · Issued: 2020-06-30 · Provisional priority: 62/116,230 (2015-02-13)
Adjusted expiration: 2038-03-28 · Status: Active

Sourcing note up front: I was able to retrieve the events in the chain from Google Patents' legal-events table (which mirrors USPTO assignment data) and corroborate the security-interest filings against a USPTO P-TACTS copy of the Bank of America collateral document. I could not retrieve the reel/frame numbers for this patent within this session. Rather than invent them, I have marked every reel/frame field as NOT RETRIEVED — those fields must be confirmed at the Assignment Center before this memo is relied on. Everything below that is stated is sourced.

Inventors

• Scholl is the sole named inventor on the '099 patent. The same inventor is named on the sibling continuation/divisional filings out of the same family (App. 16/867,516 → US 11,376,045; App. 17/718,933 → US 12,167,870; App. 18/982,653 → US 2025/0114127), all assigned to NuVasive.
• No departure pattern. Scholl's filing record shows continuous NuVasive-affiliated activity well past the '099 filing — e.g., US 12,491,010 B2 (Robot assisted rod bending, filed 2020-09-24) and US 2026/0090828 A1 (filed 2025-12-09), both NuVasive, prosecution firm FisherBroyles, LLP. This is the opposite of the "all inventors gone within 12 months" precursor to a portfolio fire-sale. Signal not present.
• Name-disambiguation warning: a different Thomas Scholl appears on BASF SE / Bayer AG / Hoechst AG chemistry patents (polylysine, hydroxyl-group solution rubbers, triazolopyrimidine antivirals). Do not merge those portfolios — the spine-surgery inventor and the polymer chemist are distinct people.

Original assignee

NuVasive, Inc., a Delaware corporation, 7475 Lusk Blvd., San Diego, CA 92121 (per recordable assignment instrument language used by NuVasive; see USPTO legacy assignment reel 035902/0591 for a sister NuVasive application, App. 13/601,986 — different patent, cited only as evidence of the assignee's corporate form and address).

• Line of business: operating medical-device manufacturer. NuVasive designs, manufactures and sells spine surgery hardware and enabling technology — interbody implants, posterior fixation (screws, rods, connectors), neuromonitoring, and its Bendini® intraoperative rod-bending system. >$1B net sales; sold in 50+ countries (Globus/NuVasive investor materials).
• Ships a product embodying the claims: Yes. The '099 specification's own figures are screenshots of "NUVASIVE® Bendini® 3.1.0" (setup, acquire-screws, and bend-instruction screens), and the spec names NuVasive's own rod platforms — Precept®, Armada®, SpherX® EXT. This is not a paper patent; it is a software-plus-hardware product.
• Current status: Acquired. NuVasive merged into Globus Medical, Inc. (NYSE: GMED) under a merger agreement executed 2023-02-08; Merger Sub merged into NuVasive with NuVasive surviving as a wholly owned Globus subsidiary. Deal closed 2023-09-01; NUVA ceased trading on Nasdaq at close of 2023-08-31. NuVasive remains the record owner of the '099 patent; Globus is the ultimate parent.
• Litigation posture (operating-company, both sides of the "v."): NuVasive is a long-standing plaintiff on its own spine IP (e.g., the NuVasive v. Medtronic neuromonitoring litigation; NuVasive v. Alphatec, S.D. Cal., ~nine asserted patents per the 2018 discovery record at gov.uscourts.casd.562707), and it is also a defendant (e.g., Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711, asserting NuVasive's Base/CoRoent lines).

Assignment timeline

Four recorded post-filing events appear in the USPTO-derived legal-events record for the '099 patent. One is an ownership assignment; three are security interests. Reel/frame NOT RETRIEVED for any of them.

• 2016-02-16 (executed, approx.) / recorded 2016-05-02 — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (inventor → company)
  • Assignor: Thomas Scholl
  • Assignee: NuVasive, Inc.
  • Correspondent: Not captured. NuVasive's recordings in this era name in-house Jonathan Spangler, Esq., 7475 Lusk Blvd., San Diego, CA 92121 (VP & Chief Patent Counsel) as the authorizing attorney — observed on the sister-application recording at reel 035902/0591, not on this patent. Verify before attributing. No recurrence pattern can be established from a single chain.
  • Context: Ordinary employee-inventor assignment; inventor rights perfected in the operating company two-and-a-half months after filing.

• 2016-11-16 — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement / Notice of Grant of Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor (Grantors): NuVasive, Inc.; Impulse Monitoring, Inc.
  • Assignee (Secured Party): Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent
  • Correspondent: A P-TACTS copy of a NuVasive/BofA collateral document shows a partial correspondent string "Correspondent Name: TERRY L…" — truncated, not resolvable.
  • Context: Securitization — the '099 family pledged as collateral under a credit facility. The instrument recites the interest "is not to be construed as an assignment of any patent or patent application."

• 2017-05-17 — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement / Notice of Grant of Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor (Grantors): NuVasive, Inc.; NuVasive Clinical Services, Inc.; NuVasive Clinical Services Monitoring, Inc.; NuVasive Specialized Orthopedics, Inc.; Biotronic National, LLC
  • Assignee (Secured Party): Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved.
  • Context: Securitization — expansion/joinder of the same credit facility collateral package.

• 2020-02-28 — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement (Security Interest)
  • Assignor (Grantors): NuVasive Clinical Services Monitoring, Inc.; NuVasive Clinical Services, Inc.; NuVasive Specialized Orthopedics, Inc.; NuVasive, Inc.
  • Assignee (Secured Party): Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved.
  • Context: Securitization — three-and-a-half-month refiling/refreshing of the same collateral grant, four months before the patent issued.

No ownership assignment to any entity other than NuVasive, Inc. is recorded. The 2023 Globus merger was effected by operation of law at the entity level; a merger does not create a per-patent assignment, so the absence of a Globus-named record for the '099 patent is expected, not anomalous. If the BofA facility was paid off at closing, Release records may exist and should be checked.

What I could NOT verify (do not treat as findings)

• Reel/frame for all four entries above.
• Whether any Release of the Bank of America liens was recorded (2016 / 2017 / 2020 grants reversed).
• Asserter-directory status of NuVasive/Globus in RPX Insurance or Unified Patents — not retrieved.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10695099
    2015 : Provisional application filed
    2016 : Non-provisional filed by NuVasive
         : Assignment recorded from Scholl
         : Bank of America security interest
    2017 : Bank of America security interest
    2020 : Patent issued
         : Bank of America security interest
    2023 : NuVasive merged into Globus Medical

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

The only ownership assignment recorded against US 10,695,099 is the 2016-05-02 inventor assignment to NuVasive, Inc. (Thomas Scholl, assignor), and the three subsequent recordings (2016-11-16, 2017-05-17, 2020-02-28) are Bank of America security interests that expressly state they are not assignments of any patent. The patent therefore sits with a large operating manufacturer that ships the very product its figures depict — the NuVasive Bendini® rod-bending system — and that openly litigates its spine IP against competitors (e.g., NuVasive v. Alphatec, S.D. Cal.). NuVasive is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Globus Medical following the merger that closed 2023-09-01, a credit-strength outcome rather than a fire-sale. Not one of the eight NPE signals is present.

Caveat on the strength of this call: because I could not retrieve reel/frame numbers or confirm that the '099 patent itself is in any pending suit, the "assertion" half of the verdict rests on the assignee's general enforcement posture, not on a docket entry naming this patent. The "operating company" half — assignee identity, corporate form, product embodiment — is solid.

Verification link (reel/frame must be pulled here before reliance):
USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 10695099). Legacy mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. PEDS/ODP patent record: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10695099B2](/patent/US10695099B2)/en (legal-events tab used above).

I'll research US Patent 10695099 and its prior art citations. Let me start with searches.

I have good context. Now let me find the specific prior art citations listed in US10695099B2's front page.

Let me look at the USPTO report and Justia pages for the specific citation lists.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent 10,695,099 B2

1. Patent under analysis (identity confirmed, not auto-corrected)

Important caveat on sources. Within my search budget I was able to retrieve the specification, priority chain, and claim concepts of US 10,695,099 B2 (Google Patents / Justia), but I was not able to retrieve the verbatim front-page "References Cited" (Box 56) list for US 10,695,099 B2 itself. What I did retrieve is the "Referenced Cited" list printed on the face of a closely related NuVasive family member, US 10,881,481 B2 ("Systems and methods for performing spine surgery," also listing Thomas Scholl as an inventor), whose background section is textually identical to US 10,695,099's. The two lists overlap heavily but are not guaranteed to be identical. I flag each item below as either confirmed (appears in the patent text/background of US 10,695,099 itself) or family-proxy (from US 10,881,481). I have not fabricated any citation, date, or claim mapping; where I lack the reference's full text, I say so.

2. The single most relevant prior art (confirmed in the patent's own background)

U.S. Pat. No. 7,957,831 — Isaacs

• Full citation: U.S. Pat. No. 7,957,831, "Rod bending system" (Isaacs, et al.), issued June 7, 2011.
• Status: Confirmed — US 10,695,099 B2's own background states: "Recently, in U.S. Pat. No. 7,957,831 to Isaacs, there is described a rod bending system which includes a spatial measurement sub-system with a digitizer to obtain the three dimensional location of surgical implants (screws, hooks, etc.), software to convert the implant locations to a series of bend instructions, and a mechanical rod bender used to execute the bend instructions…"
• Description: A spinal rod-bending system combining (i) a spatial measurement/digitizer sub-system to acquire 3-D locations of implants, (ii) software converting implant locations into a series of bend instructions, and (iii) a mechanical rod bender executing those instructions to produce a custom-fit rod.
• §102 exposure: This is the closest reference. It potentially anticipates the broadest system/claim concepts of US 10,695,099 — specifically the "spatial tracking system (IR sensor + tracking array on a pointer) + control unit configured to receive digitized screw-location data and generate a rod-solution output" combination. It does not, on its face, disclose the correction-specific limitations that appear to be the novel core of 10,695,099 (CSVL / C7PL reference lines, color-coded coronal-balance assessment, lumbar-lordosis-vs-pelvic-incidence sagittal assessment). Those limitations would more likely be §103 (obviousness) arguments over Isaacs in view of spinal-deformity radiographic-classification art, not §102 anticipation. Note: same assignee (NuVasive), so this is prior art for §102/§103 novelty-inventive-step purposes only to the extent it predates the 2015 priority date (it does — 2011).

Incorporation-by-reference items (confirmed in the patent text)

• U.S. Pat. No. 8,255,045 — "Neurophysiologic Monitoring System," filed Apr. 3, 2008. Expressly incorporated by reference for the neuromonitoring system. Relevant only to the optional neuromonitoring sub-system; not anticipatory of the rod-bending/correction claims.
• U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/815,643 — "Systems and methods for performing spinal surgery," filed Mar. 12, 2013. Expressly incorporated by reference for the digitizer/IR-array and bending algorithms. Caution: this is a same-family NuVasive application (it matured into US 10,881,481), so it is a family member, not third-party prior art; it is relevant to disclosure completeness, not to §102 anticipation of 10,695,099.

3. Cited references — full table (family-proxy from US 10,881,481 B2; dates as printed)

Descriptions are based on the printed titles and my general knowledge; I have not verified each reference's full text inside the search budget, so §102 mappings below are provisional. Each should be confirmed against the reference's actual disclosure and against the granted claim set of 10,695,099 (which I could not retrieve verbatim).

U.S. patent documents

U.S. patent-application publications

Foreign patent documents

Non-patent literature (cited on the face of the family member)

4. Provisional §102 mapping to the claim concepts of US 10,695,099

US 10,695,099's disclosed claim concepts (from the published application/specification) are:

1. System claim — spatial tracking system (IR sensor + IR-reflective array on a surgical pointer digitizing implanted screws) + control unit configured to: (a) receive digitized screw locations; (b) receive digitized anatomical reference point(s); (c) generate a virtual anatomic reference line; (d) accept spine-correction input(s); (e) generate a rod-solution output shaped to engage screws at locations distinct from the digitized locations.
2. Dependent concepts — coronal-plane correction; alignment of screws relative to CSVL; vertically straight rod segment; CSVL as the virtual reference line; two-point CSVL definition (iliac crests/mid-sacrum; superior+inferior sacral points); measurement value from two anatomic reference lines (CSVL vs C7PL); color-coded balance/unbalance indicator; intraoperative lumbar-lordosis-vs-planned-pelvic-incidence assessment.

Provisional mapping:

5. Bottom line

• The threshold prior art for US 10,695,099 B2 is U.S. Pat. No. 7,957,831 (Isaacs, issued 2011-06-07) — the rod-bending system the patent's own background acknowledges. It is the reference most likely to be asserted under §102 against the broad spatial-tracking + bend-instruction system concepts, and under §103 in combination for the correction features.
• The distinguishing (likely novel) subject matter of 10,695,099 — virtual anatomic reference-line generation (CSVL), coronal-balance assessment via CSVL/C7PL offset with color-coded feedback, and intraoperative lumbar-lordosis-vs-planned-pelvic-incidence sagittal assessment — is not clearly anticipated by any single retrieved reference; those limitations are best attacked via §103 using the spinal-deformity radiographic-parameter art (Skalli; Le Huec; Smith/Tanguay; Ames).
• Reliability caveat: I could not retrieve the verbatim Box-56 citation list of US 10,695,099 B2 itself, and I could not retrieve the granted claim set of 10,695,099. The reference list and dates above are taken from the family member US 10,881,481 B2 and from the patent's own specification. Any formal §102/§103 opinion should verify (i) the exact "References Cited" printed on US 10,695,099 B2, (ii) the full text/claims of each reference, and (iii) the granted claim language, before relying on this mapping.

If you'd like, I can run a focused follow-up to pull the exact front-page citation list and granted claims of US 10,695,099 B2 from USPTO PatentCenter / Google Patents.

I'll research the prior art cited on this patent's page and related references to build a grounded obviousness analysis.

Let me pull the specific prior-art references cited on this patent's page.

Let me get the actual issued claims of the '099 patent and the cited prior-art list.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,695,099 ("the '099 patent") under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Preliminary contradictions / data-integrity flags

Before the analysis, three flags required by my operating rules:

1. No contradiction with the prior "Litigation summary." That section found no known litigation involving the '099 patent. Nothing in this task's search results contradicts that.
2. The supplied full text of the '099 patent does not contain the issued claim set verbatim. What it contains is the bibliography, classifications, and a "Definitions" section that appears to be a paraphrase/summary of the claimed subject matter (it uses claim-style "comprising:" language and enumerates dependent-feature paragraphs). I therefore analyze the subject matter as summarized in that Definitions section and expressly flag that element-by-element mapping must be re-run against the actual issued claims (and against the priority-support question in §1).
3. I was unable to retrieve the literal "Citations / Cited By" table from the Google Patents page (search step budget exhausted). The references below are those the supplied text identifies, plus references my searches tied to this patent family. Where I rely on a reference I could not confirm appears in the '099's own citation list, I say so.

1. Governing framework and the critical date

The Federal Circuit / Supreme Court framework (Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966); KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007)) requires: (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) level of ordinary skill; and (4) secondary considerations. Under KSR, a combination is obvious where the prior art elements are known, the combination is of familiar elements according to known methods, and it yields nothing more than predictable results — including where the combination is "obvious to try" or arises from a "design incentive" or "market demand."

Critical date. The page reports priority date 2015-02-13 and filing date 2016-02-16. This creates two possible § 102/§ 103 cutoff dates:

• 2015-02-13 (provisional) for claims fully supported by that provisional;
• 2016-02-16 for any claim limitations newly added in the non-provisional (e.g., the intraoperative CSVL / C7PL / PI-vs-LL assessment features appear to be the kind of disclosure added in the non-provisional and in sibling continuations such as US 2017/0135770).

This matters enormously, because several superficially relevant NuVasive/Medtronic/Globus references are later than 2016 and therefore are not prior art to the '099 patent. I classify each below.

2. Proposed level of ordinary skill (POSA)

A reasonable POSA definition (the patent does not state one):

A person with a bachelor's or master's degree in biomedical engineering, mechanical engineering, or computer science, plus 2–5 years of experience in spinal fixation instrumentation and/or computer-assisted surgical navigation; or a practicing spine surgeon with several years of deformity-correction experience working with such engineers; the POSA is familiar with (a) pedicle-screw/rod constructs, (b) 3D optical (IR) tracking and 6-DOF digitization, (c) radiographic spinal-alignment parameters (PI, PT, SS, LL, SVA, CSVL, C7PL, Cobb), and (d) the SRS-Schwab adult spinal deformity (ASD) classification.

This is a narrow, well-defined art with a small universe of actors (NuVasive, Medtronic, Globus, DePuy, K2M, VilaSpine, Mazor), which cuts strongly in favor of combinability under KSR.

3. Scope and content of the prior art

3.1 Primary references (pre-date both candidate critical dates → true prior art)

(A) U.S. Patent No. 8,539,888 ("the '888 patent") — NuVasive, "System and Device for Designing and Forming a Surgical Implant," issued 2013-10-08.
This is the single most damaging reference because it is the '099 patent's own incorporated ancestor. Per the description of it in U.S. Pat. No. 10,433,893 (retrieved at https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/09/a2/62/58c5af23fabc98/US10433893.pdf), the '888 patent discloses a surgical bending system comprising:

"a spatial tracking system to obtain the location of one or more surgical implants and a control unit containing software to convert the implant locations to a series of bend instructions," together with a mechanical rod bender that executes those instructions.

That is, on its face, elements (i), (ii)(a), and the "rod solution output" concept of claim 1.

(B) U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0254326 A1 ("the '326 publication") — VilaSpine Ltd., "System and Device for Designing and Forming a Surgical Implant," published 2009-10-08 (https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0254326.html). This is the published ancestor of the '888 patent and is even more explicit. It discloses:

• determining "the relative location of each attachment element[] and bony structure" using "currently available image guidance devices such as three dimensional digitizers (such as the Polhemus Patriot)" or optical/EM/CT/x-ray means, and letting a computer digitize the information;
• a computer "programmed with the spatial information [to] determine the best way to shape, bend or the like[] the linking device in order to fit the attachment elements," and expressly to take into account the shape of the vertebrae;
• a hand bender (FIGS. 6–7) with a rod pass-through, collet 75, slide block 76 with "click stops 77 at regular intervals" defining bend location, "an angle gauge 85 [with] ratchet teeth 86 [each] five degrees of bend angle," and a rotational gauge/knob 90 — i.e., "Location / Rotation / Bend" instructions, the exact instruction triplet recited throughout the '099 specification.

(C) U.S. Patent No. 8,255,045 — "Neurophysiologic Monitoring System," filed 2008-04-03. Expressly incorporated by reference in the '099 patent itself. Relevant only to the optional neuromonitoring embodiment, not the core claim.

(D) U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0262911 A1 — automated shaping system with sensor feedback (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c3/25/0d/57f7f3b690d3df/US20050262911A1.pdf). Discloses computer-generated actuator commands, closed-loop bend-angle sensing, and comparing the shaped article to "desired shape information." Supports the "rod solution output" element and the "generate measurement value / compare to target" concept generally.

3.2 Secondary references — the alignment-parameter art (pre-date both critical dates)

(E) The SRS-Schwab ASD classification and spinopelvic-parameter literature. The '099 specification itself admits this art:

"The SRS-Schwab classification of ASD was developed to assist surgeons with a way to categorize ASD, and provide methods of radiographic analysis. This classification system helps provide a protocol for pre-operative treatment planning and post-op assessment. The current environment … requires surgeons to examine pre-operative patient films and measure pelvic incidence, lumbar lordosis, pelvic tilt, and sagittal vertical axis … After the procedure, the surgeon examines the post-operative films and measures the same parameters…"

Supporting literature retrieved from a sibling NuVasive family member's reference list (https://patents.justia.com/patent/12357393) includes Ames, C. et al., "Impact of Spinopelvic Alignment on Decision Making in Deformity Surgery in Adults," J Neurosurg Spine 16:547-564 (2012); Angevine, P. et al., "Radiographic Measurement Techniques," Neurosurgery 63:A40-A45 (2008); and Aubin, C. et al., "Preoperative Planning Simulator for Spinal Deformity Surgeries," Spine 33(20):2143-2152 (2008). These teach CSVL, C7PL, SVA, PI, PT, SS, LL, and Cobb-angle measurement and their use as correction targets.

3.3 References that are NOT prior art (post-date the critical dates) — flag to avoid misuse

I flag these explicitly because a careless analysis would wrongly treat the Medtronic '006 patent (which discloses a tracked array on a bone fastener and a computer that "generates three dimensional coordinates of the shape of a spinal rod 300 to be implanted with vertebrae V" from tracked anatomy — see https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/9b/bc/14/33de63e2f1b27c/US10449006.pdf) as the knockout reference. It is not prior art on these dates.

4. Element-by-element analysis of the summarized claim 1

I map the Definitions-section recitation to the prior art. (Claim 1 as I read it: system for intraoperative planning/assessment of spinal deformity correction, comprising (i) IR spatial tracking system with IR tracking array on a pointer that digitizes an implanted device; (ii) control unit configured to (a) receive digitized screw locations, (b) receive digitized anatomical reference point(s), (c) generate a virtual anatomic reference line from those point(s), (d) accept spine-correction input(s), (e) output a rod solution shaped to engage the screws at locations distinct from the digitized location.)

Result of the primary mapping: Elements (i), (ii)(a), (ii)(d), and (ii)(e) are supplied by the NuVasive/VilaSpine lineage ('888, '326) alone. The only genuinely "missing" elements are (ii)(b) and (ii)(c) — digitizing anatomical landmarks and deriving a virtual reference line — and those are the subject of the alignment-parameter art (E).

5. The combinations and why a POSA would make them

Combination 1 (primary): '888 patent / '326 publication + SRS-Schwab spinopelvic-parameter art (E)

Where each reference reaches: '888/'326 supplies the full hardware/software stack (IR spatial tracking → digitized implant points → control unit → bend instructions → mechanical bender with Location/Rotation/Bend readouts). (E) supplies the analytical layer — CSVL, C7PL, PI, PT, SS, LL, SVA, Cobb — and the purpose of intraoperative assessment.

Motivation to combine (KSR factors):

1. Same field, same problem, same assignee. Both address posterior thoracolumbar deformity correction with pedicle screws and rods. The '099 background explicitly frames the problem as the same one the SRS-Schwab protocol addresses.
2. The prior art itself articulates the unmet need. The '099 family's own background states: "A need exists for systems and methods for assessing these and other spinal parameters intraoperatively and assessing changes to these intraoperative spinal parameters as a surgical procedure progresses toward a pre-operative plan." That is a textbook known problem awaiting a known solution — the strongest form of motivation under KSR.
3. No new hardware. The digitizer is already in the operator's hand acquiring screw points. Adding "touch the sacrum and C7 with the same pointer" is a predictable, costless extension of a known device — precisely the "use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way" (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417).
4. Predictable results. Deriving a virtual line from two digitized 3D points is deterministic geometry. Displaying a numeric offset between two reference lines is routine computation.
5. Design incentive / market demand. The spec and the industry literature (Ames 2012) tie spinopelvic alignment to HRQOL, creating an express incentive to bring the pre-op/post-op Schwab workflow intraoperatively.

Combination 2 (alternative): '888/'326 + US 2005/0262911 (closed-loop shaping) + Aubin 2008 (deformity planning simulator)

Useful if the examiner/petitioner treats "rod solution output" as requiring a computed target shape rather than a merely digitized one. '291 supplies computer-generated target shapes and feedback; Aubin supplies computer-assisted deformity-correction planning. Motivation: both are in the same computer-assisted orthopedic-surgery field and address pre-operative planning → intraoperative execution.

Combination 3 (dependent claims): + Known intraoperative navigation & GUI conventions

The dependent features fall almost entirely to predictable variation:

• "spine correction input is coronal-plane correction"; "aligning all digitized screw locations relative to the CSVL in the coronal plane"; "vertically straight rod along at least a portion" → the '326 publication's express teaching to "address, straighten, or alter abnormalities in alignment," combined with (E)'s teaching that CSVL is the coronal vertical reference. Straightening scoliotic screw points into vertical alignment is the literal definition of scoliosis correction.
• "≥2 anatomical reference points … left iliac crest, right iliac crest, and the midpoint of the sacrum"; "superior and inferior point on the sacrum" → both are standard, interchangeable radiographic landmark sets for defining CSVL; selecting among them is an obvious design choice among a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (KSR; In re Kubin). The '099 itself describes both alternatives, which is a hallmark of routine optimization.
• "measurement value … offset distance between CSVL and C7PL"; "assess intraoperative spinal balance"; "coronal offset distance" → (E) teaches C7PL offset (coronal and sagittal) as a core balance metric. Comparison/offset computation is routine.
• "communication may be a color; first color = balanced, second color = unbalanced" → design choice / non-functional descriptive label. Color-coded status indicators in surgical navigation GUIs were ubiquitous; and the '099 itself concedes the convention in the setup screens (digitizer icon "gray/green/red"). No unexpected result; obvious under KSR.
• "intraoperative lumbar lordosis angle and a planned pelvic incidence angle"; "variance between intraoperative LL and planned PI" → This is the SRS-Schwab PI–LL mismatch criterion, verbatim, and is admitted prior art in the '099 background. Applying an admitted pre-operative parameter intraoperatively is the core KSR fact pattern.

6. Secondary considerations

No evidence of secondary considerations appears in the supplied text. Note two cautions:

• The spec's asserted benefits ("decreased OR time," "reduced screw strain," "minimized residual rod overhang," "single pass") are predictable advantages flowing from applying known bend instruction generation to known correction parameters — the Federal Circuit routinely discounts such "results" where they are the natural consequence of the combination (KSR; Pfizer v. Apotex). Also, several of those benefits are already claimed for the '888/'326 lineage, not newly created by the '099.
• The large continuation family (US 11,376,045; US 12,167,870; US 2025/0114127; plus US 11,998,242 / US 12,357,393) and the commercial Bendini®/iGA product are potential objective-indicia arguments (copying, commercial success, industry praise), but none is evidenced here and all are vulnerable to the "blocking patents / features not claimed" rebuttal.

7. Weaknesses in the obviousness case (steelman for the patentee)

To be candid about where a § 103 challenge would be contested:

1. "Virtual anatomic reference line generated from digitized anatomical reference point(s)" is the most defensible limitation. A patentee will argue the prior art teaches digitizing implants, and the alignment literature teaches measuring lines off radiographs, not off digestion of landmarks with the same tracked pointer. A petitioner must supply evidence — a second reference or POSA declaration — that landmark digitization to build CSVL/C7PL intraoperatively was known or routine. The '326 publication's "digitizing … the bony structure" passage helps, but the record should be filled out.
2. "locations distinct from the digitized location" — the patentee may argue this imports a specific reduction workflow (bend the rod to a target that is off the as-acquired screw positions). The rebuttal is that this is inherent in "altering abnormalities in alignment," but a petitioner should not rely on inherency alone.
3. The preambles "for intraoperative planning and assessment" are likely non-limiting, but if given weight, the petitioner needs art showing the intraoperative (vs. pre/post-op) use of the parameters. The '099 background's own admission of the need largely supplies this.
4. Priority / written-description risk cuts both ways. If the CSVL/C7PL/PI-LL limitations are not entitled to the 2015 provisional, the operative date is 2016-02-16, which does not enlarge the prior art much here — but it does mean the analysis must be run against the correct claims, which the supplied text does not give me.

8. Bottom line

• Most probable § 103 ground: Claim 1 (and the coronal/CSVL-dependent claims) is obvious over U.S. Pat. No. 8,539,888 and/or U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0254326 A1, in view of the SRS-Schwab/adult-spinal-deformity alignment-parameter art (e.g., Ames et al. 2012; Angevine et al. 2008; Aubin et al. 2008), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0262911 A1 for the rod-shape-computation and feedback elements.
• The dependent claims add little: they recite well-known alignment metrics (CSVL, C7PL, PI–LL mismatch, Cobb, lumbar lordosis) and GUI conventions (color-coded indicators, ± adjustment buttons, percentage-of-correction sliders) that are either admitted prior art in the '099 background or predictable design choices.
• Strongest patentee position: the specific "digitize landmarks → build a virtual anatomic reference line → derive a correction rod that engages the screws off the digitized points" sequence in a single integrated intraoperative workflow. That is where a petitioner should focus its motivation-to-combine and POSA-declaration evidence.
• Weakest link in my analysis (repeat): I do not have the verbatim issued claims and I could not retrieve the page's literal prior-art citation list within this session's tool budget. The reference-by-reference mapping above is anchored to the patent's own Definitions section and to references I could verify; before filing or relying on this, re-run it against the actual claims and the actual "Citations/Cited By" table at https://patents.google.com/patent/US10695099B2/en. This is an analytical opinion, not legal advice.