US 11376045

I'll search for authoritative information on US 11,376,045, including any USPTO records and CAFC 2026 docket activity.

Let me pull the full claim set and abstract, and check specifically for any 2026 Federal Circuit activity involving this patent.

Let me get the full claim set and abstract from the Justia record, and check for any 2026 litigation/PTAB activity naming this patent.

US 11,376,045 B2 — Summary

Important scope note up front: I was able to pull the bibliographic data and claim text from Google Patents (the authoritative text you supplied) and the patent's Justia record, but I was not able to confirm any 2026 CAFC docket, appeal, or PTAB proceeding naming this specific patent. Details and caveats are in the last two sections.

Bibliographic data

Family/continuity (from the sibling application's cross-reference): 16/867,516 is a division of 15/045,084 (filed 2016-02-16, now US 10,695,099), which claims benefit of provisional 62/116,230 (filed 2015-02-13). 16/867,516 itself is the parent of 17/718,933 (now US 12,167,870 B2) and, via it, of 18/982,653 (pub. US 2025/0114127 A1). Source: https://www.patents-review.com/a/20250114127-systems-methods-planning-performing-assessing-spinal.html

Abstract: I do not have an authoritative copy of the granted abstract for 11,376,045. The Google Patents text supplied does not include the abstract field. The sibling publication US 2025/0114127 A1 carries the abstract "A system for use during a surgical procedure includes a control unit configured to obtain a first anatomical characteristic of a patient; measure a second anatomical characteristic of a patient; create a targeted second anatomical characteristic; and convert at least one of the measured second anatomical characteristic and the targeted second anatomical characteristics to a patient position." I am flagging this as a likely-but-unconfirmed abstract for the '045 patent; do not treat it as verified for this number.

Independent claim (plain language)

Based on the Justia claim text (https://patents.justia.com/patent/11376045#4), claim 1 is a method claim — and it is materially different from the "spatial tracking / rod bending system" language that dominates the specification's summary section. Claim 1 covers an intraoperative pelvic-positioning / sagittal-alignment workflow:

1. Obtain the patient's pelvic incidence (PI) angle — via the processing system (either by user entry of three anatomical landmark points on an image, or by direct numeric input; see dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 10).
2. Measure a first sacral slope (SS) (e.g., the angle between the S1 endplate and a vertical line; claim 6).
3. Compute a "targeted sacral slope" using the geometric PI↔PT relationship (claim 4 states it explicitly: targeted SS = PI − desired pelvic tilt).
4. Output instructions to the user to convert the patient's position to a modified position achieving that targeted SS by anteverting the patient's pelvis.
5. While or after anteverting, measure a second SS value and display an indication of whether the second SS has reached the targeted SS.

Dependent claims 2–15 add: three-point PI definition; direct PI input; PI = PI based on posterior/anterior S1 endplate points + femoral head center; SS = S1 endplate vs. vertical line; conversion of measured/target SVA to patient position; actual-vs-target patient position UI elements; actually anteverting the pelvis (claim 9, a method step); IR-tracked surgical pointer input (claim 10); on-screen landmark marks and coronal-view geometric lines drawn over a fluoroscopic image (claims 11–13); intraoperative SS measurement using at least two radiodense markers on a C-arm receiver face (claim 14); and an SVA workflow using C-arm height differences at S1 vs. C7 mid-body with an out-of-range alert (claim 15).

Claim 9 ("further comprising: anteverting the patient's pelvis") is noteworthy — it adds a physical, patient-contacting step to what are otherwise largely computational/UI steps.

I could not confirm the total claim count, nor whether additional independent claims (e.g., a system claim or CRM claim) exist. The Justia excerpt I retrieved ran sequentially through claim 15 and was truncated mid-claim-15. Given the family's sibling applications recite "system" claims, additional independent claims are plausible but unverified here.

Notable discrepancy worth flagging

The specification text supplied with this record contains a "Definitions"/summary section reciting a system claim ("a system for intraoperative planning and assessment of spinal deformity correction … comprising: a spatial tracking system comprising an IR sensor and an IR tracking array …"), plus CSVL/C7PL coronal-balance embodiments. However, the granted independent claim 1 as issued is a sacral-slope/patient-anteversion method, not that coronal-balance system. This is consistent with issuance of a divisional: the system/CSVL subject matter appears to have been prosecuted in one or more siblings (e.g., US 10,695,099 and US 12,167,870 B2). When analyzing infringement or validity, use the issued claims, not the specification's summary paragraphs.

Litigation / docket search results — no 2026 CAFC docket found for this patent

Searches of USPTO/PTAB and Federal Circuit materials did not surface any appeal, IPR, or CAFC 2026 docket naming 11,376,045. What the searches did return (all involving different patent numbers — noted here only to avoid false matches):

• Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive (e.g., D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711): asserts Moskowitz patents such as the '284, '363, '940, '567 and '743 patents against NuVasive. None of the asserted numbers is 11,376,045. (https://ai-lab.exparte.com/documents/dct/[4575805](/patent/4575805)/1-25-cv-00711_ded_complaint_exparte.pdf)
• In re NuVasive, Inc., 841 F.3d 966 (Fed. Cir. 2016): Medtronic IPRs on NuVasive spinal-fusion implant patents (APA/due-process reversal). Not this patent, and not 2026.
• Khan v. NuVasive, LLC, 4th Cir. No. 25-1954 (decided Jan. 28, 2026): products-liability appeal, unpublished per curiam affirmance. Not a patent case. (https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/[251954](/patent/251954).U.pdf)

Uncertainty statement

• Abstract: not authoritatively confirmed for this number (see above).
• Inventor list: Google Patents and the assignment record both list only Thomas Scholl. Related foreign family members (e.g., JP 2019045564) list a broader group (Scholl, Isaacs, White, Pothier, German, Finley, Gharib, Peterson). I cannot confirm whether the '045 grant lists additional inventors not captured in the sources I retrieved.
• Total claims / additional independent claims: not confirmed.
• CAFC 2026 activity: I found no evidence of any. I could not query the CAFC docket system or USPTO PatentCenter directly from this environment, so this is a negative search result, not a definitive clearance.
• All identifiers (11,376,045 / 16/867,516 / etc.) are interpreted exactly as printed in the sources; no auto-correction applied.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 11376045 across patent litigation sources.

Let me search more targeted litigation sources.

Let me search specific litigation databases directly.

Summary Answer

I could not locate any litigation that specifically names U.S. Patent No. 11,376,045 as an asserted patent. Based on the sources I was able to search, I have no confirmed record of a lawsuit (district court, ITC, or Federal Circuit appeal) in which US 11,376,045 is identified by number as a patent-in-suit. I am reporting that as a negative finding rather than asserting with certainty that none exists — see the caveats below.

Why this is a "no confirmed result" answer, not "no litigation exists"

What I did and did not reach

I ran multiple queries against general web search plus litigation-oriented content (Unified Patents material, RPX Insight documents, Justia / CourtListener RECAP documents, PTAB filings, and news/10-K coverage of spine-industry patent disputes). I was not able to directly query the Unified Patents litigation portal case list, PACER, or RPX's docket product in this session, and those are precisely the databases that would give an authoritative hit-or-miss. Queries for the literal strings 11376045 and 11,376,045 returned no docket, complaint, or case-list entry tying that number to a case. The only content that surfaced referencing the number was the patent document itself (Justia Patent #11,376,045, issued July 5, 2022).

Accordingly, the honest characterization is: no known/confirmed litigation identified in the sources reachable here.

Patent identification (to avoid conflation with similar numbers)

Interpreting the identifier literally, per your instruction:

A key reason I am cautious: this patent number is easily confused with other NuVasive spinal patents (e.g., the '045-style rod-bending / spinal-correction family) and with the many NuVasive patent numbers in the '832, '801, '531, '973, '933, '767, '866, '200, '444, '273, '292 and '856 series that are heavily litigated. Those are different patents and must not be attributed to US 11,376,045.

Context I did find (explicitly NOT about the '045 patent)

NuVasive, Inc. is a serial patent plaintiff and has been a defendant in several major spine-industry disputes. Litigation involving NuVasive that my search surfaced includes (each involving other patent numbers, not '045):

• NuVasive, Inc. v. Alphatec Holdings, Inc. — S.D. Cal., Case No. 3:18-cv-00347 (and related), asserting patents such as the '832, '801 and '531 patents (lateral access/retractor technology). NuVasive asserted claims 1, 3, 9, 10 of the '832 patent, claims 1, 2, 15, 16, 26 of the '801 patent, and claims 1 and 39 of the '531 patent. Trial was set for January 2022.
• NuVasive, Inc. v. Cadwell Laboratories / Cadwell Industries — asserting the '953, '912 and '716 patents (nerve monitoring), products: Cascade / Cascade Elite / Cascade Pro.
• NuVasive, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc. — D. Del. (2010), MARS 3V retractor; settled 2015. Also a related employee/contract dispute resolved 2015.
• NuVasive, Inc. v. 4WEB, Inc. / 4WEB, LLC — S.D. Cal. (2024-2025), including discovery disputes (apex deposition of a NuVasive executive).
• Warsaw Orthopedic / Medtronic Sofamor Danek v. NuVasive — S.D. Cal. No. 08-cv-01512 (the '973, '933, '586, '236 patents; XLIF/CoRoent/MaXcess), Federal Circuit Nos. 2013-1576, -1577.
• Jackson v. NuVasive — D. Del., Case No. 1:21-cv-00053 (Jackson Group asserted the '932, '711, '200, '444, '866, '273, '292 and '856 patents against NuVasive's Reline, Armada, Precept, SpheRx and VuePoint II systems; licensing/2014 Development and License Agreement dispute).

Note also the corporate change: NuVasive, Inc. combined with Globus Medical in a merger completed in September 2023, so any post-2023 enforcement of NuVasive-owned patents (including the '045 family) would likely be brought by or under the Globus/NuVasive entity.

None of the above lists US 11,376,045.

Recommended verification steps (since my result is a negative that could be incomplete)

Because the '045 patent issued only on July 5, 2022, and is a continuation in an actively expanding family (continuations filed 2022 and 2024), any assertion of this patent would be recent and could post-date the sources I could reach. To confirm definitively, I would check:

1. Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation) — search the patent number directly.
2. RPX Insight — patent number lookup showing all district court and PTAB matters.
3. PACER / Docket Alarm / CourtListener RECAP — search the patent number as a text string across complaints (asserted patents are typically listed in the complaint body).
4. USPTO Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) — check for any IPR/PGR filed against US 11,376,045 (these often correlate with parallel district court suits).
5. Globus Medical / NuVasive SEC disclosures (10-K, 10-Q) — legal proceedings notes list material patent suits by patent number.

Bottom line: On the record available to me, I found no known litigation involving US Patent 11,376,045. I am flagging this as a provisional negative rather than a guarantee, because I could not directly query the primary litigation databases (Unified Patents portal, PACER, RPX) in this session, and the patent's recent issuance and pending continuation family make a current or imminent assertion plausible. I recommend confirming against the five sources above before relying on this answer.

I'll start by verifying the structured data against live sources before drafting anything.

The first pass surfaced a lot of NuVasive PTAB history, but nothing tied to the '045 patent specifically. Let me narrow further.

No hits tying the '045 patent to any AIA trial. Let me check the family and any litigation assertion, which is where a future petition would originate.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 11,376,045: zero. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal) reports no AIA trial proceedings, and my independent web searches surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition, institution decision, or Final Written Decision naming this patent. There is therefore no breakdown into active / invalidated / sustained / settled / institution-denied — every bucket is empty, and no claim of US 11,376,045 has been canceled, narrowed, or even tested at the PTAB. For a defendant being asserted against today, the defensive posture is the opposite of the "hardened patent" scenario the format anticipates: you inherit an un-narrowed patent with a clean PTAB record, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel running against you, and a fully open (though time-sensitive) IPR option. Because no prior petitioner exhausted the good art, the strongest invalidity case against this patent is still, as a matter of law and evidence, unbuilt.

Caveat on scope: I am reporting an absence, which is inherently harder to prove than a presence. I searched PTAB-side and litigation-side sources and found nothing; I could not run a docket-level search of PTAB E2E or PatentCenter before my tool budget expired. Treat this as "no PTAB activity identified," not "certified zero," and re-verify in PTAB E2E and PatentCenter before advising a client to rely on it.

No proceeding to report

There is no proceeding number to populate here, and I will not invent one. The following is what I affirmatively checked:

• Structured data (canonical): no AIA trial proceedings returned for US 11,376,045 / application 16/867,516.
• Targeted web searches for US11376045 IPR, "11,376,045" PTAB petition, and "11376045" patent litigation asserted complaint returned only (a) PTAB materials concerning older, different NuVasive patents in the XLIF/access-platform family, and (b) unrelated litigation involving NuVasive, Moskowitz Family LLC, 4web, and Dr. Jackson. Nothing touching this patent.
• Family searches for IPRs against the 2015-02-13 priority family (siblings US 10,695,099, US 11,997,842, US 12,167,870, and co-pending US 18/982,653 → US 2025/0114127 A1) likewise produced no AIA trial against this family.

Adjacent PTAB activity — different patents, do not conflate

My searches did surface genuine but off-target NuVasive PTAB history from snippets. I flag it only so you don't mistake it for coverage of the '045 patent; I did not verify these dispositions and you should not cite them without pulling the papers:

• Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR2014-00075 / -00076 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,016,767); IPR2014-00081 / -00087 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,005,535); IPR2014-00034 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,000,782); IPR2014-00073 / -00074 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,192,356) — the 2014 Medtronic wave against NuVasive's lateral-access patents, with a combined oral hearing on 2014-12-04.
• Alphatec Spine, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR2019-00546 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,187,334), filed 2019-01-10, instituted 2019-07-09.
• Federal Circuit appeals from that other family: In re NuVasive, Inc., No. 15-1841 (Fed. Cir. 2017-05-31) and NuVasive, Inc. v. Hirshfeld, No. 20-1708 (Fed. Cir. 2021-08-18, nonprecedential), both concerning nerve-monitoring reexamination/IPR of the '767-family.

None of these patents is US 11,376,045. The takeaway is that NuVasive's access-platform portfolio has been heavily IPR'd by Medtronic and Alphatec, while its 2015-02-13 spinal-correction planning portfolio — the family containing this patent — has, on my search, never drawn a petition.

• Defensive value: zero estoppel, zero canceled claims, zero FWD to lean on. Conversely, zero adverse precedent for the patent owner either — the claims come to you as issued and fully intact.

Strategic summary

Claim status: 100% UNTESTED. All claims of US 11,376,045 stand as issued (patent granted 2022-07-05; priority 2015-02-13; active with adjusted expiration 2036-02-28, per the structured data). Nothing is CANCELED and nothing is SUSTAINED-by-the-Board, because no trial ever began. I did not independently verify the claim set and numbering from the granted text — the Google Patents scrape provided only the specification and a claim-style summary paragraph — so before building any invalidity chart, pull the actual claims from PatentCenter and confirm the independent/dependent structure. Structurally, the family's claims are system claims directed to intraoperative planning/assessment of spinal deformity correction: an IR spatial tracking system with a pointer and tracking array, a control unit that receives digitized screw and anatomical-reference-point data, generates a virtual anatomic reference line (the specification works the central sacral vertical line (CSVL) and C7 plumb line (C7PL) hard), accepts spine-correction inputs (coronal and sagittal), and outputs a rod-bend solution shaped to engage screws at locations distinct from the digitized locations. Those are the limitations to attack.

Estoppel landscape is maximally favorable to a defendant — for now. Because no IPR was ever filed, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is nonexistent; no prior petitioner's grounds are foreclosed to you, and you are not bound by anyone's claim constructions. The two live constraints are (i) timing — § 315(b)'s one-year clock runs from service of a complaint alleging infringement of this patent, and given the 2022-07-05 issuance, that clock may already have run if the patent was asserted years ago; and (ii) § 325(d)/§ 314(a) discretion, which under current USPTO practice (Director-level control of institution and the 2025 proposed rules tightening parallel-litigation and previously-upheld-claim denials) makes a new petition harder to get instituted today than in 2015. So: verify service dates first; if the one-year window is open, file early and cleanly, because discretionary denial risk rises with delay and with duplicative art.

Pattern signals. (1) No repeat-petitioner pattern exists on this patent — there is no first petitioner at all. (2) NuVasive is a serial continuation filer on this family: the '045 patent is a 2020-05-05 continuation off the 2015-02-13 priority, and the structured data shows a still-live chain — US 17/718,933 → US 12,167,870 B2 (priority 2022-04-12) and US 18/982,653 → US 2025/0114127 A1 (priority 2024-12-16), plus siblings US 10,695,099, US 11,997,842, US 11,357,579, US 10,709,509, and US 12,357,393. This means (a) invalidating the '045 patent does not clear the field — fresh sibling claims covering the same disclosure will issue and are themselves IPR-eligible without any estoppel from an '045 challenge; and (b) a defendant should consider a family-wide validity strategy rather than a single-patent IPR. (3) There is no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) anywhere in this patent's chain — it is a pure operating-company patent owned by NuVasive, not an NPE assertion target, which further explains the thin PTAB history.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant: there is no FWD to quote and no canceled claim to disarm the demand letter. Do not tell a court or a counterparty that any claim of this patent has been invalidated — it has not. Instead, treat the empty PTAB docket as an opportunity: commission a prior-art search against the 2015-02-13 priority date, with particular attention to pre-2015 computerized spinal rod-bending and surgical-navigation art (the specification itself cites U.S. Pat. No. 7,957,831 to Isaacs for a rod bending system with a spatial measurement subsystem and digitizer — that is an obvious starting point for § 103 combinations).
• Run the § 315(b) clock. Determine the exact date NuVasive served any complaint alleging infringement of US 11,376,045 (or a parent claiming the same priority, for privity analysis). If the one-year window has closed for your client, assess whether a different real party in interest or a § 315(a)/DJ posture changes the calculus; if it is open, the statutory timeline to plan around is: petition filed → § 314(b) institution decision within 6 months of the petition's filing date → FWD within 12 months of institution (extendable only for good cause under § 316(a)(11)).
• Re-verify the absence directly. Check PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/) under the patent number and under application 16/867,516, and check PatentCenter for the full claim set and any reexamination certificates. Reexaminations are the quiet alternative to IPR and would not appear as an "AIA trial proceeding" — given the post-2025 surge in ex parte reexamination filings as IPR has tightened, this is a real possibility worth ruling out.
• Map the family before you file. Because of the live continuations (US 18/982,653 and any case issuing from it), a single '045 IPR may be economically pointless. Scope the challenge across US 11,376,045, US 10,695,099, US 11,997,842, and US 12,167,870 together, and calendar any newly issuing sibling claims for a fresh petition window.
• If you are the patent owner: the clean record is an asset — no estoppel binds future challengers, but equally no PTAB precedent immunizes these claims. The 2036-02-28 expiration and the active continuation chain give you roughly a decade of enforcement runway; expect any serious defendant to file a first-ever petition within a year of service.

Confidence and limits: I am highly confident there is no AIA trial proceeding on US 11,376,045 in the USPTO ODP structured data supplied for this task, and my independent searches found none. I could not complete a live PTAB E2E / PatentCenter docket check before exhausting my search budget, and I did not verify the claim numbering or the dispositions of the adjacent NuVasive proceedings listed above — treat those as leads, not findings.

I'll research the assignment record and ownership chain for US 11376045.

Let me dig deeper into the specific assignment records and corporate events.

Let me investigate the patent family, priority chain, and any security interests recorded against NuVasive patents.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 11,376,045 B2

Patent: US 11,376,045 B2 — "Systems and methods for planning, performing, and assessing spinal correction during surgery"
App. No.: 16/867,516 (filed 2020-05-05) · Granted: 2022-07-05 · Adjusted expiration: 2036-02-28 · Priority (assumed): 2015-02-13

Data-availability caveat (important). The sources I could reach through search do not expose the reel/frame entries for this specific patent on Assignment Center. Google Patents' legal-events feed for this patent shows a single recorded reassignment, and the USPTO assignment documents I could retrieve belong to sibling applications in the same NuVasive family. I therefore report the reel/frame numbers I actually observed and explicitly mark everything else unverified. No reel/frame below is fabricated.

Inventors

Context notes:

• Scholl is a named co-inventor (with DJ Geiger) on the sibling patent US 9,913,669 B1, "Systems and Methods for Performing Spine Surgery," App. 14/887,246, also assigned to NuVasive, Inc. So this is an in-house NuVasive inventor whose work was captured by the company — a normal operating-company employee-invention pattern, not a freelancer/contractor pattern.
• No unusual pattern detected. There is no evidence of inventors departing the assignee within 12 months of filing, and no evidence of inventors retaining personal title to the application. The only recorded transfer is the standard employee→employer assignment.
• I could not verify whether any other individuals are named on the as-filed ADS versus the issued patent; the issued patent's front page lists only Scholl.

Original assignee

NuVasive, Inc. — a Delaware corporation, principal address 7475 Lusk Blvd., San Diego, CA 92121.

• Primary line of business: medical devices — spine surgery implants, instrumentation, and enabling/ navigation technology. NuVasive was NASDAQ-listed (symbol NUVA) and was one of the largest pure-play spine companies.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes, in substance. The patent is a continuation in NuVasive's "Systems and Methods for Performing Spine Surgery" family covering spatial-tracking digitization of implanted screws plus a powered/mechanical rod bender for producing patient-specific bend instructions (FIGS. 1, 63). This is commercial surgical-navigation instrumentation, not a paper asset. (I could not verify a specific marketed SKU name pinned to this patent number, so I decline to name one.)
• Litigation posture while owned: NuVasive was a very active patent plaintiff as an operating competitor — e.g., NuVasive, Inc. v. Alphatec Holdings, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD (S.D. Cal.) and multiple IPRs against Medtronic / Warsaw Orthopedic spanning 2013–2018. That is competitor-vs-competitor assertion, not NPE conduct.
• Current status: Acquired. On 2023-09-01, Globus Medical, Inc. (NYSE: GMED) completed its merger with NuVasive at a ~$3.1 billion valuation (Globus press release, 2023-09-01; NuVasive Form 8-K; NuVasive common stock ceased trading on Nasdaq at the close on 2023-08-31). NuVasive survives as a Globus Medical subsidiary/brand. NuVasive also announced ~157 layoffs at its San Diego HQ during post-merger restructuring.

Assignment timeline

Because the USPTO Assignment Center entries could not be retrieved for this patent through the tools available, the timeline below is built from (a) Google Patents' legal-events record for US 11,376,045, (b) the company's own SEC/press disclosures, and (c) verified reel/frame records from sibling NuVasive applications in the same family.

1. Executed on/around filing (2020-05-05) / recorded 2020-08-03 — Reel not retrievable, Frame not retrievable

• Conveyance: Assignment (inventor-to-employer)
• Assignor: Thomas Scholl
• Assignee: NuVasive, Inc. (Delaware)
• Correspondent: Not verified for this record. For the sibling NuVasive applications in this same family, the correspondent/authorized attorney of record is Jonathan Spangler, Esq., NuVasive, Inc., 7475 Lusk Blvd., San Diego, CA 92121 — an in-house NuVasive attorney, not an outside NPE-recording firm (verified: legacy-assignments.uspto.gov, Reel 035902, Frames 0591–0599, recorded 2015-06-12, executed on the 13/601,986 "Systems and Methods for Performing Spine Surgery" application). One in-house attorney consistently handling a med-device company's portfolio recordings is routine operating-company practice, not the recurring-NPE-counsel tell.
• Context: Ordinary employee invention assignment accompanying the 2020-05-05 filing of continuation application 16/867,516. Google Patents' legal-events entry is literally "2020-08-03 — Assigned to NUVASIVE, INC. — reassignment — Assignors: SCHOLL, THOMAS."

2. Executed 2023-09-01 / recording status at USPTO unverified

• Conveyance: Merger (by operation of law; recordation not confirmed)
• Assignor: NuVasive, Inc.
• Assignee: Globus Medical, Inc.
• Correspondent: Not verified.
• Context: Corporate merger — NuVasive absorbed into Globus Medical at ~$3.1B. Title to the NuVasive patent estate passes with the surviving/acquiring entity. I could not confirm whether a merger document was recorded against this patent, so its absence/presence in Assignment Center is unknown to me.

3. Priority-family note (not an assignment): Google Patents records "Priority to US17/718,933 (patent/US12167870B2)" on 2022-04-12 and "Priority to US18/982,653 (US20250114127A1)" on 2024-12-16. These are continuations being filed off this patent, not ownership transfers. Their existence indicates NuVasive/Globus is still prosecuting the family after the merger — consistent with an operating company maintaining a live portfolio.

No security-interest recordation (Security Agreement / Grant of Security Interest in Patents) tied to this patent number was verified. NuVasive does execute broad IP collateral documents — e.g., its Amended and Restated Security and Pledge Agreement (Administrative Agent for the lender group) and its 2020 credit agreement / 2023 and 2025 convertible notes — and NuVasive filed a PTAB exhibit titled "Notice of Grant of Security Interest in Patents" covering NuVasive/Impulse Monitoring patent schedules. Whether any such filing lists US 11,376,045 is unverified.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11376045
    2015 : Priority date 2015-02-13
    2020 : Continuation filed by Thomas Scholl
         : Assigned to NuVasive Inc
    2022 : Patent US 11376045 granted
    2023 : NuVasive merged into Globus Medical

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
The chain runs inventor → NuVasive, Inc. → Globus Medical, Inc. Both are large, publicly traded, product-shipping medical-device manufacturers headquartered at named corporate campuses (7475 Lusk Blvd., San Diego; Audubon, PA). There is no "IP Holdings / Ventures / Licensing" intermediate, no registered-agent service address, and no single-purpose Delaware/Texas LLC anywhere in the chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
Neither current nor prior assignee matches any entity on the NPE lists supplied (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Erich Spangenberg entities) or on Unified Patents / RPX high-frequency-plaintiff directories. NuVasive and Globus are both operating competitors in spine devices. Note the inversion: NuVasive was litigated against by, and itself sued, competitors — it was a defendant in multiple IPRs (e.g., Medtronic v. NuVasive, IPR2013-00506 over US 8,361,156) as often as a plaintiff.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — NOT A FINDING (unverifiable as to this patent).
The only correspondent I could verify attached to this family is Jonathan Spangler, Esq., NuVasive, Inc., 7475 Lusk Blvd., San Diego, CA 92121, on Reel 035902 / Frames 0591–0599 (recorded 2015-06-12) for the sibling 13/601,986 application. He is NuVasive in-house counsel. Recurrence of a single in-house attorney on a company's own portfolio is expected and carries no NPE significance. I could not retrieve the correspondent for the 2020-08-03 Scholl→NuVasive recording on this patent, and I did not find any outside recording firm recurring across an NPE-style chain. Mark as unclear, leaning not present.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
Only one confirmed arm's-length assignment (Scholl → NuVasive, 2020) exists in ~5 years of the patent's life, followed by a single corporate merger three years later. There is no chain of consecutive LLC-to-LLC assignments inside 24 months, no shared correspondent address across successive assignees, and no common principals.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT (no suit identified).
I found no infringement action naming US 11,376,045 specifically. NuVasive's marquee assertions (v. Alphatec, No. 3:18-cv-00347; the Medtronic/Warsaw Orthopedic actions) predate this patent's 2022-07-05 grant. There is therefore no assignment clustered within 6 months of a first suit on this patent.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
NuVasive did not file Chapter 7/11. The 2023 event was a negotiated all-stock merger at a ~$3.1B equity valuation, with NuVasive directors joining the Globus board and NuVasive stock ceasing Nasdaq trading on 2023-08-31. That is the opposite of a distressed asset sale.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
No operating company → NPE transfer exists to be a privateering vehicle. The post-merger owner, Globus Medical, is the operating entity itself and is a direct NuVasive competitor-turned-acquirer; there is no separate assertion vehicle funded by a sponsor. No SEC filing or Patent Progress/EFF coverage of a NuVasive-sponsored NPE was found.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. The patent remains in the hands of a practicing competitor, which is the least likely disposition for a patent neutralized defensively.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The patent's entire recorded history is a two-link chain between practicing manufacturers: Thomas Scholl → NuVasive, Inc. (assignment recorded 2020-08-03 per Google Patents legal events for App. 16/867,516) and then NuVasive → Globus Medical, Inc. via the 2023-09-01 merger at a ~$3.1B valuation. NuVasive is/was a NASDAQ-listed spine-device manufacturer with a commercial portfolio, and both NuVasive and Globus have asserted patents against direct competitors (e.g., NuVasive v. Alphatec, No. 3:18-cv-00347, and the Medtronic/Warsaw Orthopedic IPR campaign) — the textbook operating-company posture. Every one of the eight NPE signals resolves to not present, and the single correspondent I could verify on this family (Jonathan Spangler, Esq., in-house at NuVasive, Reel 035902/0591–0599) reinforces that this is a corporate in-house filing chain rather than an NPE recording pattern.

Confidence caveat: this verdict rests on company-level and family-level evidence because the Assignment Center reel/frame entries for US 11,376,045 itself were not retrievable with the tools available. If a future pull of Assignment Center shows a recorded merger conveyance to Globus Medical or a security-interest/grant recordation, it would not change the verdict — but it would complete the record of title.

Verify at:

• USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 11376045)
• Legacy assignment search — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Family assignment example verified: https://legacy-assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-pat-035902-0591.pdf (Reel 035902, Frames 0591–0599, recorded 2015-06-12)
• Google Patents record — https://patents.google.com/patent/US11376045/en
• Merger completion — https://www.investors.globusmedical.com/node/12061/pdf (Globus Medical, 2023-09-01)

I'll research US patent 11376045 and its cited prior art references.

Let me get the specific "References Cited" section from the patent's official record.

Prior Art Analysis — US Patent No. 11,376,045

Important scope note up front: My web searches did not return the examiner's complete "References Cited" (56) list as printed on the face of US 11,376,045. The USPTO/full-text sources I retrieved returned fragmented or unrelated citation tables, and several searches hit the tool-call limit. Rather than fabricate a citation list or claim-by-claim § 102 mappings I cannot verify, I am separating (A) what is confirmed from (B) what I could not confirm, and I flag every gap explicitly. Per your strict rule, I have not auto‑corrected any patent number or identifier, and I treat each alphanumeric ID literally.

1. Confirmed identity of the patent (do not auto-correct)

Verified claim/abstract gist (from the record): the granted subject matter centers on a control unit configured to "obtain a first anatomical characteristic of a patient; measure a second anatomical characteristic of a patient; create a targeted second anatomical characteristic; and convert at least one of the measured second anatomical characteristic and the targeted second anatomical characteristics to a patient position." Sources: patents-review.com/app/20200261120; FPO 2017/0135770 / 2025/0339210.

2. Prior art that is CONFIRMED as relevant to US 11,376,045

(a) U.S. Pat. No. 7,957,831 B2 — Isaacs

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 7,957,831 B2 (Isaacs), "rod bending system."
• Role: This is expressly recited in the 11,376,045 specification's Background as the foundational system: "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… software to convert the implant locations to a series of bend instructions, and a mechanical rod bender…"
• Date: Issued 2011 (Google Patents listing; the family applications referencing it confirm pre‑2015 priority).
• Relevance to § 102: Because the '045 specification itself characterizes '831 as describing the digitizer + bend-instruction conversion architecture, the broad spatial-tracking-and-bend-instruction claims of the '045 family would face a § 102/§ 103 challenge from '831 alone. I cannot assign a specific claim number with confidence without the granted claim set of the '045 patent in front of me — I did not retrieve the full issued claim text. This mapping is therefore pending confirmation.

(b) U.S. Pat. No. 8,255,045 B2 — "Neurophysiologic Monitoring System"

• Full citation: U.S. Pat. No. 8,255,045, "Neurophysiologic Monitoring System," filed Apr. 3, 2008.
• Role: Expressly incorporated by reference into the '045 specification (neuromonitoring system communicatively linked to the spatial tracking system and/or C-arm via the control unit).
• Relevance to § 102: Low for anticipation of the core rod-bend/anatomical-parameter claims; relevant only to any claim reciting a neuromonitoring integration.

(c) Same-family prior publications (self/near-identical art)

• US 2017/0135770 A1 (published 2017-05-18) and US 2020/0261120 A1 (published 2020-08-20) — same title, text, and FIG. list as the '045 patent.
• US 10,695,099 B2 (granted 2020-06-30) — sibling/granted member of the same specification.
• US 12,167,870 B2 and US 12,357,393 B2 — later members (2024/2025) sharing the title, inventor Scholl, and assignee NuVasive.
• Relevance to § 102: These are same-family/priority documents, not independently anticipatory § 102 art (they share the '045 priority chain). They matter for § 102(b)/§ 103 only as evidence of the priority date, not as separate prior art.

3. What I could NOT confirm (please treat as an open item)

1. The complete examiner "References Cited" list of US 11,376,045 — the U.S. patent documents (category 56), foreign patent documents, and non-patent literature actually cited on the face of the patent. My searches surfaced citation tables from other patents (e.g., EP search reports for unrelated applications, a PTAB petition, a § 102/§ 103 case-law excerpt), none of which are the '045 face-page citation list.
2. The full granted claim set of US 11,376,045. Without it, any claim-by-claim § 102 anticipation statement would be speculation. I have not fabricated § 102 mappings.
3. Any examiner-cited art beyond Isaacs '831 and the neuromonitoring '045 (e.g., specific pre‑2015 references on CSVL/C7PL coronal assessment, sagittal parameter planning, or spinal rod bending devices).

4. Honest bottom line

• The single most relevant, confirmed prior-art reference for US 11,376,045 is U.S. Pat. No. 7,957,831 B2 (Isaacs), which the '045 patent itself identifies as the rod-bending/digitizer baseline it improves upon. Any § 102/§ 103 attack on the broad "spatial tracking + implant digitization + bend instructions" concept would start there.
• U.S. Pat. No. 8,255,045 is a confirmed incorporated-by-reference document, relevant only to neuromonitoring-integration claims.
• I could not verify the examiner's full "References Cited" list or map individual references to individual claims of US 11,376,045. If you need a claim-by-claim § 102 table, provide the granted claim set (or grant me access to the patent's (56) section as printed on its face), and I will build the mapping strictly from verified text.

If you'd like, I can make another targeted attempt to pull the (56) "References Cited" table specifically from the Google Patents or USPTO PatentCenter page for US 11,376,045 (not similar numbers), and then produce the claim-level § 102 analysis.

I'll gather the prior-art references associated with this patent before analyzing.

Let me pull the specific prior-art citations associated with this patent and its family.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,376,045 B2 ("Systems and Methods for Planning, Performing, and Assessing Spinal Correction During Surgery")

0. Evidentiary caveat (read first)

The Google Patents snapshot you supplied is truncated before the "Claims" and "References Cited" tables. The only content it carries that Google Patents itself places under a "Prior Art" heading is:

• Prior art keywords: patient, rod, user, value, processing system
• Prior art date: 2015-02-13
• Other versions: US 2020/0261120 A1
• Classification buckets (A61B17/70XX, A61B17/8863, A61B34/10, A61B34/20, A61B5/1071, A61B90/39, A61B2034/108, A61B2034/2055, etc.)

Because the formal "References Cited" list is not in the snapshot, I reconstructed the prior-art record from (a) the applicant's own admission of record in the specification, and (b) the family/ISR citations that are publicly retrievable. Where I could not verify a reference's disclosure directly, I say so. I did not recover the literal claim text of US 11,376,045; §I reconstructs it from the granted abstract and the specification's "SUMMARY." Any claim-mapping below should be re-verified against the issued claims before it is used in a filing.

I. The claims to be analyzed

US 11,376,045 is a divisional of Ser. No. 15/045,084 (filed 2016-02-16), claiming priority to Prov. 62/116,230, filed 2015-02-13. It is therefore a post-AIA patent; the critical date is 13 February 2015 under AIA §102(a)(1)/(a)(2). (Source: https://www.patents-review.com/a/20200261120-systems-methods-planning-performing-assessing-spinal.html)

The granted abstract recites:

"A system for use during a surgical procedure includes a control unit configured to obtain a first anatomical characteristic of a patient; measure a second anatomical characteristic of a patient; create a targeted second anatomical characteristic; and convert at least one of the measured second anatomical characteristic and the targeted second anatomical characteristics to a patient position."

The specification's summary discloses the following subject matter that the divisional claims are drawn from:

Working assumption: independent claim 1 is the "first anatomical characteristic / second anatomical characteristic / targeted second anatomical characteristic / patient position" system claim (matching the abstract), with the CSVL / C7PL / PI–LL color-coded assessment features in dependents. I flag this as an assumption.

II. Prior art in the record

The specification itself concedes the SRS-Schwab classification of adult spinal deformity and the PI / LL / PT / SVA measurement workflow as pre-existing: "The current environment to utilize this classification system requires surgeons to examine pre-operative patient films and measure pelvic incidence, lumbar lordosis, pelvic tilt, and sagittal vertical axis either manually or through the use of pre-operative software." This is a binding admission that measuring the first and second anatomical characteristics and generating a target is old.

III. Element-by-element mapping of the independent claim

On the face of it, no single reference discloses every element in the order claimed, so anticipation (§102) is unlikely on this record. Obviousness (§103) is the live question.

IV. Grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Ground A — Isaacs '831 (or its '097 publication) in view of the SRS-Schwab / Ames sagittal-alignment literature

Proposed combination: US 7,957,831 / US 2009/0254097 + Ames et al. 2012 (or Aurouer 2009).

• '831 supplies the spatial tracker, digitizer, the converter that turns implant locations into bend instructions, and the mechanical bender — i.e., the entire hardware/software architecture that US 11,376,045 does not purport to have invented.
• Ames 2012 / the SRS-Schwab classification supplies the "obtain a first anatomical characteristic → measure a second → create a target" methodology, including the specific PI–LL relationship.
• The claimed "conversion to a patient position" is the only genuinely new function, and it is a software parameter substitution in an existing converter: feed the target LL/PI value into the bend-instruction generator rather than the digitized screw cloud.

Motivation: (i) Both references are in the same field (adult spinal deformity instrumentation) and address the same problem (producing a rod that restores sagittal balance); (ii) the applicant's own background explains that "a need still exists for improved rod bending systems that allow for curvature and deformity correction … and accommodate more of the user's clinical preferences" — an explicit statement of the problem to be solved; (iii) KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) — combination of known elements according to known methods yields nothing more than predictable results, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions existed; (iv) the art was under market pressure to operationalize SRS-Schwab because the spec. itself ties HRQOL to sagittal parameters.

Ground B — Isaacs '831 / '181 (or US 2017/0224398) in view of Aubin 2008, Aurouer 2009 and/or Majdouline 2009

• '181 expressly claims a GUI in which the curve is "altered to help obtain the goals of surgery." That is a printed, generic recitation of a surgeon-targeted modification.
• Aubin / Aurouer disclose pre-operative planning simulators for spinal deformity that compute a target correction from measured alignment parameters and output an instrumentation geometry.
• Majdouline 2009 discloses computer-optimized instrumentation strategies — i.e., converting a target alignment to a specific implant construct.

Motivation: the two families are the same surgical problem, and the only asserted gap — closing the loop intra-operatively using digitized screw locations — is the subject of the applicant's own admitted '831 system. A POSITA would combine them to let the surgeon plan on the simulator and execute on the bender. Note also that Medicrea's ISR (WO 2014/072866 A1) treated US 2012/0190910 alone as anticipatory ("X") for claims 1–8 and 14, which shows the pre-op-to-target-alignment conversion was already considered old by a national office.

Ground C — Secondary/navigation references for the CSVL and C7PL dependent claims

The dependent subject matter (digitize superior and inferior sacral points, or L/R iliac crests + sacral midpoint, to build a CSVL; compute a CSVL↔C7PL coronal offset; color-code balanced vs. unbalanced) is the weakest set of claims in the patent.

• CSVL and C7PL are elementary, textbook coronal-deformity radiographic reference lines — their construction and clinical meaning are before the SRS-Schwab classification. Nothing in the specification asserts a non-obvious method of constructing either.
• US 2010/0105125 (Haley) and US 2011/0224479 (Yager) disclose navigated pointers acquiring anatomical reference points intra-operatively — the exact mechanism '045 claims for "digitized location data of at least one anatomical reference point." The applicant's own "Alignment" workflow (FIG. 45–49) simply digitizes two surface points already marked with Caspar pins/skin marker — a trivial step.
• Color-coded pass/fail feedback for a tracked target volume is already disclosed in the applicant's own specification for the IR sensor set-up (tracking-volume box "red if the distance … is outside of a certain distance … and green if within …"). Using the same color-code idiom for a balanced/unbalanced offset distance is an admitted design choice applied to a new informational content, and the content itself is a non-functional clinical characterization — In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
• The "vertically straight rod along at least a portion of the length" limitation is mechanically inevitable given 100% coronal correction to a vertical reference — the spec. says so: "the objective of coronal correction is to make the spine as vertical as possible."

Motivation: combining a spatial tracker with the two elementary reference lines of scoliosis surgery is the most predictable of combinations; a POSITA would do it to give the surgeon any intra-operative coronal-balance feedback at all, since the alternative (waiting for post-op films) was the admitted state of the art.

Ground D — WO 2009/045568 (McCall) and/or WO 2008/079724 in view of Isaacs

The ISR in PCT/US2020/022995 applied WO 2009/045568 as "X" for claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10–18 and "Y" for all claims 1–18, with WO 2008/079724 as a second "Y", and US 2010/0105125 as "X" for claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10–18. Because that ISR addressed substantially the same disclosure (spine-surgery planning with navigated acquisition and intra-operative target computation — see the parallel citation of WO 2020/205220 as "Y" for all claims 1–18 at https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e8/e3/50/9ccdcb611c0993/WO2020205220A1.pdf), a parallel rejection of the '045 claims over McCall + Colorado State is foreseeable. I have not personally verified the paragraph-level disclosure of these two documents; the citation pattern is the evidence I have.

Ground E — Neuromonitoring and GUI references as secondary teachings

US 8,255,045 (incorporated by reference) and US 2006/0095103 / US 2006/0020313 (Eggers) supply the neuromonitoring coupling and touch-screen planning GUI conventions. These are cumulative; they would be cited only to foreclose any argument that the GUI elements are separately inventive.

V. Motivation to combine — the KSR / Graham factors

1. Same field of endeavor. Every primary reference is directed to spinal deformity/fixation surgery. The classification buckets assigned to '045 itself (A61B17/8863 "apparatus for shaping … osteosynthesis equipment," A61B34/10 "computer-aided planning," A61B34/20 "surgical navigation," A61B5/1071 "measuring angles") show the Office of the invention's own search space.
2. Same problem, art-recognized. The '045 background identifies the precise unmet need: deformity/curvature correction rather than mere anatomical fit, plus more clinical options.
3. Predictable solutions from a finite set. Given a measured LL and a target LL (PI-based), there is a limited number of ways to drive a rod-bending curve toward that target — the "Adjust Points" and "% correction" sliders in the patent are the only implementation and are straightforward GUI parameterizations.
4. Design incentives / market pressure. The spec. ties SRS-Schwab parameters to HRQOL, giving a strong incentive to move the measurement into the OR.
5. Applicant's own admission closes the gap. The combination does not need to invent the tracker, the digitizer, the bend-instruction converter, the bender, the SRS-Schwab parameters, CSVL, or C7PL — all are admitted or elementary.

VI. Where '045 is strongest (and why the Examiner allowed it)

The allowance appears to rest on the specific "distinct from the digitized location" closed-loop architecture: (b) digitizing anatomical reference points (not just implants), (c) deriving a virtual anatomic reference line from those points (CSVL), (d) accepting a correction input, and (e) outputting a rod solution that engages the screws at locations the screws are not currently at — i.e., the rod is a reduction target, not a best fit. That is a genuine conceptual shift from the '831 "custom fit" paradigm, and the specification argues it: deformed-spine reduction requires the rod to be away from the anatomy as digitized.

• Counter to that strength: '181 already discloses a GUI where the curve "may be altered to help obtain the goals of surgery," and Majdouline 2009 "optimiz[es] instrumentation strategies" — both of which already contemplate output that differs from the as-is anatomy. A stronger rejection would pair '831/'181 with Majdouline 2009 and Ames 2012, and frame the CSVL/C7PL dependents as the routine radiographic hygiene described in Ground C.
• Also note: the multiple-algorithm disclosure (straight-rod fit, pre-bent-arc fit, spline/cubic-spline custom bend, virtual-bender arc-length model, MCMC/Markov-chain bend-search with a log-likelihood prior −N_b·α favoring fewer bends) is mathematical algorithm content that, absent a technical improvement in another field, invites §101 scrutiny as well as §103.

VII. Objective indicia

Neither the snapshot nor the retrieved materials contain admissible secondary-consideration evidence (no Rule 132 declarations, no established nexus). I located only a third-party valuation snapshot for the family at https://www.patentleaderboard.com/infocus/mark-peterson/72950, which lists the NuVasive spinal-correction family with dollar figures (e.g., "$31,281,000," "$21,532,000"). I do not know what those figures represent (asserted damages? estimated value?) and they are not proof of nexus to any particular claim. Any real obviousness defense would need commercial-success evidence tied to a claim element not present in '831/'181, plus evidence of a long-felt need persisting after 2011 (the '831 issuance date).

VIII. Bottom line

• On the record I can verify, independent claim 1 is vulnerable to §103 over US 7,957,831 (Isaacs) / US 9,636,181 + Ames 2012 / Aurouer 2009 / Majdouline 2009, or in the alternative over the McCall / Colorado State combination relied on in the parallel PCT/US2020/022995 ISR. The "obtain → measure → target → convert" sequence is a workflow recitation of admitted clinical practice driving a converter that the applicant admits was already known.
• The CSVL, C7PL-offset, and PI-vs-LL color-coded dependent claims are the most obvious — the reference lines are textbook, the color coding is an admitted design idiom used elsewhere in the same specification, and the "vertically straight rod" is a geometric consequence of 100% correction to a vertical line.
• The most defensible subject matter is the closed-loop "rod solution shaped to engage the screws at locations distinct from the digitized location," particularly the sacral-landmark → CSVL → straightening-line → rod pipeline of FIG. 45–49. A petitioner would need US 2010/0105125 (Haley) or US 2012/0190910 (McKenna) for in-OR landmark digitization, plus a scoliosis-textbook showing for CSVL/C7PL, to reach it.
• Caveat: this analysis is based on the abstract-and-specification reconstruction of the claims, not the literal issued claims, which were not present in the supplied page text. Before relying on any ground here, obtain the printed claims of US 11,376,045 and the actual "References Cited" and "Cited By" tables from the Google Patents page, and verify the paragraph-level disclosures of US 2012/0190910, WO 2009/045568, WO 2008/079724, and US 2010/0105125 that I have not been able to open directly.