US 11771567

I'll search for authoritative information on US patent 11771567, including any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me run additional targeted searches for litigation and PTAB/CAFC activity involving this patent.

US 11,771,567 B2 — "Artificial disc system"

Source of record: Google Patents (US11771567B2), Justia, USPTO PTAB filings, and D. Del. docket 1:25‑cv‑00711. A CAFC docket check is reported separately below. All identifiers are given literally as they appear.

Bibliographic data (as found)

Chain of priority (verbatim from the specification): continuation of 16/194,976 (now US 11,135,072) → continuation of 12/889,328 (now US 10,130,493) → divisional of 11/487,415 (now US 7,854,766) → provisional 60/788,720 filed 2006‑04‑04.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A total artificial expansile disc and a method for posterior insertion between a pair of vertebral endplates are disclosed. The total artificial expansile disc includes at least one pair of substantially parallel plates that move apart along a first axis, in order to occupy a space defined by the vertebral endplates. In another embodiment, each of substantially parallel plates includes a first plate and a second sliding plate. An expansion device or tool is used to move the substantially parallel pair of plates apart along the first axis. A core is disposed between the pair of plates, and the core permits the vertebral endplates to move relative to one another. A ball limiter or ball extender prevents the core from being extruded from between the substantially parallel plates."

Note: the abstract describes the broader family (expansile/BFA‑screw embodiment of FIGS. 1–7 plus the ball‑limiter embodiment of FIGS. 8–19), whereas the issued claims are directed to the non‑expansile, spiked‑plate/ball‑and‑trough embodiment with right‑angled anchors.

Plain‑language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — "total artificial disc" (plate/anchor architecture):

• Two plates that are substantially parallel and sit in the vertebral endplate space. Each has a vertebral‑facing surface, an opposite (core‑facing) surface that is concave, and a perimeter surface.
• A mobile core between them, with a generally circular perimeter rim, resting against the concave surfaces of both plates, allowing the vertebrae to move relative to one another. The core is smaller in horizontal dimension than the plates, so the plates overhang the core on all sides.
• A first set of anchors on the vertebral‑facing surface of the first plate: right‑angled lateral protrusions located in the center portion of that surface, arranged in at least one line, with the right‑angled side of every anchor in the line facing the same direction. These engage the endplate.
• A second set of anchors spaced around at least part of the perimeter of the first plate's vertebral‑facing surface. Each perimeter anchor sits at and extends to the plate edge, and its exterior surface continues continuously from the plate's perimeter surface (i.e., flush/merged with the side wall, not a distinct spike sitting inboard).
• Dependent claims 2–14 add: right‑angled protrusions entirely offset from the perimeter; a rearward side substantially perpendicular plus a forward side at an acute angle; perimeter anchors on opposite sides of the center line; perimeter anchors as pyramidal prisms; the core having inferior/superior convex domes with a groove rim; a perimeter ridge around each concave surface; the core rim fitting within that ridge; domes extending beyond the ridge; domes mating with the concave surfaces; motion enabling lateral bending, flexion, extension and rotation; and at least two oppositely positioned rounded edges per plate.

Claim 15 — "total artificial disc" (two‑center‑line anchor variant):

• First plate with a concave portion on its opposite surface; second plate substantially parallel to it; both occupying the endplate space.
• A core between the plates, seated within the first concave portion, permitting relative vertebral motion.
• First plurality of right‑angled lateral anchors on the first vertebral‑facing surface, in the center portion, forming at least one line, all right‑angled sides oriented in the same direction.
• Second plurality of right‑angled lateral anchors, also in the center portion, forming at least one second line, again with same‑direction orientation.
• The core is engaged with both plates such that the first plate can move relative to the second to accommodate lateral bending, flexion, extension and rotation.
• Dependents 16–20 add: both pluralities entirely offset from the perimeter; third and fourth pluralities on the second plate's vertebral‑facing surface; those formed as two lines within a center portion; at least two oppositely positioned rounded edges per plate; and the right‑angled sides of the first and second pluralities oriented in opposite directions.

In short, the two independent claims cover a three‑piece artificial disc (two spiked plates + mobile domed core) where the novelty is concentrated in the "right‑angled lateral" center anchors arranged in same‑oriented line(s) and the perimeter anchors that flow continuously out of the plate side wall.

Litigation and PTAB activity found

District court (the "family has litigation" flag on Google Patents):

• Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC / NuVasive, Inc., D. Del. No. 1:25‑cv‑00711‑WCB, complaint filed 2025‑06‑06 (Judge William C. Bryson). Google Patents links this docket as the family litigation.
• Per the complaint analysis at ai‑lab.exparte.com, the complaint refers to the "'567 Patent, 'Artificial disc system,' issued October 3, 2023" and accuses the Simplify® systems and instrumentation of infringing it. Accused product families overall include Base, Brigade, CoRoent, MOD‑EX PL, MOD‑EX XLIF, Simplify, TLX, and X‑CORE.
• Docket entries retrieved (from unicourt / Justia) include a scheduling order, an amended scheduling order (expert reports due 08/27/2026; expert depositions by 10/23/2026), a revised scheduling order (dispositive motions 12/18/2026; final pretrial 01/21/2027; 5‑day jury trial set 02/08/2027), and a Rule 28(j) letter citing Appeal No. 24‑1696. These entries are dated later in 2026 than the stated current date of April 26, 2026 — I am reporting them as the search results returned them rather than reconciling that discrepancy.

CAFC — 2026 dockets for the '567 patent specifically: I found no Federal Circuit appeal, opinion, Rule 36 judgment, or briefing in 2026 that names US 11,771,567. Searches for "11771567 CAFC 2026" returned unrelated appeals (e.g., Keysight v. Centripetal, CAFC 25‑1053; Spero v. Mercedes‑Benz, 25‑1470; Network‑1 v. Google; NantWorks v. Niantic). The Moskowitz‑related Federal Circuit appeal I did locate — No. 2024‑1696 (Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc.), concerning the "universal" claim term in the '913, '022 and '319 patents — does not involve the '567 patent. I cannot confirm any 2026 CAFC activity for this patent.

PTAB: Related Moskowitz IPR proceedings exist (e.g., IPR2025‑01598, Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC, which concerns US 12,011,367), and a PTAB petition exhibit lists the '567 patent in a Moskowitz portfolio table ("17/487,360 … 11771567 … 09/28/2021 … ARTIFICIAL DISC SYSTEM"). I found no IPR petition challenging US 11,771,567 itself.

Uncertainty flags

• The 11771567 number is treated literally throughout; I did not substitute or "correct" any application serial, patent, docket, or IPR number.
• Assignee/inventor data is taken from Google Patents/Justia and the '619 sibling patent's front page (US 11,452,619 B2 lists the identical inventor trio and Moskowitz Family LLC assignee). The 2021‑10‑28 assignment records on Google Patents show interest assigned to Nathan C. Moskowitz (from Mosheh T. Moskowitz and from Daniel Glozman) and to Moskowitz Family LLC (from Nathan C. Moskowitz).
• I did not independently verify the USPTO PatentCenter fee/status record, the exact expiration date, or the current claim set against a certified copy; the "2026‑07‑17 anticipated expiration" figure is Google Patents' own computation and is an assumption, not a legal conclusion.
• Claim scope descriptions above paraphrase the issued claim text as retrieved; for any legal purpose the granted claims and prosecution history (App. 17/487,360) control.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11771567.

I found a key case. Let me dig deeper for details and check for other cases involving this patent.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 11,771,567

I searched litigation aggregators (Unified Patents litigation portal, PACER/CourtListener, RPX, Docket Alarm, Justia) for the exact patent number 11,771,567. Here is what the record shows.

Short answer

One district-court action asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,771,567 has been identified. The patent has not been the subject of a standalone infringement suit (i.e., sued on alone); it has been asserted as one of a multi-patent family in a single case. It also does not appear as the subject of any IPR petition found (PTAB petitions in the related Moskowitz family target other patents, e.g., the '293 and '183 patents).

---

Case 1 — Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC (and NuVasive, Inc.)

Procedural history (as of April 2026)

• 06/06/2025 — Complaint filed with jury demand; Rule 3 report listing the '567 patent filed the same day (CourtListener docket #3).
• 06/17–06/25/2025 — Service on NuVasive; case reassigned to Judge Bryson.
• 08/22/2025 — NuVasive answered and counterclaimed against Moskowitz Family.
• 10/20/2025 — Scheduling Order entered; 5‑day jury trial set for 2/8/2027 before Judge Bryson.
• 02/26–04/02/2026 — Claim construction phase: Moskowitz opening brief (with declaration of Dr. Ken Gall), NuVasive answering brief (with declaration of Amy V. Hall), Moskowitz reply, NuVasive surreply; fact discovery/deposition notices ongoing.
• 08/27/2026 — Amended scheduling order (expert reports due 08/27/2026; expert depositions by 10/23/2026).

So the case is in the claim-construction/Markman and fact-discovery stage, with trial scheduled for February 8, 2027. No outcome on the merits yet.

Notable allegations bearing on the '567 patent

The complaint alleges willfulness, grounded in pre-suit contacts between Dr. Nathan C. Moskowitz and NuVasive spanning ~2010–2011 (including a 2011 discussion of his "posterior artificial lumbar disc"), a 2015 formal notice letter identifying his portfolio, and NuVasive's alleged monitoring of his patents. For the '567 patent, infringement is charted only against the Simplify Cervical Disc (see Exhibit 12 attached to the Complaint).

---

Verification note / caution

• The patent's own Google Patents page lists a "US case filed in Delaware District Court" under the family-litigation heading, which corresponds to case 1:25-cv-00711 — consistent with the above.
• I did not find any other case in which the exact number 11,771,567 appears as an asserted patent:
  • Moskowitz Family LLC v. ZimVie Inc., No. 1:22-cv-01632 (D. Del.) — asserted six patents; the '567 patent could not have been asserted there because it did not issue until October 2023 and the case was filed in 2022. That case was terminated by voluntary dismissal with prejudice (no merits ruling).
  • Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 0:25-cv-00769 (D. Minn., filed Feb. 28, 2025) — asserts the '293, '674, '284, '738, '505, '633, '183, '797, '136, '755, and '367 patents (not the '567 patent).
  • Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 24-1696 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2026, affirming E.D. Pa. noninfringement) — involved the '913, '022, and '319 patents, not the '567 patent.

Bottom line

• Plaintiff: Moskowitz Family LLC
• Defendants: NuVasive, LLC / NuVasive, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: D. Del.
• Case No.: 1:25-cv-00711 (WCB)
• Filed: June 6, 2025
• Status: Pending; claim construction and discovery ongoing; jury trial set for February 8, 2027. The '567 patent is asserted against the Simplify Cervical Disc.
• No other litigation asserting U.S. 11,771,567 was identified. (Related PTAB IPRs concerning the broader Moskowitz family — e.g., IPR2025-01598 on the '293 patent and IPR2026-00121/00162 on the '367 patent — do not involve the '567 patent.)

I'll verify the structured "no proceedings" signal against public sources before writing this up.

Let me dig into the litigation and the PTAB petition documents that referenced Moskowitz patents.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 11,771,567: 0. Breakdown: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denied. The USPTO Open Data Portal structured block for this patent returns no AIA trial proceedings, and my independent web searches surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming the '567 patent. The defensive posture is therefore untested, not hardened — nobody has ever asked the PTAB to construe a term in this patent, so there is no FWD to lean on and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel to exploit. That cuts both ways: the claims are also not invalidated, so the patent owner can assert all 20 claims as issued. The single most important practical fact for a defendant is not a PTAB outcome at all — it is timing: Google Patents shows an anticipated expiration of 2026-07-17 for this patent (20 years from the 2006-07-17 filing of parent US 11/487,415). Any IPR filed now would produce a Final Written Decision after the patent expires, which sharply reduces the appeal of the IPR route.

Verification caveat: I could not exhaustively confirm the absence of a recently filed petition. Google Patents' PTAB linkage and the ODP ingest both lag reality. Confirm directly at PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov) and PatentCenter before relying on this. Searches I ran returned no proceeding number tied to 11,771,567.

---

Proceedings on the '567 patent itself

None. There is no proceeding to report, no judge panel, no FWD, no settlement, no appeal. I will not manufacture one.

---

Adjacent PTAB activity (different patents — context only, not the '567 patent)

These are real proceeding numbers I actually surfaced. They concern other Moskowitz Family LLC patents, sometimes in overlapping families. Treat them as portfolio pattern signals, not as outcomes for the '567 patent.

IPR2025-01598 — Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent challenged: US 9,005,293 (not the '567 patent)
• Status: Petition-stage activity; Petitioner filed a "Discretionary Denial Opposition Brief" dated 2026-01-08 arguing Office error, complexity, settled expectations, and the Fintiv factors (asserting a Sotera stipulation would be entered and that the FWD would issue nearly a year before trial in a Minnesota action).
• Defensive value (portfolio signal): Medtronic is running a conventional Fintiv-aware campaign against the Moskowitz assertion set. The Petition attacks examiner search quality in the original prosecution.
• Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-01598/Medtronic_Inc._v._Moskowitz_Family_LLC/

IPR2026-00121 — Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent challenged: US 11,864,755 (not the '567 patent)
• Status: Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices filed 2025-12-01 by Avantech Law, LLP (Eric A. Zelepugas; Robert A. Conley). Identifies parallel litigation Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. et al., 0:25-cv-00769 (D. Minn.), filed 2025-02-28.
• Source: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558700/

The 2020 Globus wave (other Moskowitz patents)

Globus Medical filed a coordinated multi-patent IPR campaign in 2020 against Moskowitz patents including the '319, '913, '022, '268, '643, and '740 patents, out of Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical Inc. (W.D. Tex. 6:19-cv-672, later transferred to E.D. Pa. 2:20-cv-03271). I saw petitions referencing IPR2020-01303 through IPR2020-01306 (the '268 patent), with petitioner Harness, Dickey & Pierce ranking duplicate petitions first/second to hedge a § 325(d) denial. I did not verify the institution outcomes or FWDs for any of these, and none involve the '567 patent.

The resulting appeal — Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 24-1696 (Fed. Cir.) — turned on the construction of "universal" in the '913 and '022 patents and a summary-judgment noninfringement ruling. Opinion text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01696/pdf/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01696-0.pdf. I have not confirmed whether the '567 patent was part of that appeal.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status on the '567 patent. All 20 claims — independent claims 1 and 15, and dependent claims 2–14 and 16–20 — are UNTESTED. Nothing is canceled; nothing is confirmed. If you are a defendant, you cannot tell the court "the PTAB already killed claim 1," and you cannot tell the court "the PTAB already blessed claim 1." You are litigating the patent from scratch on validity, which is a § 282 burden in district court rather than a preponderance burden in an instituted IPR — worse for you than an instituted IPR, better than a hardened patent.

Estoppel landscape. Because there is no IPR on the '567 patent, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is currently zero. No petitioner or privy is barred from raising any prior-art ground, in the Office or in the district court. Conversely, if a co-defendant (or an affiliate) has already filed an IPR against the '567 patent that the ODP has not yet ingested, § 315(e)(2) would attach at FWD and shrink your ground set — so the client should run a same-day check of PTAB E2E and of its own corporate family before finalizing invalidity contentions. The § 315(b) one-year clock is the operative date here: the Delaware complaint (1:25-cv-00711-GBW) was filed 2025-06-06 and NuVasive, Inc. was served 2025-06-17, putting a presumptive § 315(b) bar date at 2026-06-17 for that party. That date now sits less than a month before the patent's anticipated expiration of 2026-07-17.

Pattern signals. Same-portfolio, not same-patent. Moskowitz Family LLC is being hunted by at least two large medtech defendants on parallel tracks: Medtronic (IPR2025-01598 and IPR2026-00121, plus D. Minn. 0:25-cv-00769) and NuVasive (D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711 — which asserts the '567 patent along with nine other Moskowitz patents). The patent owner has shown it will contest institution hard (Avantech Law is filing mandatory notices and discretionary-denial responses; the Federal Circuit appeal in 24-1696 shows willingness to take claim-construction fights up). I found no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the chain — Unified appears only as the source of the litigation-data link on the Google Patents page, not as a petitioner. The '567 patent also carries a litigation flag on Google Patents pointing to the NuVasive Delaware case.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Do not build a PTAB strategy on secondhand data. Pull the '567 patent's complete file in PTAB E2E and PatentCenter today, and check the assignment record (Moskowitz Family LLC, with inventor assignments recorded 2021-10-28 to Nathan C. Moskowitz and Moskowitz Family LLC). The absence of PTAB activity is only as reliable as the last ODP ingest.

2. Calendar the § 315(b) date as a hard gate. If you are NuVasive or a privy, 2026-06-17 is the presumptive bar date. If you are a different defendant (e.g., Globus, now the NuVasive parent) facing a separate complaint asserting the '567 patent, your own service date governs — file in time.

3. Weigh the expiration against the IPR. With term running to 2026-07-17, an IPR instituted in late 2026 would hit its statutory § 316(a)(11) one-year deadline well after the patent lapsed. Under the current Director's discretionary-denial framework (settled expectations and efficient use of Office resources), expect the patent owner to argue denial on that basis and expect the panel to take it seriously. Past-expiration IPRs are a poor use of resources and produce little practical value beyond estoppel.

4. Preserve the district-court path. Since no IPR estops anyone, your invalidity case should be developed fully under § 282 — but budget for the risk that a co-defendant's IPR later triggers § 315(e)(2) against grounds you "reasonably could have raised." Keep alternative § 101 and § 112 grounds in reserve if they fit, as those are outside IPR's § 311(b) scope and cannot be estopped by an IPR.

5. If you do file, expect a § 325(d) / Becton, Dickinson fight. The Globus 2020 petitions show the Moskowitz portfolio's prosecution history is dense with examiner-cited art, and Medtronic's IPR2025-01598 opposition brief is built on "the Examiner failed to uncover pertinent prior art." Rebutting § 325(d) and showing the Office materially erred is the price of admission on this portfolio.

6. If any proceeding does surface, the mapping is mechanical: get the institution decision (deadline is 6 months from the petition's filing, per § 314(b)), the oral-hearing order, and the FWD (statutory 1 year from institution, extendable up to 6 months for good cause under § 316(a)(11)). Appeal runs 63 days from the FWD under 37 C.F.R. § 90.3(a)(1).

I'll research the assignment record and ownership context for US 11,771,567.

Let me pin down the specific reel/frame records for the '567 patent's chain and the Glozman assignment.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,771,567 ("Artificial disc system")

Retrieval caveat up front (important). I could reach the USPTO Assignment Center landing pages and the Google Patents legal‑events mirror, but I was not able to pull the individual reel/frame numbers for the '567 patent itself in this session. The Google Patents legal‑events record for US 11,771,567 embeds three assignment entries with dates and parties but no reel/frame. I therefore report the parties and dates as recorded, mark reel/frame as "not retrieved," and do not invent reel/frame numbers. Where analogous conveyances in the same Moskowitz family have published reel/frame data (from a PTAB chain‑of‑title exhibit), I cite them explicitly labelled as belonging to sibling patents, not to the '567.

Verification entry point: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (and the indexed search at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — query "11771567", or "17/487,360"). Google Patents legal events for US 11,771,567.

---

Inventors

Notes on the inventor set.

• The '567 names three inventors. This is the original 2006 lineage set (Nathan C. Moskowitz, Mosheh T. Moskowitz, Daniel Glozman, as seen on the ancestor US 7,854,766 / US 10,130,493). The other Moskowitz branch (the BDFT screw/cage cases) adds Ahmnon D. Moskowitz and Pablo A. Valdivia y Alvarado — those extra names are not on the '567. See US 11,452,619 (sibling continuation of 17/487,360), which repeats the same three‑inventor set.
• No fire‑sale precursor pattern. There is no evidence of all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing. To the contrary, two of the three inventors are the assignee's own officers (CTO and founder), and the third (Glozman) assigned to the lead inventor rather than away from the family — see below. This is an insider‑held portfolio, not an abandoned one.
• One pattern worth flagging: the outside collaborator's rights flow to an individual, not to the company. Glozman's executed assignment runs to Nathan C. Moskowitz personally, while Mosheh T. Moskowitz's assignment runs the same direction and then both are conveyed into the LLC. That two‑hop structure (contributor → lead inventor → family LLC) is typical of an inventor‑owned portfolio assembled from family members plus external engineering help.

---

Original assignee

Moskowitz Family LLC, Rockville, Maryland. Per the complaints: "a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the state of Maryland, with its principal place of business located at 212 North Adams Street, Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20850. The company was created to develop human spine related devices and protect and license any resulting inventions and intellectual property." (Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, D. Minn. 0:25‑cv‑00769, Compl. ¶7.)

• Applicant of record on 17/487,360: Moskowitz Family LLC (the continuation was filed directly in the LLC's name on 2021‑09‑28; Google Patents shows "Application filed by Moskowitz Family LLC").
• Prosecution correspondent of record: Fish & Richardson P.C., Customer No. 26191, P.O. Box 1022, Minneapolis, MN 55440‑1022 — the recurring correspondent across the entire Moskowitz family (seen on 16/280,684, 16/744,755, 17/408,068, 17/706,873). Named F&R attorney appearing of record on sibling applications: Kiersten M. Batzli (Reg. No. confirmed on an IDS transmittal in 17/408,068).
• Does the assignee ship a product embodying the claims? No evidence of it. The record shows the opposite: the accused products in every suit are third‑party implants (NuVasive Simplify Cervical Disc; Medtronic/Warsaw Orthopedic Elevate, Catalyst PL, Endoskeleton TAS/TCS, T2 Stratosphere; Globus COALITION/MONUMENT). Moskowitz Family LLC monetizes by licensing and litigation, not by manufacturing.
• Primary line of business: IP holding / licensing of spinal implant inventions, with an in‑house engineering and prototyping history (contemporaneous CAD files, prototypes, and inventor declarations are in the record of the related IPRs).
• Current status: Operating (as a licensing/assertion entity), not dissolved, not in bankruptcy. It is an active plaintiff in four identified campaigns: Globus (2019→EDPA), ZimVie (D. Del. 1:22‑cv‑01632, dismissed), Medtronic (D. Minn. 0:25‑cv‑00769, filed 2025‑02‑28), NuVasive (D. Del. 1:25‑cv‑00711, filed 2025‑06‑06).

---

Assignment timeline

Recorded events affecting the '567 chain, as shown in the Google Patents legal‑events mirror for US 11,771,567. All three were recorded on the same date, 2021‑10‑28, i.e. one month after the 2021‑09‑28 filing of application 17/487,360.

• Executed date not shown / recorded 2021‑10‑28 — Reel not retrieved (Assignment Center reel/frame could not be confirmed in this session)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: MOSKOWITZ, MOSHEH T. (individual)
  • Assignee: NATHAN C. MOSKOWITZ (individual)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved (the assignment‑recording correspondent is not exposed in the Google Patents legal‑events mirror; the prosecution correspondent for this family is Fish & Richardson P.C., Customer No. 26191 — see the "repeat correspondent" signal below)
  • Context: Internal consolidation — a co‑inventor's undivided interest conveyed to the lead inventor.

• Executed date not shown / recorded 2021‑10‑28 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: GLOZMAN, DANIEL (individual, Kefar Adummin, IL)
  • Assignee: NATHAN C. MOSKOWITZ (individual)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Internal consolidation — the outside/foreign co‑inventor's interest conveyed to the lead inventor.

• Executed date not shown / recorded 2021‑10‑28 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: MOSKOWITZ, NATHAN C. (individual)
  • Assignee: MOSKOWITZ FAMILY LLC (Maryland LLC)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Internal reorganization — the individual lead inventor perfects title in the family holding company that was already the applicant of record.

There are no recorded events after 2021‑10‑28. In particular, no post‑issuance transfer to a third party, no security agreement, no change of name, and no license recordation appears anywhere in the '567 record. Moskowitz Family LLC has therefore owned the patent continuously since registration of the chain on 2021‑10‑28, including through issuance on 2023‑10‑03 and through the 2025–2026 litigations.

Sibling‑patent reel/frame benchmark (NOT the '567 record — do not attribute these to the '567). A chain‑of‑title statement filed in a related Moskowitz IPR shows the family's recording pattern with actual reel/frame numbers for a different application:

Note the structural parallel: for the sibling family too, every co‑inventor assigns to Nathan C. Moskowitz personally, and Nathan C. Moskowitz in turn assigns to Moskowitz Family LLC — the identical hub‑and‑spoke pattern visible in the '567's three 2021‑10‑28 events. This is strong circumstantial evidence that the '567 recordings were filed in the same batch style, but the reel/frame numbers for the '567 itself remain unverified.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11771567
    2006 : Priority date Apr 4
    2021 : Continuation filed Sep 28
         : Inventors assign to Nathan C Moskowitz
         : Nathan C Moskowitz assigns to Moskowitz Family LLC
    2022 : Sibling continuation issues as 11452619
    2023 : Patent 11771567 issues Oct 3
    2025 : Suit filed against NuVasive in D Del
         : Suit filed against Medtronic in D Minn
    2027 : Jury trial set for Feb 8

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present (qualified; not the anonymous-shell variant).
The patent sits in a licensing-only LLC with no product in commerce: Moskowitz Family LLC's own pleadings describe it as created "to develop human spine related devices and protect and license any resulting inventions," and every accused product is a third party's. However, the classic shell tells are absent: (a) the assignee has a real street address (212 N. Adams St., Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20850) rather than a registered-agent mail drop; (b) its principals are the named inventors themselves (Nathan C. Moskowitz = founder; Mosheh T. Moskowitz = CTO; Ahmnon D. Moskowitz = COO); (c) the LLC was the applicant of record and the pipeline assignee from the outset, so there was never a transfer out of an operating company into a newly minted shell. I therefore score this as present in substance (non-practicing licensing entity) but explicitly not an anonymous single-purpose Delaware/Texas shell — naming alone is insufficient and the concrete evidence cuts the other way on anonymity.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present.
No assignee in the chain matches any listed NPE program: no Acacia, Marathon Patent Group, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or Spangenberg entity appears. Moskowitz Family LLC is not an aggregator of third‑party patents; it is a first‑party inventor portfolio. Its appearance in the Unified Patents litigation portal and RPX Insight reflects litigation tracking generally (Unified and RPX index all NPE‑style campaigns), not membership on an NPE list. Flag as not present, but note the entity is a multi‑defendant serial plaintiff in the spine space (4 campaigns), which is why it is indexed at all.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear (prosecution recurrence confirmed; assignment correspondent unverified).
A single firm recurs across the entire Moskowitz family as prosecution correspondent: Fish & Richardson P.C., Customer No. 26191, Minneapolis — documented on 16/280,684 ('319 patent), 16/744,755, 17/408,068 (Kiersten M. Batzli, Reg. No.), and 17/706,873. The parent '567 file (17/487,360) sits inside the same Customer Number. But I could not confirm who filed the three 2021‑10‑28 assignment recordings, because the Assignment Center correspondent field was not retrievable for the '567 and is not mirrored on Google Patents. Under the stated rule ("a single appearance is not a finding — the signal is recurrence"), I cannot make this a finding on the assignment side. I also note the firm is a large general‑practice IP firm doing extensive operating‑company work; it is not on any NPE assertion list I am aware of.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present.
There is exactly one consolidation step, executed as a same‑day two‑hop chain on 2021‑10‑28 (co‑inventors → Nathan C. Moskowitz → Moskowitz Family LLC). No chained LLCs, no two‑year cascade, no multiple assignee entities sharing a correspondent address. The sibling‑family reel/frame data (045636, 045586, 045904, 045997, 046069, 057014) shows the same plain hub‑and‑spoke, not a cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present.
The assignments are dated/recorded 2021‑10‑28; the first suit naming the '567 (Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, D. Del. 1:25‑cv‑00711, filed 2025‑06‑06) came ~3 years 7 months later. The prior Moskowitz campaigns (Globus 2019, ZimVie 2022) predate the '567's issuance or asserted different patents. So the chain was not arranged within six months of suit, and venue/standing were not manufactured by a late‑breaking assignment. Notably, the '567 issued on 2023‑10‑03 in the LLC's name, meaning title was already clean at issuance.

6. Bankruptcy fire‑sale — Not present.
No Chapter 7/11, no §363 sale, no Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid analogue. Moskowitz Family LLC was never a debtor in any record I found; it is the plaintiff in every proceeding involving this portfolio.

7. Privateering — Not present.
Privateering requires an operating company to transfer patents to an NPE that asserts on its behalf. Here there is no transferring operating company and no commercial sponsor: the asserters' adversary set (Globus, NuVasive, Medtronic/Warsaw, Titan Spine, ZimVie) are all competitors of nobody — the patent owner makes no product. The pre‑suit history (2010‑2011 technical disclosures to NuVasive, 2005‑2016 disclosures to Medtronic, a June 2015 formal thirty‑plus‑patent notice letter, and a 2015 Globus licensing offer rebuffed as "very low") reads as failed licensing negotiations by an independent inventor, not privateering on behalf of a manufacturer.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti‑NPE) — Not present.
The chain terminates at Moskowitz Family LLC, an active asserter. It has not reached RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. Rather than being neutralized, the patent is live in a pending D. Del. action with a jury trial set for 2027‑02‑08 and Markman briefing underway through 2026.

---

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The current and sole assignee, Moskowitz Family LLC, is a non-practicing licensing entity that does not make or sell any product embodying the claims, yet it has asserted the '567 patent against a large spine‑device competitor — the NuVasive Simplify Cervical Disc, per Exhibit 12 to the D. Del. complaint — with trial set for 2027‑02‑08, and it is simultaneously asserting a ten‑patent family against Medtronic. That is the operative NPE posture, and it rests on the recorded chain of 2021‑10‑28 (co‑inventors Glozman and Mosheh T. Moskowitz → Nathan C. Moskowitz; Nathan C. Moskowitz → Moskowitz Family LLC), which has never been transferred again.

The confidence is only moderate, not high, because the diagnostic troll signals are affirmatively absent: no known NPE program in the chain, no cascading LLC transfers, no pre‑suit assignment (recorded ~3 years 7 months before the first suit naming the '567), no bankruptcy sale, no privateering, and no defensive‑aggregator endpoint. The single strongest signal (a licensing‑only assignee) is present in a qualified form only — the LLC is inventor‑controlled, holds a real Rockville, MD address, and its principals are the named inventors, so the evidence points to an inventor‑holding‑company that litigates after failed licensing talks rather than an anonymous shell acquired for assertion.

Residual uncertainty to close out (please verify on the Assignment Center before relying on this). The reel/frame numbers, execution dates, and recording correspondent for the three 2021‑10‑28 assignments were not retrievable in this session and are reported as "not retrieved" rather than estimated. If the assignment correspondent turns out to be a single repeat attorney filing for multiple Moskowitz entities, signal 3 would upgrade and the verdict could move to high confidence; conversely, if the Assignment Center shows only the three internal‑consolidation records and nothing further (as I expect), the moderate‑confidence, inventor‑holding‑company characterization stands.

I'll research the USPTO record for US 11,771,567 and its cited prior art references.

Let me get the complete cited-reference lists from Justia and Google Patents.

Let me retrieve the complete front-page reference list for the granted patent.

Prior‑Art Review — U.S. Patent No. 11,771,567 B2 ("Artificial disc system")

0. Scope, method, and a hard caveat about sourcing

What I was asked to do: query the USPTO record for the specific number 11,771,567 (not neighbors), pull its own cited references, and for each give a full citation, dates, a brief description, and the claim(s) it could potentially anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

What I was able to retrieve and what I could not:

I could not complete a live USPTO PatentCenter / USPTO Full‑Text (PatFT) query before exhausting my search budget. Everything below is drawn from the USPTO-derived records as mirrored by Google Patents (patents.google.com/patent/US11771567B2, patents.google.com/patent/US20220110766A1) and Justia Patents (patents.justia.com/patent/11771567), which reproduce the front-page "(56) References Cited" data. Where I did not personally read a reference's full text, I say so, and the § 102 mapping is expressly provisional.

I searched only 11,771,567. I did not fold in adjacent numbers. Note for the reader: US 11,771,565 ("Prosthetic disc for intervertebral insertion," Simplify Medical Pty Ltd) and US 11,771,566 are different patents with different reference lists and are excluded. That distinction matters here because a Simplify product is the accused instrumentality in the co-pending litigation — but the '565 patent is not the patent under review and its citations must not be attributed to '567.

---

1. The statutory framework that governs the mapping

The '567 patent issued from application 17/487,360, filed 2021‑09‑28, i.e. post‑AIA, so 35 U.S.C. § 102 (AIA) applies — but as a continuation it carries the effective filing date of its ancestor chain, i.e. 2006‑04‑04 (provisional 60/788,720) / 2006‑07‑17 (the '415 non‑provisional), to the extent the claims are supported under § 112.

That yields the analytical rules I applied:

• § 102(a)(1) — patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use/on sale before 2006‑04‑04.
• § 102(a)(2) — described in a U.S. patent or U.S. patent-application publication that was effectively filed before 2006‑04‑04 (regardless of its own later publication date).
• § 102(b)(1)/(2) — exceptions for the inventor's own disclosures and for commonly-owned/joint-research subject matter. Critically, a reference that is a family member of the '567 chain is not "by another" and cannot anticipate.
• Anticipation requires every limitation in a single reference, arranged as claimed. A reference that discloses only some elements is § 103 material, not § 102 material.

⚠️ A structural flag that the reader must keep in view. The reference list contains items whose own effective filing date post‑dates 2006‑04‑04 (notably US 8,998,990 B2, effective 2006‑07‑24). Those items cannot be § 102 prior art on a 2006 priority date. Their presence in the list is consistent with (a) the examiner citing them only as general background, and/or (b) the examiner testing whether the "right‑angled lateral anchor" limitations are entitled to the 2006 priority. I cannot resolve which from the retrieved data, and this is exactly the kind of priority/§ 112 question that drove the claim-construction phase in the Delaware case. Treat it as an open issue, not a settled one.

---

2. A contradiction in the record that I must flag rather than paper over

The two USPTO-derived mirrors report materially different citation sets:

Per the operating rules I prefer the retrieved records over my priors, but here the records conflict with each other. The most probable reconciliation — stated as a hypothesis, not a finding — is that Justia reproduces the cumulative front-page list carried forward from the parent applications (11/487,415 → 12/889,328 → 16/194,976), while Google Patents' 14-item table reflects the references surfaced for the publication of 17/487,360 itself. I present both, labelled, and do not silently merge them.

---

3. Set A — The 14 enumerated "Patent Citations" (Google Patents)

These 14 are the directly attributable, enumerable citation set. Priority and publication dates are as listed; I did not independently verify filing dates for each.

3.1 Reference-by-reference: what it could plausibly anticipate, and why I doubt it

I have not read the full text of A1–A14; the observations below are constrained by the recovered titles/abstracts and the class of device each belongs to. Confidence is stated.

A1 — US 2008/0015698 A1 (Marino).

• Potential § 102 target claims: 14 / 19 ("at least two oppositely positioned rounded edges") and possibly 12 (domes mating with concave surfaces), if the reference shows a spacer seated in opposed concave endplate-contacting members.
• Why not claims 1 / 15: nothing recovered suggests the right-angled lateral anchors arranged in a line in the center portion with same-direction orientation, nor the perimeter anchors whose exterior surface runs continuously out of the perimeter side wall. Those are the two limitations on which claim 1 most likely turned.
• Confidence: low.

A2 / A10 — US 2009/0018661 A1 and US 2007/0050032 A1 (Spinal Kinetics).

• Potential § 102 target claims: 13 (movement to accommodate lateral bending, flexion, extension and rotation) and 7/12 (core geometry) — a flexible-core disc can be argued to disclose these functional results.
• Impediment: the Spinal Kinetics devices typically use a non‑rigid/compliant core, whereas the '567 claims recite a mobile core with a generally circular perimeter core rim and (deps.) convex domes in a groove that mate with concave plate surfaces. Anticipation would require the reference to disclose that specific rigid domed-core geometry.
• Confidence: low.

A3 — US 2007/0198089 A1 (Moskowitz). This is the published parent application (the '415, now US 7,854,766 B2) with the identical inventive entity. It is a family member, not prior art: it is not "by another," and the common-inventor/ownership exceptions of § 102(b)(2) apply. Its inclusion on an IDS is routine; it is not an anticipation reference. If this is the reference you are being pressed on, the correct answer is that it is categorically unavailable under § 102.

A4 — US 2007/0088441 A1 (Synergy Disc Replacement / Duggal).

• Potential § 102 target claims: the plate + intervening core portions of claim 1's preamble and claims 12 / 13; potentially 14/19 if the plates are bean-shaped with rounded edges.
• Impediment: no recovered disclosure of the center-line right-angled anchors or edge-continuous perimeter anchors. This is my best "§ 103 partner" for the plate/core architecture, not an anticipator.
• Confidence: low-to-medium on the plate/core architecture; low on any independent claim.

A5 — US 2006/0025777 A1 (Weber). Directed to an instrument for introducing a multi-component prosthesis. The '567 claims 1–20 are product claims reciting no method steps, so an instrument reference cannot anticipate them. Relevant only as background to the insertion-tool disclosure in the specification (§ Figures 18–19). No § 102 anticipation of any issued claim.

A6 — US 2006/0235527 A1 (Buettner-Janz, "motion-adapted edge").

• Potential § 102 target claims: 8 / 9 ("a perimeter ridge about the concave surface of the opposite surface") — a "motion-adapted edge" is the closest thing in the recovered set to a declared perimeter ridge about a concave bearing surface; also possibly 14/19.
• Impediment: the '567's ridge is claimed in combination with the anchor sets of claim 1. Even if A6 teaches the ridge, it cannot anticipate claims 8/9 as dependent claims of claim 1 unless it also teaches every limitation of claim 1.
• Confidence: medium that A6 is the strongest § 103 art against claims 8–9; low that it anticipates anything.

A7 — US 2006/0136062 A1 (Dinello).

• Potential § 102 target claims: 12 / 13 (opposed plates, core mating, multi-axis motion). Height/angle adjustability overlaps the family's expansile concept but not the '567's non‑expansile claimed assembly.
• Confidence: low.

A8 — US 2006/0276902 A1 (Zipnick). Apparatus for minimally invasive disc manipulation. No recovered disclosure touching the claimed anchor geometry. No anticipation.

A9 — US 2010/0286784 A1 (Curran).

• ⚠️ Dating note: although it published in 2010, its effective filing date of 2005‑07‑28 makes it § 102(a)(2) art only as to subject matter actually supported in its 2005 priority document. Anything added after 2006‑04‑04 is not § 102 art.
• Potential § 102 target claims: plate/anchor geometry (claims 1 / 15 preamble elements; 5 / 6) if the system uses peripheral bone-engagement features.
• Confidence: low; full text not reviewed.

A11 — US 2007/0072475 A1 (Justin).

• Potential § 102 target claims: 12 / 13; possibly the concave-opposite-surface element of claim 1.
• Confidence: low.

A12 / A13 — US 2007/0100453 A1 and US 7,927,373 B2 (DePuy Spine). Same family; the granted version is the better citation (a patent is § 102(a)(2) art as of its effective filing date). Potential targets: the concave bearing-surface element of claim 1 and claims 12 / 13. Confidence: low.

A14 — US 8,998,990 B2 (DePuy Synthes, "Intervertebral implant with keel").

• This is the only recovered reference with a "keel" — the closest structural analogue to a plate protrusion/anchor.
• However: its effective filing date (2006‑07‑24) is later than the '567's 2006‑04‑04 effective filing date, so on the face of the record it is not § 102 prior art at all.
• If the "right-angled lateral anchors" limitations were held not supported in the 2006 disclosure (a § 112 written-description question), the claims would move to a 2021 effective filing date and A14 would become available — but that same holding would also undermine the priority claim. This needs the prosecution history of 17/487,360; I do not have it.

3.2 Bottom line on Set A

No reference in Set A anticipates claim 1 or claim 15. Claims 1 and 15 are long, cumulative claims whose distinguishing limitations are (i) the right-angled lateral protrusions located in the center portion and arranged in at least one line with all right-angled sides facing the same direction, and (ii) the perimeter anchors each positioned at and extending to a plate edge, with an exterior surface that extends continuously from the plate's perimeter surface (i.e., merged with the side wall rather than an inboard spike). Nothing I recovered in the cited set discloses combination (ii) at all, and nothing discloses (i) in the recited line/orientation arrangement.

The realistic § 102 candidates in Set A are limited to narrow dependent claims (chiefly 7, 8/9, 12–14, 19), and even those are better characterized as § 103 material when combined. That is consistent with the claims having been allowed over this art.

---

4. Set B — Justia's "Referenced Cited" front-page list (excerpt; incomplete)

Justia attributes a substantially longer "(56) References Cited" list to US 11,771,567. The excerpt I recovered (U.S. patent documents, issue date shown), which appears to be a carry-over from the parent applications:

⚠️ I could not retrieve the full Set B (the excerpt truncates at US 6,719,794). I therefore cannot state the total count, nor identify the remaining references, nor confirm whether Set B is truly the '567's front page or an aggregate of the family.

§ 102 analysis for Set B (limited): every item whose issue date precedes 2006‑04‑04 is facially § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) art. The classics are the doctrinally interesting ones:

• US 4,759,766 and US 5,401,269 (Buettner‑Janz) — the foundational ProDisc‑lineage disc prostheses (two plates + dome core). These are the most likely § 102 anchors for the plate/core architecture and hence the strongest § 103 combiners against claims 1, 7, 12–15.
• US 4,997,432 (Keller) and US 5,123,926 / US 6,610,093 (Pisharodi) — expansile/interbody devices with bone-engagement protrusions; relevant to claims 1/15 preview and 5/6 (perimeter anchors; pyramidal prisms) and to the specification's expansile embodiments.
• US 6,572,653 (Simonson) — multi-part motion-preserving device; potentially relevant to the core/plate limitations.
• US 5,660,188 (Groiso) and the 1878–1940 items — these are bone-plate/staple antecedents, most plausibly cited for the anchor/spike geometry concepts (right-angled lateral protrusions). They are the natural place to look for § 102 teaching of the "right‑angled side" limitation, though as non-spinal or pre-spinal-art items they would be § 103 fodder.
• The 2004‑and‑later tail of Set B (not retrieved) is where any genuinely anticipatory reference to the anchor line/orientation limitation would have to live; I cannot assess it.

---

5. Non-patent literature and incorporated material cited by the '567 specification

These are printed publications and are therefore § 102(a)(1) art if published before 2006‑04‑04 (both are):

Neither review article discloses the claimed structure; they are cited in the specification as background and I could not map either to any claim under § 102.

---

6. Things I could not determine (stated explicitly, not fabricated)

1. The complete citation list on the '567 front page, and the true count (14 vs. dozens). Conflicting records; see § 2.
2. The prosecution history of 17/487,360 — i.e., which references the examiner relied on, and on what § 102/§ 103 basis. Without it I cannot say which citations are examiner-cited vs. applicant-cited, which matters because examiner-cited art is the art that actually shaped the claims.
3. The full text of any Set A or Set B reference. All § 102 mappings above are provisional and would require element-by-element reading against the granted claim language.
4. Whether any cited reference was affirmatively applied to reject a claim, and if so which.
5. Any Rule 132 declaration, IDS entry, or priority/§ 112 challenge in the file.

---

7. Contradiction register (per the instruction to flag conflicts)

---

8. Direct answer to the question posed

• Most relevant cited art for US 11,771,567: on the recovered record, the most material citations are US 2007/0088441 A1 (Synergy Disc / Duggal), US 2006/0235527 A1 (Buettner‑Janz, motion‑adapted edge), US 2007/0072475 A1 (Justin, universal spinal disc implant), and US 2007/0100453 A1 / US 7,927,373 B2 (DePuy Spine) — all directed to two-plate-plus-core disc architecture and plate edge/bearing features. If the fuller Set B is confirmed, US 4,759,766 and US 5,401,269 (Buettner‑Janz) and the Pisharodi/Keller protrusion devices belong at the top of that list.
• Which claims any of them could potentially anticipate under § 102: at most, the narrow dependent claims — principally 7 (domed core with a groove rim), 8/9 (perimeter ridge about the concave surface), 12–13 (dome/concave mating; multi-axis motion) and 14/19 (rounded edges). No recovered reference anticipates independent claim 1 or claim 15; the center-line right-angled anchor arrangement and the perimeter anchors continuous with the plate side wall are not disclosed in anything I could retrieve. Everything else on the list is, at best, § 103 material in combination.
• Single most important open item: obtain the file wrapper of 17/487,360. Until the examiner's actual applied references and rejections are known, any statement about § 102 anticipation of the '567 claims is provisional.

I'll ground this § 103 analysis in the prior art listed on the patent's own page (the examiner-cited "Families Citing this family" entries, marked with *) and verify details of the key references before building the combinations.

Good, I have the key anchor/fixation references. Now let me pull the primary ball-and-trough / mobile-core artificial disc references cited on the patent's page and verify the Cervitech steep-flank teeth details.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,771,567 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the "Patent summary" and "Litigation summary" sections already generated above. I do not repeat the claim-by-claim scope recitation or the litigation posture; I reference them and go straight to the § 103 analysis.

---

1. Framework and controlling date

• Statute: Because App. No. 17/487,360 was filed 2021‑09‑28, the AIA version of §§ 102/103 governs. The claims' presumptive effective filing date is 2006‑04‑04 (provisional 60/788,720), because the '567 is a continuation of 16/194,976 → 12/889,328 → (divisional of) 11/487,415 → provisional 60/788,720.
• Critical caveat that drives the whole analysis: the '567 issued with a newly drafted independent claim set (right‑angled lateral anchors in center lines; perimeter anchors continuous with the side wall) that does not appear verbatim in the 2006 provisional. If a defendant shows those limitations lack written‑description support in the 2006 provisional, the effective date slips to 2008/2010, and additional references become available as art. I flag this at each point where it matters (§ 10 below).
• Legal test: Graham v. John Deere factors, applied per KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (predictable use of known elements according to known methods; "a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions"). In re Keller / In re Merck allow a combination of references where the references are reasonably pertinent and the combination flows from the references themselves.

2. Level of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A POSITA here would be a spine surgeon (orthopedic or neurosurgeon) with several years of artificial-disc experience, or a biomedical/mechanical engineer with 3–5 years of spinal-implant design experience, working closely with a clinician. That person would know, without invention, the Link SB Charité, ProDisc, Bristol and Prestige ball‑on‑trough platforms, the SB Charité biconvex UHMWPE core, the standard endplate‑fixation art (keels, teeth, spikes, barbed projections), and the standard instrumentation for posterior/lateral disc insertion.

3. The prior art of record on the patent's own page

The "Prior Art" content on the Google Patents page is the citation table ("Families Citing this family (129)", with * Cited by examiner markers). Because the '567 claims 2006 priority, forward citations that postdate 2006‑04‑04 are not § 102/103 art for these claims unless the priority date slips. I sort them accordingly:

Admitted prior art inside the '567 specification itself (very significant under In re Fout / MPEP 2129): the Background states that the field uses "ball on trough design (Bristol‑Cervical, Prestige‑Cervical), Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) with either a biconvex design allowing unconstrained kinematic motion (Link SB Charite‑Lumbar), or a monoconvex design allowing semiconstrained motion (Prodisc‑Lumbar)," and that "Containers have consisted of titanium plates, cobalt chrome." The specification thus concedes:

• two opposing plates + a mobile core between them (claims 1 & 15 preambles);
• both plate surfaces concave with a biconvex core seated in the concavities (claim 1 element (b); claim 15's "first concave portion");
• relative motion enabling lateral bending/flexion/extension/rotation (claim 13).

That concession removes most of the "architecture" from the novelty calculus and leaves the anchor geometry as the only battleground.

---

4. Combination 1 (primary) — Claims 1 and 15

Base reference A: Marnay US 5,314,477 (or, equivalently, the admitted Link SB Charité / ProDisc art) — two plates + mobile core in concave seats, motion preserved.
Secondary reference B: Cervitech/Keller US 2014/0336767 A1 (US 8,721,725).
Secondary reference C: Cervitech/Keller EP 1 639 968 A1 (US 2006/0064168 A1).

Element mapping:

Motivation to combine (KSR): (1) same field, same problem — preventing migration/expulsion of an artificial disc while preserving motion. (2) Both A and B/C are reasonably pertinent to the problem the '567 addresses: the '567's own Background states the goal that, if the device "can purchase the endplates with spikes there would be no need for supplemental posterior pedicle screw fixation." (3) The references themselves supply the reason for the anchor orientation — EP 1 639 968 touts directional resistance ("minimal resistance… into the recess… greater resistance to its removal"), and Keller '667 touts self‑tapping projections that penetrate the endplate. (4) B expressly contemplates that "both attachment plates of the intervertebral prosthesis are configured identically" (claim 15), which directly meets claim 17/18 (third and fourth pluralities on the second plate). (5) Predictable result — no new mechanism; the combination is the substitution of one known endplate‑anchoring surface for another on a known ball‑and‑trough disc.

---

5. Combination 2 (alternative primary) — Claims 1 and 15

Base A′: Cannon US 7,811,325 (US 2008/0228275 A1) — intervertebral implant with first and second components each engaging a vertebra and a means for allowing the components to move relative to one another (i.e., a mobile core/insert), with a kidney‑shaped footprint, inner cutouts, and at least one vertebra‑engaging protrusion (keel) on the outer surface. Cannon itself cites and describes Marnay US 5,314,477 as the three‑part implant paradigm.
Secondary B: Cervitech/Keller US 2014/0336767 (steep, near‑perpendicular flanked teeth in rows, central area).
Secondary C: EP 1 639 968 (penetrating/barbed projections).

This combination is arguably stronger for claim 1's preamble ("substantially parallel plates… occupy a space defined by vertebral endplates," kidney‑shaped plates) because Cannon expressly uses a kidney‑shaped footprint and a keel‑type vertebra‑engaging protrusion, while B supplies the line(s) of same‑direction right‑angled anchors in the center portion.

---

6. The narrowest limitation — the "perimeter" second plurality (claim 1, element (d))

Claim 1(d) requires the second anchors to sit at and extend to the plate edge with an exterior surface that extends continuously from the perimeter surface (i.e., the anchor is not an isolated inboard spike but is merged/flowed into the plate side wall). This is the limitation on which the patentee will most plausibly resist.

• EP 1 639 968 comes closest: its anchoring projections are "arranged rigidly on the side surfaces" of the inserted part and "force themselves into the bone surface," and one embodiment uses "blades… extending in the direction of insertion." A side‑surface blade whose outer face runs to the body edge is a reasonable reading‑on of "exterior surface extends continuously from the perimeter surface."
• The general artificial‑disc art (and the '567's own FIG. 10A pyramidal spikes 808c "around the peripheral edge") confirms that pyramidal peripheral endplate spikes are a conventional expedient. Claim 6's "pyramidal prisms" is therefore the archetypal predictable form.
• Caveat: I did not locate, in the citation table on this page, a pre‑2006 reference that expressly recites anchors whose exterior surface is continuous with the plate's perimeter side wall. A petitioner would likely have to rely on (i) EP 1 639 968's side‑surface projections, (ii) the Link/Cervitech teeth whose contact‑face coverage reaches the plate contour (US 2011/0130837 — only if priority slips), or (iii) a combination of two or more anchor references plus a "design choice / obvious to merge" rationale. This is the claim element most vulnerable to a non‑obviousness argument.

---

7. Dependent claims

---

8. Motivation‑to‑combine summary (what a petition would argue)

1. Same field / same problem: all references are in intervertebral disc replacement and endplate fixation.
2. The '567's own admission supplies the frame: the Background concedes ball‑on‑trough, biconvex UHMWPE cores and titanium/CoCr plate "containers," leaving only anchor geometry.
3. Known problem, known fix: migration/subsidence of discs is addressed in the art by bone‑penetrating spikes/teeth (EP 1 639 968; Keller '667; Link '0837).
4. The references themselves supply the "why": directional anchoring (steep flank resists withdrawal, inclined flank eases insertion) and self‑tapping penetration are expressly stated rationales — matching claim 3.
5. Predictable result / no new mechanism — mere aggregation of known plate + known core + known anchors; reasonable expectation of success.
6. Design choice: placing teeth in the central (cancellous) region and leaving the denser peripheral rim for load transfer is taught by Keller '667 ¶14, directly supporting claims 2/16 and 18.

---

9. Counter‑arguments (and where the patentee gains traction)

• Teaching away — the perpendicular flank. The later Cervitech/Link disclosure (US 2011/0130837, priority 2008) states that teeth with a flank perpendicular to the contact face "tend to cut through bone tissue" and proposes an 78°–88° flank instead. If the priority date slips and this reference qualifies, the patentee can argue the art taught away from claim 3/4's "substantially perpendicular" rearward side. However, the earlier Keller '667 (2005 priority, qualifying) claims exactly the steep, ~perpendicular ventral face — so the "away" argument is blunted: the field as of 2006 contained both teachings, and a POSITA is not required to follow the later critique.
• Secondary considerations. The co‑pending NuVasive litigation (D. Del. 1:25‑cv‑00711, Simplify® Cervical Disc accused) may generate evidence of commercial success and copying; the patentee will need nexus to the claimed anchor geometry specifically. The specification's assertion — "we believe that this is a unique design which is not found in other prosthetic disc devices" — is unsupported attorney/advocate argument, not probative evidence of non‑obviousness.
• Long‑felt need / skepticism re: posterior placement. The Background's lengthy discussion of the posterior‑placement problem (extrusion rates of PDNs, facet preservation, avoidance of anterior vascular injury) could support a long‑felt‑need narrative — but the claimed invention is not the posterior method; it is the disc article per se, which weakens nexus.

---

10. Date‑of‑art and other flags (explicit uncertainties)

1. Priority‑date dependency (decisive). My analysis assumes the '567's claims are entitled to 2006‑04‑04. If the new claim language (right‑angled lateral anchors in center lines; perimeter anchors continuous with the side wall) is not supported by the 2006 provisional/11/487,415 disclosure, then US 2011/0130837 A1 (2008) and WO 2008/014258 (2006‑07‑24) — and possibly US 10,307,263/US 10,751,197 (2017) — become available as § 102(a)(2) art, materially strengthening the § 103 case against claims 1–20. This is the single most important fact to be resolved.
2. US 2014/0336767 A1 / US 8,721,725 § 102 date. I treat its effective date as the 2005‑06‑23 provisional. Pre‑AIA § 102(e)/AIA § 102(d) treatment of provisionals is fact‑specific (In re Giacomini); a petitioner must show the provisional supports the relied‑on projection disclosure. I have not verified the provisional's content.
3. EP 1 639 968 timing. Its publication (2006‑03‑23/29) is only days before the '567's 2006‑04‑04 provisional. If the '567's actual invention date is earlier (e.g., corroborated conception before publication), this reference could fall outside § 102(a). This is unusually close and should be verified.
4. US 5,314,477 (Marnay) bibliographic details (issue date 1994‑05‑24) rest on my training data; the search results confirmed only that it is cited as the paradigmatic "upper part + lower part + insert" implant, not its full text.
5. I did not locate any single reference that discloses all elements of claim 1 or claim 15; this is an obviousness, not an anticipation, analysis. The ball‑and‑trough + two‑concave‑plate + mobile‑core architecture is admitted art, and the anchor geometry is the only plausible point of novelty.
6. Current‑date discrepancy: the task header states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while the system date is 2026‑09‑28. I use no date‑dependent facts beyond what is stated above, so the discrepancy does not change the analysis — but note that the '567's anticipated expiration (2026‑07‑17, per Google Patents) now falls before the scheduled 2027‑02‑08 NuVasive trial, which affects remedies but not the § 103 merits. (See the earlier sections' own flagged date inconsistencies.)
7. No statement here is a legal conclusion. Claim scope, priority entitlement, and obviousness must ultimately be resolved on the granted claims, the prosecution history of App. 17/487,360, and the actual content of the provisional 60/788,720 — none of which I have been able to verify against a certified copy.

---

Bottom line: The '567's surviving novelty is narrow — a ball‑and‑trough artificial disc (admitted art) bearing right‑angled, same‑direction, center‑line anchor teeth and perimeter anchors. The combination of (A) a ball‑and‑trough/mobile‑core disc (Marnay US 5,314,477; Cannon US 7,811,325; admitted SB Charité/ProDisc art) with (B) Cervitech/Keller US 2014/0336767/US 8,721,725 (near‑perpendicular self‑tapping teeth in rows, in a central area offset from the edge) and, optionally, (C) EP 1 639 968 (bone‑penetrating, directionally barbed side‑surface projections) renders independent claims 1 and 15 and most dependents obvious by a strong KSR rationale — provided the 2006 priority date holds for the new anchor limitations. The perimeter‑anchor "continuous with the side wall" limitation (claim 1(d)) is the patentee's best non‑obviousness position, and the priority‑date question (Flag 1) is the pivot on which the whole challenge turns.