US 12144743

Patent Overview — US 12,144,743 B2

Title: Intervertebral implant

Patent number: US 12,144,743 B2

Assignee: Moskowitz Family LLC (original and current assignee, per the supplied listing)

Inventors: Nathan C. Moskowitz; Mosheh T. Moskowitz; Ahmnon D. Moskowitz; Pablo A. Valdivia Y. Alvarado

Application number: US 17/492,996 (filed 2021-10-04)

Publication dates: US 2022/0023060 A1 published 2022-01-27; the patent published and was granted 2024-11-19.

Priority date (as listed, an assumption and not a legal conclusion): 2005-04-12. The text shows priority claims to several earlier US applications (US 11/208,644; US 11/536,815; US 11/842,855; US 12/054,335; US 13/418,323).

Status: Active; adjusted expiration listed as 2027-01-24 (stated as a legal-status assumption, not a legal conclusion).

Purpose and plain-language scope: The document is directed to an intervertebral implant — a device placed between spinal vertebrae — classified for spinal fusion of adjacent spinal bodies, i.e., a fusion cage, specifically one that is "substantially parallelepipedal, e.g. having a rectangular or trapezoidal cross-section" (A61F2/447; A61F2/4455). Related classifications cover bone plates and screws or fasteners used for internal fixation (A61B17/70, A61B17/80, A61B17/86). The listed prior-art keywords — screw, intervertebral implant, cage, intervertebral, guide — indicate the implant involves a cage and screws, with a guide element. However, the supplied excerpt does not include the claims, detailed description, or drawings, so the specific structure, screw arrangement, guide mechanism, and the exact scope of the granted claims are not established here.

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12144743/en

Not established by this excerpt: The actual claim language; the full specification and drawings; any litigation; ownership transfers beyond the listed assignments; validity; and any prior-art comparison. No conclusions are drawn on those matters.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 12144743 across the sources you mentioned.

Let me confirm the specific case details and check for any other cases or PTAB proceedings.

Let me verify whether the '743 patent appears in any other case or PTAB proceeding.

Bottom line

Based on my searches of litigation databases (Unified Patents Portal, CourtListener/RECAP, Docket Alarm, Justia Dockets, UniCourt, Docket Alarm, IPVerse/GreyB, Ex Parte AI Lab) and the litigation links on the patent's own Google Patents page, US Patent 12,144,743 ("the '743 patent," "Intervertebral implant") has been asserted in exactly one known district-court action. I found no litigation involving a different patent number, and I found no PTAB (IPR/PGR) proceeding against the '743 patent itself.

---

Known litigation

Source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A25-cv-00711 ; https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70476467/moskowitz-family-llc-v-nuvasive-llc/ ; https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2025cv00711/89445 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US12144743/en (litigation link to the Delaware case)

Procedural history and current posture (as reflected in the docket)

• 06/06/2025 — Complaint for patent infringement filed; Doc. 3 reports the ten patents-in-suit, including US 12,144,743 B2.
• 08/22/2025 — NuVasive, Inc. and NuVasive, LLC filed their Answer with affirmative defenses and counterclaims against Moskowitz Family LLC.
• 09/12/2025 — Moskowitz filed its Answer to the counterclaims.
• A First Amended Complaint (Doc. 39, sealed) and associated answer/counterclaim (Doc. 43) followed.
• Claim construction (Markman) briefing: Moskowitz opening brief (Feb. 26, 2026, with the Gall declaration), NuVasive answering brief (Mar. 13, 2026), Moskowitz reply (Mar. 20, 2026), NuVasive sur-reply (late Mar./early Apr. 2026), plus a Joint Status Report regarding claim construction.
• Discovery is ongoing (interrogatories, document production, Rule 30(b)(6) and fact depositions of, e.g., Nathan/Mosheh/Ahmnon Moskowitz, Pablo A. Valdivia Y. Alvarado, and NuVasive personnel), with multiple discovery disputes.
• 09/09/2026 — Revised Scheduling Order (Doc. 107): dispositive motions due 12/18/2026; answering brief 01/08/2027; reply brief 01/15/2027. A discovery hearing was held 09/09/2026.
• 09/15/2026 — NuVasive filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. 108) attaching the Federal Circuit opinion in Appeal No. 24-1696, which is the Moskowitz v. Globus appeal (see below).

The asserted claims/features for the '743 patent are described in the complaint analysis as "an intervertebral implant with a novel screw locking mechanism using leaf springs that interact with ratcheted screw heads … allows screws to be advanced but prevents them from backing out," with "at least claim 1 … asserted."

---

Where the '743 patent is not asserted (for completeness / avoiding confusion)

Moskowitz Family LLC is a prolific litigant, and its other cases use different patents-in-suit. If you see references to "Moskowitz spinal patent litigation," do not assume the '743 patent is in them:

1. Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical Inc. — W.D. Tex. No. 6:19-cv-672 (filed Nov. 20, 2019), transferred to E.D. Pa. No. 2:20-cv-03271. Asserted patents there include the '913, '022, and '319 patents (the "universal" preamble cases). On appeal at the Federal Circuit, Appeal No. 24-1696, where the court affirmed summary judgment/non-infringement rulings clearing Globus (Sept. 11, 2026 reporting). The '743 patent is not among the asserted patents I identified in that case.

2. Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., et al. — D. Minn. No. 0:25-cv-00769 (filed Feb. 28, 2025), against Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., and Titan Spine, Inc. The asserted patents there are the '293, '674, '284, '738, '505, '633, '183, '797, '136, '755, and '367 patents. The '743 patent does not appear in that list.

PTAB (post-grant) activity

I found no IPR/PGR directed at the '743 patent. The PTAB proceedings I located (e.g., IPR2026-00121 re the '293 patent; IPR2025-01598 re the '755 patent; IPR2026-00285) are Medtronic challenges to other Moskowitz patents — not the '743 patent. In the Medtronic litigation, Medtronic stated it had filed IPR petitions against eight of the eleven asserted patents and was preparing one more, none of which involved the '743 patent.

---

Caveats and limitations

• My searches surface no returned results for any patent number other than 12,144,743 in connection with this inquiry, so I have not conflated it with a similar number.
• I was not able to complete a full-text search of every docket (e.g., a definitive PACER/Unified Patents caselist sweep keyed strictly to "12,144,743"). My conclusion that only the NuVasive case asserts the '743 patent rests on the complaints, Rule 3 reports, and docket entries I reviewed.
• The '743 patent is a continuation in a large Moskowitz family (priority claimed to Apr. 12, 2005; application 17/492,996 filed Oct. 4, 2021; issued Nov. 19, 2024), and Google Patents shows it as "Active, expires 2027-01-24" with the litigation flag linking to the Delaware case.
• A date inconsistency exists in my source material: your instruction sets "today" as April 26, 2026, but the docket entries and news items I retrieved run through September 2026. The procedural dates above are reproduced as they appear in those sources.
• This is a factual litigation summary, not legal advice, and no litigation outcome (damages, injunction, judgment) has yet been reached in the '743 case.

Recommended verification step: pull the live docket for D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711 via PACER/Unified Patents Portal and run a patent-number search on Unified Patents' caselist and the PTAB's PTAB Center for "12,144,743" to confirm the absence of additional suits or instituted reviews.

I'll start by verifying the structured data and searching for any PTAB activity, litigation, or appeals tied to this patent.

The structured block says no PTAB proceedings, but the search surfaced active Moskowitz-family litigation and trials. Let me dig specifically into US 12,144,743 and the related Delaware case.

Now let me pin down whether any IPR targets the '743 patent itself — checking NuVasive (the co-defendant asserting it) and the full Medtronic IPR docket.

I hit the tool-step limit mid-verification, so I'll flag confidence levels explicitly. Here is the analysis based on the structured ODP block plus what the searches returned.

---

AIA Trial Landscape — US Patent No. 12,144,743 ("Intervertebral implant")

Bottom line first: As of the USPTO Open Data Portal ingest, there are no AIA trial proceedings on file against US 12,144,743. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block is empty, and my web searches did not surface an IPR/PGR/CBM petition naming the '743 patent. This patent is, however, actively asserted in litigation, and it belongs to a Moskowitz family that has drawn a large IPR wave — just not against this patent yet. Treat the "no PTAB activity" finding as accurate-but-fragile.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA proceedings on US 12,144,743: 0. Breakdown by status: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials. Because no petition has ever been filed, every claim of the '743 patent is UNTESTED before the PTAB, and the patent carries no claim-level PTAB history, no FWD, no estoppel, and no Federal Circuit appeal arising from a PTAB trial. Defensive posture: the patent is un-hardened but also un-litigated at the Board — a defendant today has an open field to file the first IPR, and the patent owner cannot point to a surviving-claims record. The real risk story here is not PTAB; it is the co-pending district-court case and the aggressive IPR campaign the patent owner is already fighting across sibling patents.

---

Proceedings

None on US 12,144,743

I did not find any Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method proceeding naming the '743 patent as the challenged patent. I did not invent one to fill the space. If your demand letter or invalidity budget assumed a prior IPR on this patent, that assumption is wrong — there is nothing to cite, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to this patent.

⚠️ Confidence caveat: The ODP block is dated "most recent ingest," and PTAB dockets can lag. I could not complete a final confirmation sweep of the PTAB docket for a very recently filed '743 petition. Verify directly at the PTAB E2E / PTAB "Patent Trial" search before relying on this in a filing.

---

Adjacent activity you must not confuse with this patent

These are different patents in the same Moskowitz family — do not cite them as proceedings on the '743 patent, but they define the litigation weather.

(a) District court — the patent IS in suit. Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00711 (D. Del.), filed 2025-06-06 before Judge William C. Bryson.

• Per the Rule 3 Patent Report, asserted patents include US 12,144,743 B2 (alongside 7,972,363; 9,005,293; 9,301,854; 9,924,940; 10,016,284; 10,426,633; 10,925,753; 11,376,136; 11,771,567). Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70476467/3/moskowitz-family-llc-v-nuvasive-llc/
• The complaint (Ex. J1) accuses NuVasive's Base, Brigade, and CoRoent systems; at least claim 1 of the '743 patent is asserted, with § 271(c) and § 271(f)(2) indirect-infringement theories. Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70476467/1/moskowitz-family-llc-v-nuvasive-llc/
• Docket posture (most recent I could see): transfer/schedule set with jury trial 2027-02-08; dispositive motions due 2026-12-18; claim construction briefs exchanged Feb–Mar 2026. Note NuVasive filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority citing "Appeal No. 24-1696 Opinion" (2026-09-15) — I could not confirm which underlying case that appeal arose from, so do not assume it is a '743 appeal.
• Unified Patents litigation page: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A25-cv-00711

(b) The Medtronic IPR wave — sibling patents only. Medtronic filed a staggered series of IPRs against Moskowitz patents in the parallel Moskowitz v. Medtronic, 0:25-cv-00769 (D. Minn.) case. Identified case numbers/patents include:

• IPR2025-01598 — US 9,005,293
• IPR2026-00121 — (patent not confirmed in my results)
• IPR2026-00162 — US 12,011,367
• IPR2026-00265 — US 10,064,738 (filed 2026-02-20)
• IPR2026-00285 — US 10,603,183 (filed 2026-03-02)

None of these names 12,144,743 in the results I retrieved. Medtronic's own briefing states it had "filed IPR petitions as to eight of the asserted patents," with "the first-filed petition… referred for merits review on January 27, 2026" — but again, not tied to the '743 patent in anything I saw.

(c) Prior Globus campaign — different patents, all denied. The 2020 Globus IPRs (e.g., IPR2020-01307 on US 8,353,913; plus petitions on 10,251,643, 10,478,319, 10,307,268, 10,028,740, 9,889,022) were all denied institution in 2021. Same family, same priority provisional (60/670,231), but not this patent.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. Because no AIA trial has ever touched US 12,144,743, no claim is canceled by the PTAB and none has been PTAB-sustained. There is no narrowed, surviving-claim set to point to in an IPR context. Claim 1 — the claim NuVasive is asserting in Delaware — remains fully intact and unadjudicated. Anyone telling you "the '743 claims are already dead at the Board" is wrong; they may be conflating this patent with the 2021 Globus denials (which went the patent owner's way, not the petitioner's) or the current Medtronic filings (different patents).

Estoppel landscape. With zero instituted AIA trials on this patent, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is essentially empty as to the '743 patent. No petitioner is barred from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground against it. However, watch the sibling Medtronic IPRs: if any of them IPR the same family specification and are instituted (the first referral for merits review was reported on 2026-01-27), those petitioners and their privies could face estoppel on the shared art — but that does not bind a fresh petitioner against the '743 patent, and it does not estop the patent owner. For a new defendant, the full universe of prior art is still available. The Moskowitz family's own earlier applications (e.g., US 2008/0033440 "Moskowitz 440" and Waugh US 2008/0249569) are already in play against siblings and are obvious candidates here.

Pattern signals. (1) The same petitioner pattern is repeating: Globus (2020, six-plus petitions, all denied), now Medtronic (2025–2026, a large staggered wave). (2) The patent owner litigates and prosecutes in parallel — Dr. Moskowitz has been enforcing since at least 2019 (Globus), then ZimVie (22-cv-1632, dismissed on a counsel conflict), then Medtronic and NuVasive in 2025 — and is now opposing stays and discretionary-denial requests. (3) No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents) appears in the petition chain — Unified appears only as the source of litigation data, not as a petitioner. (4) A notable procedural feature of the current wave: the Director's interim discretionary/§ 325(d) and Fintiv/Sotera briefing is front-and-center, and the Board's institution behavior in 2025–2026 has been tightening — which cuts both ways for a would-be '743 petitioner.

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the null result directly. Search the PTAB "Patent Trial" docket and PTAB E2E for "12,144,743" before relying on this. The absence is the signal — but confirm it. Given ODP ingest lag, re-check monthly; a NuVasive IPR on the '743 patent is a live possibility given NuVasive's incentive and the Delaware schedule.
2. If you are a defendant now (or likely to be one): you face an intact patent with no PTAB estoppel and no adverse FWD limiting claim scope. That is the best-case starting posture for an IPR — you can be the first to challenge claim 1 (and the rest of the asserted set) with a clean § 102/§ 103 record, and any successful cancellation removes that claim from the Delaware case.
3. Mine the sibling IPRs for ready-made art. The Medtronic petitions against US 10,064,738 and 10,603,183 rely on Moskowitz 440 + Waugh (+ Michelson 019). Because those siblings share the same specification lineage, the same prior-art combinations are strong candidates against the '743 patent — but you must independently confirm they teach the '743 leaf-spring/ratchet locking limitations, which are the apparent point of novelty. § 315(e)(2) estoppel from those sibling IPRs does not bar you (a non-privy) from reusing that art.
4. Coordinate with the Delaware timeline. The '743 patent is being asserted against Base/Brigade/CoRoent with trial set 2027-02-08. If you file an IPR, consider a Sotera-type stipulation (as Medtronic did, Dkt. 50 in the Minnesota case) to neutralize Fintiv-style discretionary denial, and budget around PTAB's statutory one-year trial clock from institution (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)).
5. Do not cite the 2021 Globus denials or the Medtronic sibling cases as "proceedings on the '743 patent." They are not. Cite them only as family-level context, with the correct patent numbers.

Non-fabrication note: I have stated only proceeding numbers, patents, and dates that appeared in the retrieved sources. Where a case number's patent was not confirmed (IPR2026-00121, and the "Appeal No. 24-1696" provenance), I have flagged it rather than guessed.

I'll research this patent's ownership chain, litigation, and assignment records.

Let me pull the specific assignment reel/frame records and litigation/entity details.

Ownership Reconstruction — US 12,144,743 B2 ("Intervertebral implant")

Patent: US 12,144,743 B2 · App. No. 17/492,996 · filed 2021-10-04 · granted 2024-11-19 · earliest priority 2005-04-12 (prov. 60/670,231) via a very long continuation chain.
Assignee of record on the face of the patent: Moskowitz Family LLC, Rockville, MD.

⚠️ Source caveat up front. I was able to retrieve the Google Patents legal‑events record and extensive litigation/PTAB documents for this patent family, but the USPTO Assignment Center records themselves (which would display the reel/frame numbers) were not retrievable in this session. Where I give reel/frame numbers below they come from a related Moskowitz portfolio chain‑of‑title statement, not from the '743's own record; those are flagged as unconfirmed. No post‑issuance assignments to any third party are of record. Do not treat the reel/frame values below as verified for the '743.

---

Inventors

Unusual patterns. The "all inventors leave the original assignee within 12 months" tell does not apply — the inventors are the assignee group (three family members plus one retained engineer). This is a founder‑controlled family venture, not employees of an operating company whose departures would precede a fire‑sale. The relevant pattern here is continuation farming: App. 17/492,996 is a continuation of 16/532,033 → 15/791,484 → 13/418,323 (now US 9,814,601) → 13/103,994 → 12/054,335, tracing to the 2005 priority date — one of ~100 US patents in the portfolio.

---

Original assignee

Moskowitz Family LLC — a Maryland limited liability company, principal place of business 212 North Adams Street, Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20850 (stated in the Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive complaint, D. Del. 1:25‑cv‑00711, ¶7).

• Line of business: The complaint states the company "was created to develop human spine related devices and protect and license any resulting inventions and intellectual property," and that it "owns a portfolio of nearly one hundred United States patents." It is, by its own description, an IP development/holding-and-licensing entity — not a manufacturer.
• Product: No evidence it ships any product. It does not appear as a competitor selling spinal implants; it appears only as a patent plaintiff (NuVasive, Medtronic, Globus) and patent owner in PTAB proceedings.
• Current status: Operating / active, not dissolved or in bankruptcy. Founder‑controlled; no parent, no publicly held owner (>10%) per its Rule 7.1 disclosure ("No Parents or Affiliates Listed," D. Del. 1:25‑cv‑00711, D.I. 3).
• Earlier root ownership: On the earliest applications in the chain, the applicant/assignee of record was Nathan C. Moskowitz individually (see, e.g., US 10,016,284 front page: "(71) Applicant: Nathan C. Moskowitz … (73) Assignee: Moskowitz Family LLC"). Rights were later consolidated into the LLC.

---

Assignment timeline

Only internal consolidation assignments appear; no assignment to any third‑party acquirer, NPE aggregator, or defensive aggregator is of record.

• executed ~2021-10 / recorded 2021-10-28 — Reel/frame not displayed in the sources retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Mosheh T. Moskowitz
  • Assignee: Nathan C. Moskowitz
  • Correspondent: not determinable from the records retrieved. (Prosecution counsel of record for parallel Moskowitz patents is Fish & Richardson P.C., P.O. Box 1022, Minneapolis, MN 55440‑1022 — acting as prosecution counsel, not confirmed as the recording correspondent. Flagged as unverified.)
  • Context: founder/co‑inventor rights consolidation into the lead inventor, ~3 weeks after filing (internal reorg).

• executed ~2021-10 / recorded 2021-10-28 — Reel/frame not displayed

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Ahmnon D. Moskowitz
  • Assignee: Nathan C. Moskowitz
  • Correspondent: not determinable.
  • Context: founder/co‑inventor rights consolidation (internal reorg).

• executed ~2021-10 / recorded 2021-10-28 — Reel/frame not displayed

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Pablo A. Valdivia Y. Alvarado
  • Assignee: Nathan C. Moskowitz
  • Correspondent: not determinable.
  • Context: engineer co‑inventor rights consolidation (internal reorg).

• executed ~2021-10 / recorded 2021-10-28 — Reel/frame not displayed

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Nathan C. Moskowitz
  • Assignee: Moskowitz Family LLC
  • Correspondent: not determinable.
  • Context: transfer of consolidated inventor rights into the family holding/licensing LLC (assignment to the operating/licensing entity that is also the named assignee on the printed patent).

Related portfolio reel/frame references (unconfirmed as applying to the '743). A chain‑of‑title statement under 37 C.F.R. § 3.73(c) filed in a parallel Moskowitz application (15/820,232 → US 10,016,284) cites the following recordings for the same inventor group:

• Valdivia Y. Alvarado → Nathan C. Moskowitz — Reel 045636 / Frame 0075
• Mosheh T. Moskowitz → Nathan C. Moskowitz — Reel 045997 / Frame 0805
• Ahmnon D. Moskowitz → Nathan C. Moskowitz — Reel 046069 / Frame 0540
• Nathan C. Moskowitz → Moskowitz Family LLC — Reel 045586 / Frame 0373
• (Eric Sugalski → Nathan C. Moskowitz — Reel 045904 / Frame 0815; David Schoon → — Reel 057014 / Frame 0629 — these two inventors are not on the '743.)

These are the shape of the family's chain of title; the four '743 recordings are the same four party pairs, but I could not confirm they share these exact reel/frames. Verify against Assignment Center before citing.

Post‑issuance period: The '743 issued 2024-11-19 and has attracted no recorded assignment since — the assignee has remained Moskowitz Family LLC continuously.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12144743
    2005 : Earliest priority provisional filed
    2021 : Application 17 492 996 filed Oct 4
         : Co inventors assign to Nathan C Moskowitz
         : Nathan C Moskowitz assigns to Moskowitz Family LLC
    2024 : Patent US 12144743 granted Nov 19
    2025 : NuVasive infringement suit filed Jun 6

---

NPE / troll‑pattern signals

1. Shell‑entity transfer — Not present. There is no transfer from an operating manufacturer into a licensing‑only LLC. Moskowitz Family LLC is the original assignee, founder‑controlled, and its Maryland address (212 N. Adams St., Ste. 200, Rockville) is a professional‑office suite, not a registered‑agent service. No Delaware/Texas single‑purpose shell appears anywhere in the chain. (The entity is license‑and‑litigate‑only, but that is its origin, not a shell transfer.)

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. No assignee in the chain matches the enumerated NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). Moskowitz Family LLC is a first‑party patent holder, not an aggregator that acquired patents from others. It is, however, a repeat plaintiff (Globus, Medtronic, NuVasive) — activity, not membership on an NPE list.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. The four recorded assignments all trace the same four party pairs recorded the same day (2021-10-28), consistent with a single filing agent — but the correspondent of record is not shown in the sources retrieved, so recurrence cannot be demonstrated. Not scored as a finding.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. A single consolidation day (2021-10-28), with no chained LLCs, no common‑address shells, no sequence of transfers in <24 months. The chain is flat: four inventors → one individual → one LLC.

5. Pre‑litigation transfer — Not present. Assignments recorded 2021-10-28; the first suit naming the '743, Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive (D. Del. 1:25‑cv‑00711, filed 2025-06-06), came ~3.6 years later. (The '743 issued 2024-11-19, so the suit was filed ~6.5 months post‑issuance, but the ownership transfer long predates the suit.)

6. Bankruptcy fire‑sale — Not present. No Chapter 7/11 assignor anywhere.

7. Privateering — Not present. There is no operating‑company transferor directing assertion; the LLC asserts its own founder's inventions directly (the NuVasive and Medtronic complaints describe 2010–2016 pre‑suit disclosure meetings in which the manufacturers declined to license, then allegedly launched competing products).

8. Defensive aggregator — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

---

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

Moskowitz Family LLC is, by its own pleading, a non‑practicing licensing entity ("created to develop human spine related devices and protect and license any resulting inventions"; it ships no product), and it is asserting the '743 against genuine competitors — NuVasive (D. Del. 1:25‑cv‑00711, filed 2025-06-06, where the '743 is one of ten asserted patents and the accused products are the Base, Brigade, and CoRoent systems), plus separate campaigns against Medtronic (D. Minn.) and Globus (E.D. Pa. 2:20‑cv‑03271). That non‑practicing‑and‑litigating posture supports an NPE call. However, none of the classic troll mechanics are present: there is no shell transfer, no known‑asserter assignee, no cascading LLC chain, no pre‑litigation transfer, and no privateering — the chain is a single 2021-10-28 internal consolidation of founders' rights into a founder‑owned LLC. This is best characterized as a founder‑affiliated, inventor‑originated non‑practicing patent holder, i.e., moderate confidence rather than high.

Verification link: USPTO Patent Assignment Search — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search "12144743"); Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/. Confirm the four 2021-10-28 reel/frame entries and the correspondent of record there, since those fields were not retrievable in this session.

I'll research US Patent 12144743 and its cited prior art references.

Let me search for the specific citation data for this patent.

Let me look for the specific references cited on the face of this patent.

I've reached my research limit for this session. Below is what I was able to confirm, what I could not confirm, and my best-grounded analysis. I've flagged uncertainty explicitly rather than filling gaps.

---

1. Confirmed identification of the patent

Important : The patent's effective filing/priority date is 2005-04-12, so the § 102 critical date for most claims is 2005-04-12.

---

2. Critical caveat on the citation list

I could not directly retrieve the face-of-patent "References Cited" (56) list for US 12,144,743 in this session. The searches returned (a) family/priority metadata for '743, (b) third-party IPR and prosecution documents about other patents, and (c) cited-reference lists from closely related Moskowitz family members (e.g., US 10,842,542; US 10,016,284; US 10,251,643). The reference list below is therefore reconstructed from the immediately related Moskowitz family patents that share this specification lineage — it should be treated as highly probable but not verified for the '743 face. To confirm the exact list, retrieve the "References Cited" tab at USPTO Patent Center (App. 17/492,996) or the "Patent Citations" section of Google Patents for US12144743B2.

---

3. References cited in the related Moskowitz family (best available proxy)

A. U.S. Patent Documents (all pre-date the 2005 priority date)

B. Foreign Patent Documents

C. Non-Patent Literature

---

4. § 102 anticipation assessment (per claim category, not per individual claim number)

I emphasize: I have not verified the exact issued claim set of '743 in this session (the retrieved text cut off before the claims), so the mapping below is to claim categories that recur across this family and the specification's own summary.

Claims to an intervertebral cage having a plurality of internal angled screw guides + screws oriented superiorly/inferiorly (bi-directional transvertebral screws):

• FR 2 727 003 (Tisserand) is the single most relevant reference. It discloses an intervertebral cage with pre-formed internal holes that guide bone screws bi-directionally at a substantial angle into the cortico-cancellous bone of the vertebral bodies above and below. This is a strong candidate for § 102(a)/(b) anticipation of the broadest cage+angled-screw-guide claims, and for a § 103 combination (e.g., with a Bonutti-type counterbore cage) for narrower versions. This is exactly the ground a third party used in a related IPR against a Moskowitz claim (§102/103 over Tisserand in view of Bonutti).
• US 6,527,804 (Gauchet et al.) and other Gauchet/Varga-type "cage with screw fixation" patents are relevant to the cage-plus-fixation-screw concept.

Claims to the leaf-spring / ratchet-tooth (§ "uni-rotational") locking mechanism:

• I found no cited reference that plainly discloses the claimed leaf-spring press-fit into a cage indentation that interlocks with ratchet teeth/troughs on a screw head to permit rotation in only one direction. The specification itself distinguishes its mechanism from "matching screw/cage threads or spiral springs" in the prior art. This is the likely point of novelty over all cited art, so these dependent/narrow claims are not anticipated by the references above; they would at most be subject to a § 103 obviousness challenge.

Claims to specific geometry (quadrants/entry-opening positions, narrowing tunnel, countersink):

• These are the sort of limitation earlier Moskowitz claims used to survive IPR (e.g., the "oblique angle / socket" limitations discussed in the PTAB papers retrieved). The cited old art (1940s–2000s) likely does not anticipate these in isolation.

Caveat on same-inventor / family art: Many hits during the search are other Moskowitz patents (US 9,814,601; US 9,744,052; US 10,376,383; US 10,537,442; US 11,903,849; etc.). These share the same priority and are not effective § 102 prior art against '743 (same inventive entity); they appear as family/citation entries rather than anticipatory references.

---

5. Recommended next steps to finalize

1. Pull the exact "References Cited" (56) list for App. 17/492,996 from USPTO Patent Center, and the "Patent Citations" panel on Google Patents for US12144743B2.
2. Pull the issued claims of '743 to map anticipation exception-by-limitation rather than by category.
3. Check the IPR2025-01598 petition and exhibits (Medtronic, filed Sept. 2025) — these will contain a petitioner's own § 102/§ 103 mapping against '743 and are the most current adversarial prior-art analysis.

If you can supply the face-of-patent citation list or the issued claims, I can produce a limitation-by-limitation § 102 chart against Tisserand (FR 2 727 003) and the strongest secondary references.

Confidence statement: High confidence on the patent's identity, dates, assignee, priority and continuation chain. Lower confidence on the exact face-of-patent citation set (reconstructed from family mates, not directly retrieved). I did not fabricate specific claim numbers for the § 102 mapping because I could not verify the issued claim set in this session.

I'll research the prior art landscape for this patent before building the obviousness analysis.

Excellent — I'm finding strong prior-art leads, including a live IPR. Let me dig deeper.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 12,144,743 B2 ("Intervertebral implant")

0. Scope, evidentiary basis, and what I could not verify

This analysis builds on, and does not repeat, the earlier bibliographic/abstract/litigation sections. Three threshold caveats up front:

1. No verbatim claim set was available. The authoritative full text you supplied is truncated mid‑sentence in the Detailed Description ("…differs substantially from the conventional approach of match…") and contains no "What is claimed is" section. Every limitation below is therefore keyed to the claim categories reconstructed from the patent's own Summary/Abstract (apparatus, "integral" multi‑screw apparatus, method) plus the claim‑shaped language that appears verbatim in the description (notably the four‑quadrant language at the end of the Detailed Description, which reads like copied claim text). If the issued claims recite additional structural specifics — e.g., the leaf spring being "press‑fit into an indentation adjacent to the guide" and the screw head nesting "entirely within a peripheral side" of the top surface — the mapping must be re‑run against those exact words.
2. The Google Patents "Prior Art" / "Cited By" panes were not in the supplied text. I could not retrieve the '743's own front‑page "References Cited." I substituted four defensible sources, and I identify which is which throughout: (i) prior art the '743 specification itself acknowledges (Dove '261; Mathieu '464; Mathieu '236); (ii) the examiner's July 8, 2013 Office Action in parent application 13/401,829 (retrieved as Moskowitz Exhibit 2013 in IPR2025‑01598); (iii) reference lists from related family prosecutions/IPRs; and (iv) references surfaced by web search.
3. I found no §103 or §102 challenge, IPR, or CAFC appeal naming the '743 itself. The PTAB proceedings I located (below) name other Moskowitz patents. I state that as a negative search result, not as proof of absence.

---

1. The critical‑date fork — the single most important variable

The '743 is a post‑AIA application (filed 2021‑10‑04) with a long pre‑AIA continuation chain, and Google Patents lists its prior‑art date as 2005‑04‑12. Everything about this analysis turns on which date the asserted claims actually get.

• If the leaf‑spring/ratchet subject matter is entitled to the 2005‑04‑12 provisional (60/670,231), then Waugh (pub. Oct. 2008), Jones (pub. Apr. 2009), Mathieu (2007) and the SynFix printed materials post‑date the invention date and drop out under pre‑AIA §§102(a)/(b) (subject only to §102(e) as of their filing dates — which are also later).
• The leaf‑spring + ratcheted‑screw‑head feature does not appear in the 2005–2007 chain. The ancestors in the chain (11/208,644; 11/536,815; 11/842,855; 12/054,335) disclose a "central screw locking lever" and a "cage indentation" lock (see US 2009/0234455 A1, "…having a central screw locking lever"; US 2013/0030419 A1 / US 9,532,821, "…a cage indentation adjacent to the screw guides that independently or supplemented by other screw locking mechanisms prevents the screw members from pulling out"). The press‑fit leaf spring engaging ratchet teeth/troughs is new matter that appears with 13/418,323 (filed 2012‑03‑12) and its publication US 2013/0023992 A1, whose Summary paragraph matches the '743 abstract nearly word‑for‑word.
• Practical consequence: the strongest art (2008–2009) is available only if the leaf‑spring claims are not entitled to the 2005 date. That is a priority/§112 written‑description battle, and the patent's own prosecution history — where the CIP added the leaf spring — is the best evidence for it. This is exactly the theory the PTAB is already entertaining in this family: Medtronic's IPR papers argue Moskowitz "deprived the Examiner the benefit of reviewing Byrd, Messerli, and Waugh" (Petitioner's Discretionary Denial Opposition, IPR2025‑01598), and note the "varying priority dates" across the 12 asserted patents.

I run the analysis under both forks and say so.

---

2. Level of ordinary skill (Graham factor 2)

A POSITA here is a person with a graduate degree (M.D. and/or M.S./Ph.D. in mechanical/bioengineering) plus 2–5 years of spinal-implant design or operative experience, familiar with (a) interbody cages (ALIF/PLIF/TLIF/cervical), (b) pedicle‑screw and anterior‑plate fixation, (c) bone‑screw back‑out phenomena, and (d) conventional one‑way mechanical fasteners (ratchet‑and‑pawl, spring clips, locking screws). The '743's own Background confirms this is a mature, crowded art with well‑catalogued failure modes (screw back‑out, plate erosion of vessels, esophageal compression).

---

3. Element decomposition of the reconstructed claims

---

4. Prior‑art catalog (with the limitation each supplies)

Note on family self‑art. Family members (US 2013/0023992 A1; US 9,814,601; US 10,376,383; US 9,889,022; US 10,603,183; US 9,532,821) share the '743's specification. They are not independent prior art against the '743, and pre‑AIA §103(c)/AIA §102(b)(2)(C) common‑ownership exceptions further blunt their use. I cite them only as admissions and state‑of‑the‑art evidence, not as anticipatory art.

---

5. Proposed §103 grounds and the motivation to combine

KSR rationales are identified by letter: (A) known elements combined by known methods → predictable result; (B) simple substitution of one known element for another; (C) known technique to improve similar devices in the same way; (D) known technique applied to a known device ready for improvement; (E) finite number of identified, predictable solutions ("obvious to try"); (F) known work in one field prompting its use in a related field; (G) express teaching/suggestion in the references.

Ground 1 — Jones + Waugh (+ Mathieu) — the cage/screw/lock genus

Mapping: Jones supplies E1, E2, E5, E6, E7 (expressly, including the "bi‑directionally in opposite directions" orientation, per the 2013 OA). Waugh supplies E12 (four‑quadrant top wall) and the face‑plate/hook lock between cage and screw head (E6/E13), plus side slots for the inserter (E9). Mathieu supplies E10 (25°–70°) and E11.
Motivation: (G) Waugh expressly identifies the problem — "reduce the chance of the anchor members backing out" — and proposes a removable plate; Jones' self‑contained cage lacks back‑out prevention, so a POSITA has an articulated reason to add a lock. (C)/(D) All three are stand‑alone interbody devices in the same field, using the same screw‑through‑cage architecture. (E) Only a finite set of lock types existed (blocking plate/bracket, locking screw threads, snap/spring, set screw). This is the exact combination a USPTO examiner already used in the parent 13/401,829 — strong, documented evidentiary footing that the genus was obvious, with the patentee's remedy being to add the quadrant/underside‑of‑head/third‑and‑fourth‑screw limitations by amendment.

Ground 2 — Byrd (US 2003/0153975 / US 7,077,864) + Mathieu '464 — substitution of the lock

Mapping: Byrd alone supplies E1, E2, E5, E6, E7, E11, E13 — angled coplanar screw passages, countersunk heads, ratchet surfaces, and a separately claimed "unique locking screw assembly," with the expressed recognition that "one of the issues in the use of screws for implant fixation is inhibiting the screw from backing out." Mathieu '464 supplies E10 and — decisively — teaches the spring as a known alternative locking mechanism ("matching… internal borehole thread, or spiral springs").
Motivation: (B) Replacing a threaded/oversized‑thread detent lock with a spring‑element detent lock is the paradigm simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results — and Mathieu supplies the substitution expressly. (F) Spring‑detent one‑way retention is standard work in the bone‑plate and fastener arts (Class 606/294 listings: "spring members… allow the head to pass but restrain removal"). (E) Two to four predictable solutions. Note the estoppel/consistency problem for the patentee: the '743 specification disparages the conventional locks as "matching screw/cage threads or spiral springs" — i.e., the patentee itself groups spring‑type locks as the known class into which its leaf spring falls.

Ground 3 — Any primary cage reference (Jones / Waugh / Tisserand / SynFix‑LR) + a ratchet‑and‑pawl reference — the leaf‑spring/ratchet limations (E4, E5, E6)

Mapping: Primary reference supplies E1, E2, E7, E10, E11. Secondary reference supplies the one‑way engagement: a ratchet‑toothed head with an adjacent flexure/leaf spring pawl dropping into troughs, permitting only advancing rotation. Concretely available: (a) the inventors' own ratchet‑plus‑flexure‑pawl teaching in the family's stapling disclosures (quoted above, retrieved from the Nuvasive complaint exhibit); (b) Class 606/294 spring‑detent retention structures ("protuberances… cooperate with… detents… to arrest longitudinal movement"); (c) Mathieu's "spiral springs" as the spring‑lock genus.
Motivation: (C)/(D)/(F) A ratchet‑and‑pawl is a notorious one‑way clutch; using it to permit insertion but block reverse rotation is the known purpose of that mechanism. (A) Combining a known one‑way mechanism with a known screw‑and‑cage assembly yields nothing more than the predictable sum of the parts: screws advance, cannot back out. (B) "Leaf spring" vs. "coil/spiral spring" vs. "flexure pawl" are predictable mechanical equivalents; the specification itself treats the choice of spring material ("such as titanium") as routine. (E) The field had already converged on anti‑back‑out locks; a one‑way lock is the obvious next step.
Where the patent is strongest: I could not locate a single reference expressly disclosing a leaf spring seated in a cage indentation adjacent a screw guide and engaging the troughs of a ratcheted screw head. That is almost certainly the actual point of novelty and the place the claims are most defensible. But under KSR that is a narrow redoubt: it is a combination of familiar elements (spring + ratchet + detent) performing their known functions, and the record of spring‑detent screw retention in bone implants undercuts any "unexpected" argument.

Ground 4 — Tisserand (FR 2,727,003) / Bonutti '385 + Waugh — the entry‑opening/counterbore/quadrant limitations (E12, E13)

Mapping: Tisserand: cage, pre‑formed holes/recesses, screws oriented up and down (E1, E2, E7). Bonutti '385: internal screw guides with counterbores at the top‑surface entry opening, exit opening in the bottom and side surface of the top wall (E12, E13). Waugh: four‑quadrant top wall + anti‑back‑out face plate (E6, E12). SynFix‑LR: four diverging screws forming a fixed‑angle wedge with a locking mechanism, plus a marker "to indicate the locking position of the screw within the plate" (E6, E8, E10).
Motivation: (A)/(C) All are interbody cages with angled screw guides; adding a counterbore to seat a screw head flush, and adding a lock to stop that head from migrating, are the same improvements to similar devices in the same way — precisely the KSR "predictable variation" scenario. (D) The problem (screw head protrusion → great‑vessel/esophageal irritation; the '743 Background itself lists this) supplies the design incentive. (E) Bone‑quality‑driven divergence (Mathieu: screws should engage "the stronger peripheral bone") makes the diverging geometry an obvious‑to‑try parameter choice, not an inventive one.

Ground 5 — SynFix‑LR / Cain et al. 2005 as a §102(b) printed publication for the anterior‑lumbar variant

If the ALIF claims (E1, E2, E6, E7, E8, E10) are not entitled to a date earlier than 2011‑2012, the SynFix literature (2004 approval page; 2005 Cain, Spine 30:2631‑2636) is more than one year before the effective filing date and thus pre‑AIA §102(b) art. It discloses a stand‑alone ALIF cage with four diverging locking screws and a locking mechanism that "eliminates need for blocking plate." The remaining gap — the spring lock and the transvertebral countersunk‑through‑the‑top‑wall geometry — is closed by Mathieu '464 (springs) and Bonutti '385 (counterbored top‑surface guides), yielding a complete §103 case even without Waugh/Jones.

Ground 6 — Method claims (E14)

The 2013 OA already stated that the method steps "would have been inherently carried out in the operation of the device" (Moskowitz Ex. 2013, at 7). Beyond inherency, the surgical sequences are conventional and are described in the prior art as routine: discectomy → measure disc space → select cage → insert flush/countersunk → place screw through built‑in guide → confirm → lock (SynFix‑LR Technique Guide; Waugh; Tisserand; the Zdeblick '528 survey of ALIF/TLIF/PLIF practice). (C)/(A) Routine surgical steps, performed in their established order, with the apparatus doing the orienting ("only one prescribed angled trajectory is possible," per the '743's own words — i.e., no operator judgment, hence no patentable step).

---

6. Anticipated patent‑owner arguments and the responses

Teaching‑away check: The only teaching‑away candidate in the record is US 8,425,528 (Zdeblick), which criticizes "the co‑axial, opposite deployment of the screws/posts" (pointing at US 2006/0241621) as permitting slippage. That criticism does not reach the '743's obliquely angled, non‑co‑axial fastener system; if anything, it motivates the angled geometry the '743 uses. No reference teaches away from a one‑way spring lock.

---

7. Objective indicia (Graham factor 4)

This is the weakest part of the patentee's case, and it is admitted:

• No commercial practice and no licensees. Medtronic's stay motion quotes Moskowitz's own Second Amended Complaint: neither Moskowitz nor any licensee has ever "practiced any of the Asserted Patents through commercial manufacture, sale, offer for sale, or importation" (SAC ¶ 35), and Moskowitz "does not compete with Medtronic" (Medtronic stay motion, D. Minn. 0:25‑cv‑00769). With no commercial embodiment and no licensee, commercial success, licensing, and copying indicia have no nexus and essentially cannot be established.
• No unexpected results. The specification asserts improved fusion probability and reduced failure, but cites no comparative or biomechanical data. Indeed, the SynFix literature already reports equivalence to pedicle‑screw constructs in flexion/extension/lateral bending and superiority in torsion — i.e., the "as strong as pedicle screws" result was known before the '743.
• Long‑felt need can be argued (surgeons' desire to avoid pedicle screws/plating), but the need was being met by others (SynFix‑LR, etc.), which converts the "need" into evidence of an obviousness‑driving market force, not of non‑obviousness.
• Family/continuation‑dilution risk. With many continuations of the same specification (and Google Patents listing an "adjusted expiration" of 2027‑01‑24 consistent with a terminal disclaimer over an earlier‑expiring family member), the claims' patentable weight also depends on obviousness‑type double patenting against the copending family members — a separate but parallel vulnerability.

---

8. Litigation/prosecution posture (updated; not part of §103 but material to it)

• IPR2025‑01598, Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC — filed 2025‑09‑29, targets U.S. Patent No. 9,005,293 (an ancestor in the '743's own priority chain), Art Unit 3733 (the same examiner art unit). The record includes PO Exhibits 2010–2013 (IDS citing Messerli, IDS citing Byrd, Office Action citing Waugh), directly evidencing that Byrd/Messerli/Waugh were the art at issue in this family. Sources: DocketAlarm docket, IPVerse case page (the latter reports a status/termination date; see the date caveat below).
• IPR2026‑00121, Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC exists as a later petition; and Medtronic reports having filed IPR petitions on 8 of the asserted patents. I did not confirm any petition naming US 12,144,743.
• D. Del. 1:25‑cv‑00711 (NuVasive) asserts the '743 among ten patents; accused products for the '743 are the BASE, Brigade, and CoRoStar/CoRoent systems.
• D. Minn. 0:25‑cv‑00769 (Medtronic/Titan Spine) asserts the family; Medtronic moved to stay pending IPR; invalidity contentions were due 2026‑04‑28.

Date caveat: your prompt states the current date is April 26, 2026, while the patent‑page fetch is timestamped 2026‑09‑26 and the base system date is 2026‑09‑28. The IPVerse page lists events (e.g., a termination dated 2026‑06‑30) that would be future relative to April 26, 2026; I therefore treat that status field as unreliable and flag the discrepancy rather than resolve it.

---

9. Bottom line

1. The claims as reconstructed are, in my judgment, likely non‑obvious in their literal specifics but squarely vulnerable under §103 — because the only true departure from the art is the structural pairing of (i) a press‑fit leaf spring in a cage indentation with (ii) the troughs of a ratcheted screw head to create a one‑way lock, and that pairing is a combination of well‑known, functionally identical elements in an art that already enumerated spring locks as an anti‑back‑out alternative (Mathieu '464) and already knew spring‑detent screw retention in bone implants (Class 606/294). Expect the patent to survive only if the claims are construed narrowly enough to require the specific press‑fit indentation geometry, and to fall if they read on any spring‑biased, detent‑engaging anti‑rotation lock.
2. The strongest single ground is Ground 1 (Jones + Waugh + Mathieu), because a USPTO examiner already used it in this exact family (13/401,829, July 8, 2013) and the patentee escaped only by adding the quadrant/underside‑of‑head/third‑and‑fourth‑screw features — features that WOULD be supplied here by Waugh's four‑quadrant top wall and Bonutti '385's counterbored top‑surface entry openings.
3. Everything hinges on the priority date. If the leaf‑spring/ratchet claims cannot claim 2005‑04‑12 (and the CIP history strongly suggests they cannot), the 2008–2009 Waugh/Jones art and the 2002–2007 Byrd/Mathieu art are all available and the §103 case is strong. If those claims do hold the 2005 date, most of the best art evaporates and the case weakens materially — which is why I recommend verifying the effective filing date of each leaf‑spring limitation against 13/418,323 and the three 2011 Dorf/… provisionals (61/451,582; 61/451,579; 61/445,034) before relying on any of these grounds.
4. Two hard limits on this analysis: the +743's verbatim claims and its front‑page "References Cited" were not available to me. Any definitive §103 opinion must be re‑run limitation‑by‑limitation against the issued claim text, and against the reference lists actually of record.

Uncertainties I am deliberately not resolving: the abstract's "string leaf" typo; the '743 specification's inconsistent element numbering (e.g., "indentations 194 on top of the cage 10" in the cage 110 embodiment); the exact identity/disclosure of "Messerli" beyond it appearing in Moskowitz IDS Exhibits 2010–2012; and the reliability of the IPVerse "Terminated‑Settled" status for IPR2025‑01598 given the date discrepancy noted above.