US 12491088

Patent overview — US 12491088 B2

Title: Expandable spinal spacer device

Patent number: US 12491088 B2 (application US 18/663,585; pre-grant publication US 20240366399 A1)

Assignee: Moskowitz Family LLC (listed as current and original assignee).

Inventors: Ahmnon D. Moskowitz; Mosheh T. Moskowitz; Pablo A. Valdivia y Alvarado; Eric Sugalski; Nathan C. Moskowitz; David Schoon.

Dates: Priority date 2012‑10‑25 (externally claimed from US 14/063,197, published as US 9848993 B2); priority filing event 2013‑10‑25; application filed 2024‑05‑14; publication of the pre-grant application 2024‑11‑07; patent granted 2025‑12‑09. Listed legal status: active, with an adjusted expiration of 2033‑11‑22. The source notes that the legal status, priority date, and assignee entries are assumptions and not legal conclusions.

Purpose and plain-language scope: Judging from the title, the listed prior-art keywords ("spacer device," "tool," "wedge," "bone," "expandable spinal"), and the classifications, the patent concerns an intervertebral (spinal) spacer that can be expanded in place—a fusion cage-type implant placed between spinal bodies, together with associated tools and techniques such as wedges and insertion/instrumentation aids. The classifications also cover bone drills and guides, bone staples/fasteners, spinal stabilizers acting on vertebral facets, joint distractors for the spine, and implant insertion/extraction tools, suggesting the described system may extend beyond the implant to surgical instrumentation and related fixation.

What the excerpt does not establish: The supplied text is only the bibliographic/classification front page of the Google Patents record. It does not include the abstract, claims, written description, or drawings. Therefore it is not possible to state, from this source, the specific claimed structure, the exact mechanism of expansion, the number or scope of claims, the specific embodiments, or the precise clinical method. No verification of enablement, validity, claim breadth, or freedom to operate is possible from this excerpt, and no such conclusions should be drawn. Litigation, ownership transfers, and prior-art analysis were outside the requested scope and were not researched; the record does note family litigation and a Minnesota District Court case (0:25‑cv‑00769), but details are not established here.

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12491088/en