US 12539219

Patent Overview — US 12539219 B2

Title: Intervertebral implant and tool assembly

Patent number: US 12539219 B2 (application US18/444,119; also published as US20240189114A1)

Assignee: Moskowitz Family LLC (listed as both original and current assignee in the supplied text)

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

Key dates (as supplied):

• Priority date: 2007-08-21 (claimed from US11/842,855, cited as US7942903B2; a second priority claim from US17/706,873, cited as US11903849B2, dated 2022-03-29)
• Filing date: 2024-02-16
• Publication of US20240189114A1: 2024-06-13
• Grant/publication of US12539219B2: 2026-02-03
• Legal status listed as Active, with an adjusted expiration of 2027-11-27 (the source states legal status is an assumption, not a legal conclusion)

Purpose and plain-language scope: Based on the supplied text, the patent concerns an intervertebral implant plus a tool assembly for inserting it. Classification data places it in spinal fusion devices (A61F2/4455, A61F2/4465 — fusion cages, including circular or kidney-shaped cross-sections) and in surgical instruments for implanting spinal prostheses (A61F2/4611) and screwdrivers/wrenches that hold an implant during screw insertion (A61B17/8894), along with bone plates and fasteners (A61B17/80–86). Prior-art keywords listed are: spine, spinal spacer, spacer implant, patient, tool body. The excerpt does not include the claims, abstract, or detailed description, so the actual claimed scope — the specific structural features of the implant and the cooperating tool — cannot be described from this source.

What the excerpt does not establish: No claim language, abstract, or written description is present, so the precise claimed invention is unverified here. The listed assignees "may be inaccurate," per the source. Priority and expiration dates are expressly assumptions. Nothing in the text establishes validity, enforceability, litigation history, ownership transfers, or the content of any prior art beyond the keyword list.

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12539219/en

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 12539219.

Let me search more specifically for litigation involving this patent and its owner.

Let me check the patent's litigation records on dedicated databases.

Bottom line

I found no litigation in which U.S. Patent No. 12,539,219 ("Intervertebral implant and tool assembly") is identified as an asserted patent. The patent is very new — it issued February 3, 2026 from Application No. 18/444,119 (filed February 16, 2024) and is owned by Moskowitz Family LLC — so it is not surprising that no case has yet been filed or amended to name it. I cannot rule out a pending filing or an amendment that is not yet indexed, but nothing in the sources I could reach ties this specific number to a case.

To be clear about what I am not saying: I did not find any complaint, IPR petition, or docket entry referencing 12,539,219. Anything below about the patent owner's other cases is provided as family/portfolio context only, and those cases involve different patent numbers.

Related litigation involving the same patent family / owner (none confirmed to assert '219)

Moskowitz Family LLC is actively enforcing a portfolio of spinal-implant patents (nearly 100 U.S. patents per its own pleadings). The '219 patent is a continuation in the same chain of title as several patents asserted in the cases below, but I found no case asserting '219 itself.

Related PTAB proceedings (different patent numbers)

Medtronic has filed several IPRs against Moskowitz Family patents, e.g. IPR2025‑01598, IPR2026‑00121, IPR2026‑00162 (U.S. Pat. 12,011,367), and IPR2026‑00265 (U.S. Pat. 10,064,738) (instituted July 28, 2026). None of these target 12,539,219 as far as I could determine.

Caveats and verification limits

• I was working from general web searches (Google Patents, PTAB/USPTO filings, CourtListener/Docket Alarm/UniCourt/Unified Patents derivatives). I was unable to directly query the Unified Patents litigation caselist page for 12539219 or run a PACER docket search before exhausting my search steps, so my conclusion is based on the absence of any hit, not on a negative docket query.
• Because U.S. 12,539,219 issued only on February 3, 2026, it is the kind of patent that could be added by amendment to the pending Medtronic (D. Minn.) or NuVasive (D. Del.) actions, or asserted in a new complaint, at any time. I cannot confirm whether such an amendment exists.
• I have deliberately not "corrected" any number. The identifiers above are reproduced literally as found.

If you need a definitive negative, the authoritative checks would be: (1) a PACER/Docket Navigator search on "12,539,219" and on Moskowitz Family LLC as plaintiff, and (2) the Unified Patents litigation caselist and PTAB portal entries for the patent.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings — U.S. Patent No. 12,539,219 B2

Patent: "Intervertebral implant and tool assembly" — Moskowitz Family LLC (assignee); inventors Ahmnon D. Moskowitz, Pablo A. Valdivia Y. Alvarado, Mosheh T. Moskowitz, Nathan C. Moskowitz.
App. No. 18/444,119, filed 2024-02-16; granted 2026-02-03; adjusted expiration 2027-11-27.

Proceedings overview

There are zero (0) AIA trial proceedings on file against US 12,539,219 — the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming this patent, and independent web searching surfaced none either; the breakdown is therefore 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials, which means every claim of the '219 patent is UNTESTED at the PTAB, and no claim-level estoppel or cancellation buys a defendant anything here — the patent has neither been hardened by survival nor wounded by cancellation.

Because the canonical list is empty, there are no per-proceeding entries to enumerate, and I will not manufacture any. What follows is (a) a clearly-labeled survey of related-family PTAB activity that a defendant should know about but that is not activity on this patent, and (b) the cross-proceeding strategic picture.

Critical identifier caution (do not auto-correct): U.S. Patent No. 12,539,219 is a different patent from U.S. Patent No. 10,478,319 (the "'319 patent" referred to in the Globus and Medtronic litigation and in IPR2020-01305/-01306), and from U.S. Patent No. 11,903,849 (its immediate parent, from Ser. No. 17/706,873). Search results routinely use the shorthand "'319" for 10,478,319. None of the proceedings below is against 12,539,219.

Related-family PTAB activity (search-surfaced; NOT proceedings on US 12,539,219)

The structured data block governs: these are not proceedings on the '219 patent. They are flagged because they are the enforcement/validity ecosystem this patent sits inside, and because some of them were surfaced only by web search and may not be ODP-indexed yet.

IPR2020-01305 and IPR2020-01306 — Globus Medical, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC (family context only)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent challenged: U.S. Patent No. 10,478,319 (the "'319 patent") — not 12,539,219
• Filed: 2020 (Globus companion petitions; IPR2020-01305 ranked first, IPR2020-01306 the contingent parallel petition on the Baynham reference)
• Background: Filed alongside IPRs against U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,353,913, 10,307,268, 9,889,022, 10,251,643, and 10,028,740, in response to Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical Inc., W.D. Tex. No. 6:19-cv-672 (filed 2019-11-20), transferred to E.D. Pa. as No. 2:20-cv-03271.
• Note: The petitions themselves acknowledge that the Board's § 325(d) Becton, Dickinson discretion was the reason for the staggered pair. I did not verify the institution outcomes or FWDs for either in this pass — treat the outcomes as unverified.
• Defensive value: The 2020-era Globus challenges targeted the '319/‘913/'022 patents from the same specification, so the art and claim-construction record from those proceedings is portable background — but it creates no estoppel as to 12,539,219.

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

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent challenged: U.S. Patent No. 9,005,293
• Filed: 2025 (Patent Owner's Request for Discretionary Denial, Paper 6, dated 2026-02-09; Petitioner's Opposition dated 2026-01-08)
• Status: Referred/pending — per Medtronic's later stay motion, the "'293 patent was referred to the Board for merits review" and, because Moskowitz filed no preliminary response to the first-filed petition, Medtronic expected institution. No FWD verified.
• Grounds: § 102/§ 103 over Byrd, Messerli, and Waugh, with § 325(d) Advanced Bionics / Becton Dickinson framing.

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

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent challenged: U.S. Patent No. 11,864,755
• Filed: 2025-11-10
• Challenged claims: 1–6, 8–12 and 17–20 (per Medtronic's Sotera stipulation, D. Minn. No. 0:25-cv-00769, Dkt. 50, dated 2026-01-06)
• Status: Based on third-party docket trackers, trial instituted (institution decision date reported as 2026-04-22; a Board "Director Discretionary Decision: Refer" entry appears 2026-03-10). Treat the institution date as unverified pending a check of PTAB E2E.
• Grounds: six grounds — anticipation by Schäfer (Ground 1), obviousness based on Schäfer (Grounds 2–3), and obviousness based on Yeh in view of Berry (Grounds 4–6), all § 103/§ 102.
• Settlement / appeal: none reported.
• Defensive value: On this patent, the PO's § 315(e)(2) estoppel runs only against Medtronic and only as to claims 1–6, 8–12, 17–20 of the '755 patent. It has no preclusive effect on any challenge to 12,539,219.

Other Medtronic v. Moskowitz family petitions surfaced (patent numbers as reported by third-party trackers)

• IPR2026-00162 — Patent No. 12,011,367; § 103 ground; PO discretionary-denial fight over "settled expectations."
• IPR2026-00216 and IPR2026-00217 — related family members; grounds turn on whether Palmatier (filed 2011-12-19, § 102(e)) is prior art, with PO asserting conception before 2011-12-19 and diligence to the 2012-10-25 provisional (61/718,707).
• IPR2026-00265 — Patent No. 10,064,738; filed 2026-02-20; challenged claims 1–7, 9, 11–12, 22, 24–25, 28, 32–33; Grounds: obviousness over "Moskowitz 440" (US 2008/0033440) in view of Waugh, and further in view of Michelson '019. Reported as instituted 2026-07-28 (unverified).
• IPR2026-00285 — filed 2026-03-02; status pending.

None of these challenges 12,539,219.

Strategic summary

Claim status on 12,539,219. Canceled: none. Sustained/confirmed: none. Untested: all claims. This is the single most important fact for a defendant: there is no IPR-derived claim cancellation to hang an early-dispositive argument on, and no FWD narrowing the claims by amendment under § 316(d). Any invalidity position must be built and litigated from scratch. Two things do bear on claim scope, however, and they come from litigation, not the PTAB:

1. The asserted claims in the family have been narrowed by claim construction and then killed on noninfringement. In Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 24-1696 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2026) (Prost, Schall, Stoll, JJ.), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment and a jury verdict of noninfringement as to the '913, '022, and '319 patents. The court held the preamble term "universal" is limiting — an "intervertebral bone fusion spacer designed to be inserted between [vertebrae/vertebral bodies] in any region of the spine, i.e., cervical, thoracic, or lumbar, using any approach, e.g., posterior, anterior, or lateral" — and affirmed the denial of JMOL where the asserted claim required a gripper "cooperating with" a handle, finding substantial evidence supported the jury's noninfringement verdict. Full text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01696/pdf/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01696-0.pdf ; underlying Markman opinion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.[572950](/patent/572950)/gov.uscourts.paed.572950.143.0.pdf . Caveat: the Fed. Cir. opinion I retrieved quotes claim 1 of the 10,478,319 patent and claim 47 of the 9,889,022 patent — I did not verify the claim text of 12,539,219 in this pass. But 12,539,219 is a direct descendant of the same specification (via 11,903,849 → 17/706,873 → … → 13/210,157 → 11/842,855), and the Fed. Cir.'s "cooperating"/"universal" reasoning is the obvious first line of attack if the '219 claims recite the same vocabulary. Verify the '219 claim text against the opinion before relying on it.
2. The patent expires 2027-11-27 per the face of the Google Patents record (adjusted expiration) — roughly 14 months from today. That materially caps damages and undercuts the value of spending on an IPR; the practical play is to run out the clock in district court rather than litigate patentability.

Estoppel landscape. No § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to 12,539,219 because no IPR or PGR on it has reached a final written decision. Concretely:

• The Medtronic Sotera stipulation in D. Minn. No. 0:25-cv-00769 (Dkt. 50, 2026-01-06) is expressly limited to "Claims 1-6, 8-12 and 17-20 … of U.S. Patent No. 11,864,755." It creates no estoppel against 12,539,219 and no estoppel against any other party.
• A defendant who has not been served with a complaint asserting 12,539,219 faces no § 315(b) one-year bar yet; a defendant who has been served is on the clock. If 12,539,219 was added to the Minnesota action in the Second Amended Complaint filed 2026-01-29 (filed with new exhibits L1–L3), Medtronic's § 315(b) window for this patent would run from that service date.
• All prior-art grounds against 12,539,219 — including the family's own prior publications (e.g., "Moskowitz 440," US 2008/0033440), Waugh, Michelson '019, Schäfer, Yeh/Berry, and Palmatier-based theories, plus product/system art that is categorically unavailable in IPR — remain fully available. Nothing is spent.

Pattern signals. This is a serial-enforcement, single-patent-owner family, not a defensive-aggregator target:

• No Unified Patents or similar aggregator appears anywhere in the chain; the petitioner is the accused infringer itself (Globus 2019; Zimvie 2022; Medtronic 2025).
• One petitioner, many petitions: Medtronic has filed IPRs against eight asserted patents and stated it was finalizing a petition on a ninth, in a staggered sequence — a filing posture the PO is using affirmatively to argue General Plastic / duplicative-adjudication denial and inconsistent priority rulings across panels (IPR2026-00121 POPR; IPR2026-00162). Medtronic, for its part, argues the Board's own Becton Dickinson § 325(d) uncertainty is why it filed contingently (IPR2020-01305/-01306 precedent).
• The patent owner litigates hard and does not settle quietly: Moskowitz fought the Fintiv/"settled expectations" discretionary-denial battle in IPR2025-01598 and IPR2026-00121, pursued the Globus case to summary judgment, trial, and the Federal Circuit, and lost on noninfringement on three of the Globus patents (Fed. Cir. 2026-09-11).
• The discretionary-denial climate is now hostile to petitioners. Under the 2025 regime (Acting Director Stewart's 2025-03-26 bifurcated process, the rescission of the 2022 Fintiv guidance, the "settled expectations" factor, and Director Squires's 2025-10-20 assumption of personal institution authority plus the October 2025 proposed rules), a new petition against a 19-year-old priority family being actively litigated in D. Minn. faces a substantial risk of discretionary denial and, under the proposed rule, a super-Sotera waiver requirement. That cuts against the utility of filing.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant facing an assertion of 12,539,219: there is no FWD, no cancellation, and no estoppel to lean on. Do not represent otherwise to a court or to your client. The "claims 1–5 are canceled" defense does not exist for this patent.
2. Run the 30-second confirmations yourself, on the record: search PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) by patent number 12,539,219 and by application 18/444,119, and search the PTAB Decisions site (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions) for "12,539,219." Absence of a hit is the defense's best evidence that no proceeding exists. Check Docket Alarm's IPR2026-00121 track (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2026-00121/Medtronic_Inc._v._Moskowitz_Family_LLC/) for a recently-filed parallel petition that ODP has not yet ingested.
3. *Check whether 12,539,219 is one of the twelve patents asserted in Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., D. Minn. No. 0:25-cv-00769-PJS-DLM*, by pulling the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 48, filed 2026-01-29) and its exhibits L1–L3. If it is, Medtronic's § 315(b) one-year clock is already running and its invalidity contentions (originally due 2026-04-28) will tell you the art it intends to use — and the Sotera stipulation tells you how much of that art it is willing to surrender.
4. If you are contemplating an IPR: count the cost first. The patent expires 2027-11-27. A petition filed now would face an institution decision under the Director's personalized, discretionary-gatekeeping regime and, at best, a statutory FWD deadline roughly a year after institution — i.e., potentially after patent expiry. Ex parte reexamination is the less-encumbered alternative (no Fintiv, no "settled expectations" factor, no Director overlay, no super-Sotera waiver), at the price of losing control of the prosecution after filing.
5. Verify the priority date you will be arguing against. The '219 patent claims priority to 2007-08-21 (Ser. No. 11/842,855, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,942,903) via a chain of continuations — a 19-year-old priority date, which is precisely the posture that triggers the Director's "settled expectations" denial factor for any petitioner. Conversely, family petitions are fighting over whether Palmatier (2011-12-19) qualifies as § 102(e) prior art, with the PO asserting conception before 2011-12-19 and diligence to provisional 61/718,707 (2012-10-25). If your art post-dates 2007-08-21, expect the same swearing-behind fight.

Limits of this report. The USPTO ODP canonical block shows no AIA proceedings for 12,539,219 and I found none by search. The related-family proceeding details above are drawn from web-surfaced petition and briefing documents and third-party docket trackers (Docket Alarm, ex parte, Unified Patents, ipverse) and were not all confirmed against PTAB E2E; institution dates, panels, and any FWDs for IPR2026-00xxx cases are reported as unverified. I did not confirm whether any family proceeding has been appealed to the Federal Circuit — the only appellate decision I confirmed in this ecosystem is Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 24-1696 (Fed. Cir. 2026-09-11), which is a district-court appeal, not an appeal from a PTAB FWD.

I'll research the assignment record and ownership context for this patent.

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

I researched the recorded ownership chain, the family's USPTO chain‑of‑title filings, and the litigation record. One transparency note up front: I could not open the Assignment Center / assignment.uspto.gov record for the '219 patent number directly in this session. What follows is built from (a) the front‑page/priority data on the patent, (b) Moskowitz‑family USPTO chain‑of‑title submissions (37 CFR 3.73(c) statements) that quote reel/frame numbers, and (c) court and SEC filings. Where a reel/frame is quoted it is a real number from those filings; where I could not confirm a '219‑specific entry, I say so.

Inventors

Pattern note: three of the four inventors are the controlling family of the assignee itself, and the fourth is a single outside design engineer — there is no cluster of inventors leaving a corporate employer and therefore none of the "mass departure precedes fire‑sale" pattern. The relevant risk here is the inverse: the assignee was built around the inventors rather than a company spinning IP out to a shell.

Original assignee

Moskowitz Family LLC — a Maryland LLC, principal place of business 212 North Adams Street, Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20850 (per Moskowitz's own complaint, Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, D. Minn. 0:25‑cv‑00769).

• Primary line of business: IP holding and licensing for spinal devices. The company's own pleading states it "was created to develop human spine related devices and protect and license any resulting inventions and intellectual property." It owns a portfolio of roughly 100 US patents.
• Product embodying the claims: No. Moskowitz does not sell spinal implants. This is stated in its own filings and conceded by defendants; Globus Medical's Form 10‑K refers to Moskowitz as "a non‑practicing entity."
• Current status: operating, but as an IP‑holding/assertion entity, not a device manufacturer. Prosecution of this family is handled by Fish & Richardson P.C. (TC), PO Box 1022, Minneapolis, MN 55440‑1022 (appears on the face of the sibling '319/'367 papers).

Assignment timeline

Caveat first, because it is itself a finding: the chain here does not look like a conventional NPE paper trail. There is no recorded post‑issuance sale of the '219 patent. The recorded instruments I could verify are inventor‑to‑assignee assignments recorded years earlier for the Moskowitz portfolio, which supply the standing predicate for this continuation family. I could not confirm a '219‑specific reel/frame.

• 2014–2019 (various execution dates) / recorded at the reels below — inventor → Moskowitz interests
  • Reel 045904, Frame 0815 — Sugalski, Eric → Moskowitz, Nathan C.
  • Reel 045636, Frame 0075 — Alvarado, Pablo A. Valdivia Y. → Moskowitz, Nathan C.
  • Reel 045997, Frame 0805 — Moskowitz, Mosheh T. → (assignee of record)
  • Reel 046069, Frame 0540 — Moskowitz, Ahmnon D. → (assignee of record)
  • Reel 045586, Frame 0373 — Moskowitz, Nathan C. → (assignee of record)
  • Reel 057014, Frame 0629 — Schoon, David → (assignee of record)
  • Conveyance: Assignment. Correspondent: not legible in the retrieved text; the 37 CFR 3.73(c) statement is signed "/Stuart A. ‑‑‑‑" on 8/31/2021 on behalf of the assignee. A single repeat signer/correspondent therefore appears across this chain.
  • Context: startup/inventor capitalization, not a fire‑sale — the founder's own LLC assembles title from the inventors (including the two outside engineers, Sugalski and Schoon, who assigned to Nathan Moskowitz).
• ~2019–2023 (execution dates not exposed) / recorded — a second, parallel set of the same inventor assignments appears for the newer expandable‑implant family:
  • Reel 048237, Frame 0758 — Sugalski → Moskowitz, Nathan C.
  • Reel 048237, Frame 0710 — Alvarado → Moskowitz, Nathan C.
  • Reel 048237, Frame 0270 — Moskowitz, Nathan C. → (assignee)
  • Reel 048260, Frame 0654 — Moskowitz, Mosheh T. → (assignee)
  • Reel 048260, Frame 0595 — Moskowitz, Ahmnon D. → (assignee)
  • Reel 057014, Frame 0629 — Schoon → (assignee)
  • Conveyance: Assignment. Context: internal re‑recording / family‑wide title clean‑up, not a transfer to a third party.
• No recorded post‑issuance assignment to any third party. The applicant of record on 18/444,119 at filing (2024‑02‑16) was Moskowitz Family LLC itself, and the patent issued 2026‑02‑03 still in Moskowitz Family LLC's name. If any instrument was recorded after grant, it is not reflected in the sources I could reach.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 12539219; the same records are mirrored at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). I recommend a direct pull to confirm whether a '219‑specific reel/frame exists in addition to the family reels above.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12539219
    2005 : Priority provisional 60 670 231 filed
    2007 : Parent application 11 842 855 filed
    2011 : Continuation applications filed
    2014 : Inventor assignments recorded to Moskowitz
    2019 : First suit filed against Globus Medical
    2020 : Globus suit moved to EDPA
    2022 : Parent application 17 706 873 filed
    2024 : Application 18 444 119 filed by Moskowitz Family LLC
    2025 : Suits filed against Medtronic and NuVasive
    2026 : Patent US 12539219 issued to Moskowitz Family LLC

NPE / troll‑pattern signals

1. Shell‑entity transfer — not present as a transfer, but the substantive markers are present. There is no move of the patent into an anonymous licensing LLC: the original applicant and current owner is the same entity from the outset. However, Moskowitz Family LLC is itself a single‑purpose IP holding/assertion LLC with no products, self‑described as created to "protect and license" inventions, headquartered in an office‑suite address in Rockville, MD. Cite: its own complaint (0:25‑cv‑00769) ¶¶7–8; no reel/frame evidence of a shell transfer, because none exists.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present (weak‑to‑moderate). Moskowitz Family LLC does not appear on the classic acquired‑patent PAE lists you named (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Spangenberg entities). It does appear as a patent asserter in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database (record for patent 10,064,738, Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, 0:25‑cv‑00769, D. Minn.) and is coded "NPE (W)" in third‑party litigation mirrors. It is best classified as a Stanford Category‑5 entity — an individual‑inventor‑started licensing company — rather than a Category‑1 acquirer.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / partially present. The recording signer/correspondent visible in the retrieved papers is a single recurring individual whose signature reads "/Stuart A. ‑‑‑‑" on the 8/31/2021 37 CFR 3.73(c) statement, and Fish & Richardson P.C. (TC), Minneapolis, MN is the firm of record on the Moskowitz family. I could not read the full surname or confirm the assignment correspondent for each reel, so I am not elevating this. It does not match any published NPE‑assertion correspondent list that I can confirm.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. There is no chain of consecutive LLC‑to‑LLC assignments. Ownership has stayed with the founder's single LLC across the entire continuation family (11/842,855 → 13/084,543 & 13/108,982 → 13/210,157 → 15/894,471 → 15/944,117 → 16/744,755 → 17/706,873 → 18/444,119). The only multi‑step filings are inventor→assignee, which is ordinary capitalization.

5. Pre‑litigation transfer — not present / inapplicable. No assignment precedes litigation; Moskowitz Family LLC has held title since before it sued Globus on 2019‑11‑20. Conversely, this patent issued in 2026, long after the first suits, so the chain was not arranged around this patent's assertion.

6. Bankruptcy fire‑sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 for Moskowitz Family LLC or any assignor in the chain.

7. Privateering — not present. Moskowitz is not an operating company; there is no operating‑company‑to‑NPE transfer for the NPE to assert "on its behalf." The inventors are the NPE's principals.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti‑NPE) — not present. The chain terminates at Moskowitz Family LLC, which asserts actively.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two independent signals carry this. First, the current and only owner, Moskowitz Family LLC, is a non‑practicing IP‑holding/assertion entity: it sells no products, its own pleading states it was formed to "protect and license" the inventions, and Globus Medical's Form 10‑K expressly describes it as "a non‑practicing entity" (in the litigation narrative that began 2019‑11‑20). Second, it is a serial, multi‑defendant asserter — the Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists it as the patent asserter in Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic 0:25‑cv‑00769 (D. Minn.), following the Globus suit (W.D. Tex. 6:19‑cv‑672, transferred to E.D. Pa. 2:20‑cv‑03271 on 2020‑07‑02) and a NuVasive action, all naming major spine‑device competitors. No post‑issuance assignment reel/frame exists to review because none is needed: the entity asserted from day one.

Important caveats for the record: (i) this is an individual‑inventor‑founded NPE (Stanford Category 5), not a classic "acquired‑patent" PAE — the inventors and the plaintiff are the same family, which distinguishes it from the Acacia/Marathon pattern; and (ii) I could not confirm a '219‑specific record in the USPTO Assignment Center in this session, so the reel/frame entries above come from the family's chain‑of‑title submissions and should be verified directly at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ by patent number 12539219 before being relied on.

I'll research the prior art cited on US 12,539,219. Let me start by pulling the patent record and its citation lists.

The initial results are noisy (mostly "cited by" cross-references). Let me pull the patent's own front-page references and the Google Patents citation list directly.

Let me try to retrieve the patent's front-page reference list from alternative sources (Justia, PatentGuru, USPTO full text).

I hit my search-step limit before I could open the USPTO full‑text record for this patent directly, so I'm giving you what I could actually verify, clearly separated from what I could not. I have not substituted data from other patent numbers into the citation analysis.

US 12,539,219 B2 — Prior‑art (patent‑citation) analysis

1. Patent record confirmed (searched by exact number)

Sources: Google Patents page for US12539219B2; Docket Alarm docket for App. 18/444,119 (Google Patents / sandbox.docketalarm.com); patentguru assignee listing.

2. Important limitation on the "patent citations" request

Google Patents displays a Citations (205) list for this patent — this is an unusually large list, reflecting the accumulated IDS/examiner‑cited references carried through the long Moskowitz continuation chain. I was not able to retrieve that 205‑entry list in full before exhausting my search steps; the queries returned cross‑reference ("cited‑by") tables from other patents rather than the '219 front page. So I am not going to present a full 205‑item table, because I cannot verify it item‑by‑item, and I will not pad it with the reference lists of similar Moskowitz patents and present them as this patent's citations.

What follows is (a) the references I could directly observe on the '219 Citations list, and (b) a clearly‑flagged family‑proxy note.

3. Cited references I verified directly on the '219 list

These are the entries returned from the head of the Citations table on the Google Patents page for US 12,539,219 B2:

Analytical caution (important): On their face these four are classic background/state‑of‑the‑art citations (the kind of art the examiner lists but does not rely on). Under §102, a reference anticipates only if it discloses every element of the claim as arranged. None of the four discloses the claimed combination of (i) first and second relatively sliding boxes, (ii) first/second screw members with tapered ends and threaded bodies disposed in those boxes and driven in opposing directions, and (iii) an adjuster for changing box height (and depth). Expect these to be §103 fodder at most, and only in combination.

4. Family‑proxy reference set (clearly flagged — NOT verified as the '219 list)

Because '219 is a straight continuation of US 11,903,849 B2 (same specification) and shares the family's standard IDS, the same core references recur in every Moskowitz sibling. I confirmed the following items appear in the reference lists of the directly related Moskowitz patents, but I could not confirm they all appear on the '219 front page:

• US 2,360,942 A (Ellerstein) and US 4,064,881 A (Meredith / Rocket of London) — confirmed in US 10,478,319 B2 and US 10,842,542 B2.
• Foreign: FR 2727003 (5/1996); WO 2004/093749 (11/2004); WO 2006/091503 (8/2006) — US 10,478,319 B2 and US 10,842,542 B2.
• Non‑patent literature: Traynelis, "Prosthetics and Biologics: The Wave of the Future," Clinical Neurosurgery vol. 50 (2002), ch. 9, 207–219; E. K. Wai et al., "Disk Replacement Arthroplasties…," Seminars in Spine Surgery 15(4) (Dec. 2003) 473–482; Guyer et al., "Intervertebral Disc Prostheses," Spine 28(15S) (2003) S15–S23; Grob et al., "…Dynesys Semirigid Fixation System…," Spine 30(3) (2005) 324–331; various ISR/WO for PCT/US07/05005, PCT/US2007/021013, PCT/US2007/021015.
• Long U.S. block reproduced in the siblings (e.g., US 4,505,273; 4,599,086; 4,636,217; 4,904,261; 4,960,420; 4,997,432; 5,005,749; 5,062,850; 5,123,932; 5,290,312; 5,352,229; 5,405,391; 5,413,583; 5,454,819; 5,541,180; 5,609,635; 5,660,188; 5,662,655; 5,665,122; 5,667,472; 5,713,912; 5,782,832; 5,858,848; 5,888,232; 5,916,224; 5,951,574; 5,966,522; 5,976,134; 6,126,689; 6,224,602; 6,325,024; 6,325,362; 6,342,074; 6,368,350; 6,375,682; 6,419,704; 6,432,106; 6,454,807; 6,458,159; 6,527,804 and 6,533,818 (Michelson spinal implants) …).

Treat this as a research lead only. To make it authoritative you must pull the '219 front page.

5. The most probative prior‑art analysis for this subject matter

The '219 specification discloses the same subject matter the family has been litigating, so the most rigorous §102/§103 analysis in existence is in the PTAB record against the same family, and it is worth more than the face‑of‑patent list:

• IPR2025‑01598 (Medtronic, Inc.) — Exhibit 1048 is US 11,903,849 B2 ("Intervertebral implant and tool assembly," App. 17/706,873), i.e., the direct parent of '219. Medtronic is using Moskowitz's own earlier patent against the family. Because '219 and '849 share a specification, any ground in IPR2025‑01598 that reads on '849's disclosure is directly informative for '219's apparatus/tool claims.
• The family‑wide §103 combinations that Medtronic has been running are: Moskowitz US 2008/0033440 A1 ("Moskowitz 440") + Michelson US 2006/0079961 A1 ("Michelson 019", a spinal implant with screw holes through trailing/leading ends) + Metz‑Stavenhagen DE 19944681, and Waugh‑type secondary references, each asserted to teach the limitations that the primary reference lacks (screw‑head lip/stop, perforations for hardening material, angled internal guides).

Bottom line on anticipation: I found no single reference that anticipates the '219 claims on its face. The art cited in this family is uniformly background ("A") art, and the patentability fight has been, and will be, an obviousness fight built on combinations of (i) the Moskowitz family's own earlier publications, (ii) Michelson's spinal‑implant patents/publications, and (iii) secondary references supplying the "self‑drilling / bidirectional / adjustable" features. That is also consistent with the earlier‑generated litigation summary for this patent.

6. Claims implicated — with an explicit caveat

I could not verify the granted claim set of '219 (my searches returned the abstract and description only; the claim‑like text I saw — "expanding the spinal spacer implant to fit a space in the patient's spine by turning the first end of the second tool body within the lumen of the first tool body; and removing the first and second tool bodies… while leaving the spinal spacer implant in place" — reads as description of the tool‑assembly aspect, not necessarily an issued claim). Based on the title, abstract, and the specification's enumerated "general aspects," the claim categories to map art against are:

1. self‑drilling bone‑fusion screw apparatus (first/second sliding boxes; tapered threaded screws; adjuster);
2. single box with two laterally aligned screws + ridges;
3. two boxes + attachment member (plate or circumferential cage);
4. tool assembly (handle, gripper with prongs, screw guide);
5. driver assembly (handle, drive bit, flexible drive shaft);
6. cervical facet staple (curved base, ≥2 prongs, insert) and its impaction tool;
7. lumbar facet staple (rotating arms, prongs, spurs, ratchet);
8. method claims (if issued) to expanding/inserting a spacer with the tool bodies.

Under §102 the verified references above touch only categories 4, 6 and (loosely) 1; they do not reach the core structural combination of categories 1–3.

7. What I could not do (stated plainly)

• I did not obtain the authoritative PTO‑892 / SB‑08 IDS for App. 18/444,119, so I cannot certify the complete '219 citation list. The four references in §3 are those I directly observed; the list is not exhaustive.
• I did not locate any Office action rejection that relied on a specific reference against '219 (the 2025‑08‑27 non‑final and the 10/10/2025 allowance are in the docket, but I could not read the rejections).
• Recommended authoritative checks: (1) USPTO Patent Center → App. 18/444,119 → "References Cited"/PTO‑892 and the 8/27/2025 Non‑Final Rejection; (2) the '219 front page "References Cited" column; (3) IPR2025‑01598 papers (the '849 petition) for the Medtronic §102/§103 grounds, which are the best available proxy for how this exact specification is being attacked.

I'll research the prior art landscape for this patent family before building the § 103 analysis.

Very useful — I've found PTAB petitions mapping nearly identical claim language. Let me identify those references and check for IPRs on this patent's immediate parents.

Let me pin down the Medtronic IPRs and the exact prior-art references used against this patent family.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 12,539,219 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Framing, and two contradictions I must flag first

Contradiction 1 — "current date." Your task header says April 26, 2026. My system date is September 28, 2026, and the previously-generated sections on this page cite a September 11, 2026 Federal Circuit opinion and a September 24, 2026 National Law Review write-up. Those cannot exist on April 26, 2026. I proceed on the substance as retrieved and do not treat either date as dispositive.

Contradiction 2 — no "Prior Art section" exists on this page. There is no section literally headed "Prior Art." What the page does contain, and what I treat as the prior-art material you are pointing me to, is: (a) the Google Patents front-matter, including "Prior art keywords: spine; spinal spacer; spacer implant; patient; tool body" and "Prior art date 2007‑08‑21," plus the Citations (205) list; and (b) the family-prosecution/litigation record retrievable by search. I built the analysis on (b), which is what actually supplies § 103 references. If you meant a specific different section, say so and I will re-run.

Useful corroboration: Google's own generated prior-art keywords for this patent — spine, spinal spacer, spacer implant, patient, tool body — confirm the earlier section's flag: the claimed invention is a spinal spacer implant plus an insertion tool, not the self-drilling screw box of the printed abstract. The abstract on this patent is carried over from the 2007 BDFT disclosure and does not read on the claims.

1. The reference date, and why it barely matters here

The face of the patent gives a priority date of 2007‑08‑21 (from US 11/842,855, now US 7,942,903), tracing to provisional 60/670,231 (April 12, 2005). Application 18/444,119 was filed 2024‑02‑16 as a straight continuation of 17/706,873 (now US 11,903,849) — a continuation adds no new matter.

Because the '219 application was filed after March 16, 2013, AIA § 102 applies. Critically, every principal § 103 reference below was published before 2007‑08‑21, so the grounds hold whether or not the '219 claims are entitled to the 2007 (or 2005) priority date:

Priority caveat worth preserving. In prosecuting the sibling US 10,307,268, the Examiner rejected the implant claims as anticipated by Baynham under § 102(a) — which implies the Office did not credit the 2005/2007 priority chain for the claims added in later continuations. If the same result obtains for the '219 claims (added in the 2018–2024 continuations), then Baynham, Moskowitz 440 and Waugh all become available prior art, and the § 103 case becomes substantially stronger. Medtronic is pressing exactly this kind of priority-chain attack against other family members (Petition, IPR of US 10,603,183, arguing Moskowitz "concedes that the '183 patent cannot claim priority to Moskowitz 440"). — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558965](/patent/1558965)/download-documents

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

Consistent with how the parties have framed it in this family: a POSITA would be a person with a bachelor's degree in mechanical or biomedical engineering (or equivalent) and 2–4 years of experience designing spinal fusion implants and their insertion instrumentation, or a spine surgeon with comparable familiarity with interbody cages, expandable spacers, and implant inserters; or equivalent experience. The field is, by 2005–2007, an extremely crowded, well-developed art (Google lists 205 cited references on the '219 front page alone), which matters under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).

3. Claim scope being tested (building on the earlier summary, not repeating it)

• Independent claim 21 — two-part apparatus: (a) spinal spacer implant with first and second expandable portions carrying bone-contacting surfaces, moving between closed and expanded configurations so the surfaces press the bone surfaces; (b) insertion tool = first tool body with an end-to-end lumen and distal prongs, plus a second tool body of smaller diameter that runs through the lumen so one end protrudes past the first body's proximal end and the other end engages and expands the implant when rotated.
• Independent claim 27 — method: align prongs → engage → engage second tool body → expand by turning the second tool body's end within the lumen → withdraw, leaving the implant.
• Dependents 22–26, 28–30 — different spinal locations; concurrent expansion of both portions; portions opposite one another; an opening in a surface for bone-fusion material; a sliding angled rail riding on an angled ramp; insert compressed, then expand; and rotating the tool body to turn a drive screw so the portions slide.

The same claim architecture (first tool with prongs + through-passage; second adjusting tool of smaller diameter extending through the passage) appears verbatim in US 10,478,319 claim 1 ("the '319 patent"), as recited in the Federal Circuit's own opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01696/pdf/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01696-0.pdf. That matters because it means the record built against the '319, '268, '136, '755 and '797 patents is directly transferable.

4. The prior art and what each discloses

5. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — Chung + Allen + McLuen (and Sutcliffe) → claims 21–26 and 27–30

This is the exact combination Globus advanced against the '268 and '319 patents (IPR2020‑01303 through ‑01306), whose claim-1 element mapping tracks the '219 claim language nearly line-for-line.

• Chung supplies every implant-side element: first/second expandable patient-spine-engaging portions (§21), opposite-facing portions (dependent 23), concurrent expansion of both from a single drive screw (dependent 22), and the "sliding angled rail riding on an angled ramp" (Chung's angled wedge surface 13 sliding on its mating wedge) plus the "drive screw" (adjusting screw 50) of dependents 26/30.
• Allen supplies every tool-side element: pronged first tool body with a through-lumen and prongs at the distal end, and a second tool body of smaller diameter passing through the lumen, handle protruding at one end, hex tip engaging the implant's screw at the other — the element the '219 claims recite verbatim.
• McLuen supplies the tool-engagement indentations on the implant that receive the prongs (channels 1522) and the reason the prongs must hold while the driver turns.
• Sutcliffe supplies engagement geometry for the remaining dependents.

Motivation. Chung's implant requires a MIS approach in which a driver must be turned while the implant is held against endplate torque; Allen expressly contemplates a hollow pronged tool that cannulates the driver so the two operations occur on the same axis through one instrument. McLuen supplies the express problem statement — the driver can slip near the spine, and the implant must be held at the target site during expansion. Using Allen's tool to insert and expand Chung's implant is the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and is a simple substitution of one known element for another (KSR; MPEP 2143).

Ground 2 — Gordon, alone or in view of McLuen → claims 21–30 (and independently, claim 27)

Medtronic's petition against the '136 patent — the direct ancestor of the '849/'219 chain — is built on anticipation by Gordon and obviousness over McLuen + Gordon. Gordon discloses a single tool that both inserts and expands (the stated advantage being that separate tools "could disrupt the patient's surgical opening"), with holding arms 716 functioning as the prongs, driver 708 with a rotatable control member, and driver head 726 actuating a proximal expansion screw. Combined with McLuen's implant (channels 1522 sized to receive a tool), the tool-assembly and method claims read on the combination. Medtronic's own words: "a POSITA would have been motivated to use the Gordon tool assembly with Palmatier's implant… because it offers the advantage of a single tool assembly that can both insert the implant and expand it." — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558746](/patent/1558746)/download-documents

Ground 3 — Michelson + McLuen → claims 21–30

Medtronic's petition against the '797 patent challenges claims 16 and 19 only over McLuen + Michelson, and represents that "there is no dispute that Michelson discloses the claimed three-part tool." Michelson's expander driver 600/tip 614, T-handle 624 and anti-rotation locking mechanism map to the first tool body + prongs + rotating second tool body. The only modification Medtronic concedes is required — shaping Michelson's engagement prongs to securely engage McLuen's implant — is characterized as within the routine skill of a POSITA.

Ground 4 — Baynham + Allen (or Gordon) + McLuen → claims 21–30

Baynham supplies the two-part expandable implant, the adjusting/jack screw, and the pair of tool-engagement indentations; the Examiner already found Baynham anticipatory of the '268 implant claims. The tool half is supplied by Allen or Gordon as above, with McLuen for the indentation/holding teaching. This ground is attractive because it does not depend on the priority-date question at all if the Office again declines to credit the 2007 priority for the late-added claims.

Ground 5 (conditional) — Moskowitz 440 + Waugh / Michelson 019 → claims 21–30

Moskowitz 440 is the applicant's own 2008 family publication and discloses, in a single document, both halves of the '219 claims (expandable sliding-base spacer and the Allen-key/gripper/prong/screw-guide tool). In IPR2026‑00285 Medtronic used it as disclosing "nearly all elements" of Moskowitz's own later independent claims, adding Waugh for the missing bracket and Michelson 019 for the larger screw-entrance/lip structure. Its availability against '219 turns entirely on whether the '219 claims can legitimately claim 2007 priority; as a § 102(a)(1) printed publication it is otherwise more than a year too late, and the § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception would also remove it as § 102(a)(2) art. I present this ground as contingent, not as my primary case.

6. Why a POSITA would combine — the shared motivation story

1. Same field, same problem, same components. Every reference is an expandable interbody spacer or its inserter, addressing distraction and fusion of adjacent vertebral bodies by a trans- or inter-body approach.
2. Express problem statements. McLuen states the objective of holding the implant securely at the target site during expansion and avoiding screwdriver slippage near the spine; Michelson states the same locking objective; Gordon states the advantage of one instrument that both inserts and expands.
3. Design incentive to consolidate instruments. A single cannulated instrument reduces instrument exchanges, shortens OR time, and preserves the surgical corridor — the very rationale the '219 specification itself gives for its tool ("flexible shaft… avoidance of spinous processes which might hinder the screw driving if the shaft were straight").
4. Predictable result / reasonable expectation of success. Rotating a shaft within a lumen to turn a screw is the oldest of mechanical arts; both Allen and Gordon disclose it working.
5. KSR "known technique" and "obvious to try." With a finite, well-catalogued set of expandable-spacer expansion mechanisms (wedge, screw-jack, ratchet) and inserter interfaces (prongs-into-indentations, threaded attachment), the claimed permutation is the predictable output of routine design iteration.

7. Counters and how they cut — stated honestly

• The Board has never reached the merits on several of these grounds. In IPR2020‑01305 and ‑01306 (Globus v. Moskowitz, US 10,478,319) the Board denied institution (Paper 7, Jan. 8, 2021) — but that was a discretionary § 325(d) denial because the Chung/McLuen/Allen art had been before the Examiner, not a holding of non-obviousness. https://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/PTAB-IPR2020-01305-7.pdf. Likewise IPR2020‑01303, ‑01304, ‑01307, ‑01308 were all discretionary denials. The merits of these very combinations remain adjudicated only in a district-court invalidity-contentions posture so far.
• But the Board's posture has shifted in the 2025–2026 Medtronic wave. IPR2025‑01598 was referred to the Board for merits review (Paper 9), and the Director's Ecto World / Carbyne / FreightCar line now treats "buried in a 400-reference IDS and never used as a basis for rejection" as material Office error rather than a reason to deny. Medtronic is running precisely that playbook here: the '136 patent — allowed by Examiner Ellen Hammond, the same Primary Examiner listed on '219 — issued without a single prior-art rejection, after Gordon and McLuen were buried in four IDS submissions totalling 410 references and Michelson was never cited at all.
• Secondary considerations. Expect Moskowitz to argue long-felt need, industry adoption and licensing; the Director has already rejected analogous "settled expectations" arguments for this portfolio, noting Moskowitz's ~10-year non-enforcement against Medtronic.
• Term/priority tension. Note the asymmetry: Google's model shows the '219 term as "adjusted expiration 2027‑11‑27" (i.e., 20 years from the 2007 priority plus PTA). A patentee cannot simultaneously claim 2007 priority to shorten its term and escape 2007‑2008 intervening art; the validity and term positions pull in opposite directions.

8. Bottom line and confidence

My assessment: claims 21–30 of US 12,539,219 are, on the current record, vulnerable to § 103 on at least three independent combinations — (Chung + Allen + McLuen ± Sutcliffe), (Gordon, alone or + McLuen), and (Michelson + McLuen) — each of which has already been pleaded or petitioned against sibling members of this family, with (Baynham + Allen/Gordon + McLuen) and (Moskowitz 440 + Waugh/Michelson 019) as additional available grounds. The strongest single fact is that Allen alone appears to disclose the entire "first tool body + lumen + prongs + smaller-diameter second tool body" architecture that constitutes the point of novelty of the tool-assembly claims.

Confidence levels:

• High that Chung, Allen, McLuen, Gordon and Michelson disclose the elements tabulated above — these are the parties' own mappings, sourced from filed PTAB papers and PTAB decisions.
• High that no IPR naming 12,539,219 or its parent 11,903,849 as the challenged patent has been found; the '849 patent appears instead as Ex. 1048 in Medtronic petitions (e.g., IPR2025‑01598 and IPR2026‑00285 exhibits).
• Medium on the as-granted claim set and numbering of '219. I still have not verified the granted PDF; the analysis assumes the '219 claims track the '849/'319 pronged-tool architecture. If the granted set adds or retains an independent self-drilling screw-box claim (as the printed abstract would suggest), that claim has its own § 103 exposure via Moskowitz 440 itself plus Baynham/Waugh — but I am not asserting it exists.
• Unconfirmed identifiers I deliberately did not guess: the document number and title of the Allen '335 reference beyond "US 5,658,335"; the specific publication number of the tool-assembly "Michelson" reference (distinct from "Michelson 019" = US 6,972,019); the numbers of the '797, '755 and '183 Moskowitz patents beyond those stated in the retrieved papers; and the full identifiers of Tisserand, Schäfer and Berry.