US 9301854

I'll verify the bibliographic data and, critically, pull the granted claim text for US 9,301,854 so the independent-claim overview is grounded rather than inferred.

The NuVasive Exhibit C3 excerpt suggests the granted claim 1 may differ from the pre-grant publication I relied on earlier. Let me pin down the granted claim text.

The exhibits suggest the granted '854 claim 1 may recite "a body having a first end and a second end" and "first/second prong … free end" — different from the pre-grant publication. Let me try to pin the exact granted claim language.

US Patent 9,301,854 B2 — Verified Summary

Searches run: USPTO PTAB/PTACTS petition records, USPTO e-FOIA/Patent Center mirror (PubChem/NCBI record for US‑9301854‑B2), Google Patents US9301854, D. Del. docket via CourtListener, and CAFC 2026 opinions. Results below are restricted to the literal identifier 9,301,854; no sibling was substituted.

---

1. Bibliographic data

⚠️ Documented conflict I will not paper over

PubChem/NCBI's record lists the four inventors themselves as the "Assignee." Google Patents lists the original assignee as "Individual" and the current assignee as Moskowitz Family LLC. These are reconcilable — PubChem appears to reflect the as-filed, pre-assignment state — but they are not the same statement, and I am reporting both literally rather than auto-correcting either.

---

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"A tool assembly includes a universal, intervertebral bone fusion spacer for insertion into a disc space between a first vertebral body and a second vertebral body and fusion of the first vertebral body to the second vertebral body via biological bone fusion and screw fusion, and a tool for manipulating and inserting the universal, intervertebral bone fusion spacer into the disc space between the first vertebral body and the second vertebral body to provide fusion of the first vertebral body to the second vertebral body via biological bone fusion and screw fusion."

---

3. Priority chain (from the patent's own Cross‑Reference section)

13/741,361 (filed 2013‑01‑14) → continuation of 13/084,543 (filed 2011‑04‑11) and continuation of 13/108,982 (filed 2011‑05‑16) → both continuations of 11/842,855 (filed 2007‑08‑21; issued as US 7,942,903) → CIP of 11/536,815 (filed 2006‑09‑29; US 7,846,188) → CIP of 11/208,644 (filed 2005‑08‑23; US 7,704,279); plus § 119(e) benefit of prov. 60/670,231 (2005‑04‑12).

Notable, and not previously flagged: application 13/084,543 — the immediate parent of the '854 — is the application that issued as US 8,353,913 ("the '913 patent"), per the IPR2020‑01307 petition caption (U.S. Pat. No. 8,353,913, Application No. 13/084,543, filed April 11, 2011). The '854 is therefore a continuation of the application that produced the '913, which is the patent at the center of the 2026 Federal Circuit decision (§ 5 below).

---

4. Independent claims — plain-language overview

Confidence caveat stated up front: I could not retrieve the verbatim granted claim set of the '854 from an authoritative full-text source in this session. The overview below is reconstructed from (a) the patent's abstract and specification, and (b) the claim chart filed by Moskowitz Family LLC as Exhibit C3 in D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711, which is captioned "PATENT 9,301,854" (CourtListener). Any chart or opinion should be verified against the printed claims at USPTO Patent Center before reliance.

Independent claim 1 — a surgical tool (apparatus). In plain terms: a tool for manipulating and inserting an intervertebral bone‑fusion spacer into the disc space between two vertebral bodies. The tool has a body with a first end and a second end, and at least a first prong and a second prong that are movable with respect to the first end of the body, each prong having a free end. As charted in Exhibit C3, the claim language includes the phrases "into the disc space between the first vertebral body and the second vertebral body," "a body having a first end and a second end," and "movable with respect to the first end of the body, wherein each of the first prong and the second prong has a free end."

Independent claim (tool assembly) — spacer + tool. Per the abstract and the specification's own summary, a second independent aspect is a "tool assembly" combining: (i) a "universal" intervertebral bone‑fusion spacer — an intervertebral cage with first and second integral screw guides, with a slot or indentation at each longitudinal end near an edge of the upper surface; and (ii) the insertion tool, whose prong free ends engage those slots/indentations, with a screw guide positioned between the prongs to control the direction of screws threaded into the cage's integral guides; and (iii) first and second screws disposed at least partially within the cage. Fusion is achieved by both biological graft fusion and screw fusion.

Possibly a method claim. The family's PTAB practice (see the claim charts in PTAB Petition 1539286, which chart a "method of inserting a universal, intervertebral bone fusion spacer" claim) suggests the family includes a method independent claim covering: measure the disc space → determine the disc‑space type (lateral, anterior‑lateral, posterior lumbar, anterior lumbar, or anterior cervical) → select the spacer → position the screw guide between the prongs → insert the screws. I could not confirm that a method claim is present in the granted '854 specifically (that chart may target the '913), so treat this as a flag to verify, not a finding.

⚠️ Contradiction to flag against the earlier generated sections

1. Claim-1 identity. The earlier "Litigation summary"/"Obviousness" sections reported claim 1 as "A tool assembly comprising…" The pre‑grant publication (US 2013/0282017 A1, the publication of 13/741,361) shows claim 1 as "A tool for manipulating and inserting…" with the "tool assembly" claim as claim 8. The NuVasive Exhibit C3 chart for the '854 uses yet different claim 1 language ("a body having a first end and a second end… first prong and second prong… free end"). These three are not identical. I cannot resolve which recites the granted claim 1 without the issued text.
2. Claim count. The earlier "Prior art" section stated "Claims 1–20 granted; claims 21–35 canceled." I could not verify this in this session and am not repeating it as established fact. Claim numbering and count should be pulled from the face of the patent.
3. Cited references. The earlier "Prior art" section described the front-page citation list as "roughly 55+" references with the key titles unverified. The USPTO/PubChem citation record I retrieved is substantially longer (~150 documents) and, materially, includes US 8,425,607 B2 and US 2008/0249569 A1 — i.e., Waugh, the primary reference Medtronic later asserts against this family — as well as US 6,972,019 B2 (Michelson). That is a genuine update to the earlier prior-art section and is worth re-verifying on the printed patent.

---

5. USPTO database and CAFC 2026 docket check

• PTAB: No AIA trial proceeding naming US 9,301,854 was located. The IPRs in this family target other patents — Globus's IPR2020‑01303 through ‑01310 (all institution denied), and Medtronic's 2025–2026 campaign against 9,005,293; 10,064,738; 10,603,183; 11,096,797; 12,011,367. Absence of a found petition is not proof none exists; re-verify at PTAB E2E.
• District court: The '854 is asserted in Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC, D. Del. No. 1:25-cv-00711 (claim chart filed as Exhibit C3, captioned "PATENT 9,301,854"). Claim-construction briefing ran Feb–Apr 2026 before Judge Bryson.
• CAFC 2026: I found no 2026 Federal Circuit docket entry or opinion involving US 9,301,854 itself. The one 2026 CAFC decision touching this family is Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 24-1696 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2026) (Prost, Schall, Stoll, JJ.), which affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement and held "universal" in the preamble is limiting — but that appeal concerned US 8,353,913, US 9,889,022, and US 10,478,319, not the '854. Any statement that the '854 was decided on appeal in 2026 would be incorrect on the record I retrieved.

---

6. Uncertainty summary

• Verbatim granted claims of the '854 — NOT retrieved. The independent-claim overview is grounded in the abstract, specification, and a party's claim chart, not the issued claim text. Verify at Patent Center for application 13/741,361.
• Claim count and whether claims were canceled pre-issuance — unverified.
• Expiration (2025‑11‑22) — single-source (Google Patents); unverified against the USPTO term calculation.
• Assignee of record on the face — sources conflict (PubChem lists the four inventors; Google Patents lists "Individual" originally and Moskowitz Family LLC currently). The recorded 2018‑03‑14 assignment to Moskowitz Family LLC reconciles the current-owner question but not the face-of-patent question.
• All identifiers above are reproduced literally as retrieved. No patent numbers were auto-corrected or substituted.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9301854 specifically.

Let me dig deeper into the specific litigation references.

Let me verify the details and check whether the '854 patent is asserted in other cases, including the Medtronic action and any Federal Circuit appeal.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,301,854 ("the '854 patent")

Bottom line

Based on my searches, I found one litigation in which U.S. Patent No. 9,301,854 is expressly identified as an asserted patent. Several other Moskowitz Family LLC litigations exist (and are related through the shared patent family and patent owner), but I could not confirm that the '854 patent is asserted in those cases. I have flagged those uncertainties explicitly rather than assume.

---

1. Confirmed: Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC and NuVasive, Inc.

Evidence that the '854 patent is in this case:

• The Complaint's "Asserted Patents" section lists U.S. Patent No. 9,301,854 ("the '854 patent") among the asserted patents, stating it is entitled "Bi-directional fixating transvertebral body screws and posterior cervical and lumbar interarticulating joint calibrated stapling devices for spinal fusion," issued April 5, 2016, from Application No. 13/741,361, and that Moskowitz Family LLC owns the entire right, title, and interest. The Complaint attaches the patent as Exhibit C1. (Complaint at ¶ 17, D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711.)
• The Rule 3 Report to the Commissioner of Patents lists US 9,301,854 B2 among the patent numbers for the case.
• Other asserted patents in the same case include U.S. Patent Nos. 7,972,363; 9,005,293; 9,924,940; 10,016,284; 10,426,633; and others.
• Accused products: NuVasive's BASE Interfixed System, Brigade System, CoRoent Small Interlock System, MOD-EX PL Interbody System, MOD-EX XLIF System, Simplify Cervical Disc, TLX Interbody System, and X-CORE Expandable VBR System.

Sources:

• Complaint PDF (D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711): https://ai-lab.exparte.com/documents/dct/[4575805](/patent/4575805)/1-25-cv-00711_ded_complaint_exparte.pdf
• CourtListener docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70476467/moskowitz-family-llc-v-nuvasive-llc/
• Unified Patents litigation entry: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A25-cv-00711
• Google Patents litigation link for US9301854B2 (Darts-ip family 39269006).

---

2. Not confirmed for the '854 patent: Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. et al.

Caution: I reviewed the portions of the Medtronic complaint that surfaced in my searches. Those excerpts assert, among others, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,005,293 ('293), 9,907,674, 11,903,849, the '755 patent, the '136 patent, and the '367 patent. I did not find confirmation that the '854 patent is asserted in the Minnesota action. Given the shared patent family and the same patent owner, it is plausible the '854 patent is also asserted there, but I cannot state that with confidence and will not fabricate it. Anyone needing certainty should pull the operative complaint in 0:25-cv-00769 directly.

Sources:

• Unified Patents: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Minnesota%20District%20Court/case/0%3A25-cv-00769
• Complaint and amended complaints reproduced as PTAB exhibits (e.g., Ex. 2019/2004 in IPR2026-00121).

---

3. Related Moskowitz enforcement actions — '854 status unverified

These are additional Moskowitz Family LLC suits I encountered references to, but for which I did not obtain evidence that the '854 patent was asserted:

• Moskowitz Family LLC v. ZimVie Inc., No. 1:22-cv-01632-UNA (D. Del., filed Dec. 23, 2022). Referenced as PTAB Exhibit 2009 in IPR2026-00121.
• Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00672 (W.D. Tex., filed Nov. 20, 2019). Referenced as PTAB Exhibit 2017.

I cannot confirm whether the '854 patent was among the asserted patents in either.

---

4. Related PTAB proceedings (patent-family, not the '854 patent itself)

The following AIA post-grant proceedings involve related Moskowitz patents, not U.S. 9,301,854 (I found no IPR petition specifically against the '854 patent):

• IPR2025-01598, Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC — challenges U.S. Patent No. 9,005,293.
• IPR2026-00121, Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC — another Medtronic challenge to a Moskowitz patent (petition and patent owner preliminary response filed Feb. 20, 2026).

---

5. Federal Circuit activity

NuVasive's counsel filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority in D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711 citing Appeal No. 24-1696 Opinion (D.I. 108, Sept. 15, 2026). I also encountered a Moskowitz Federal Circuit brief discussing claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,353,913 and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,478,319. However, I could not confirm that Appeal No. 24-1696 (or any other Federal Circuit appeal) involves the '854 patent specifically. I flag this as unverified rather than attribute it to the '854 patent.

---

Summary table

Recommendation: Only the NuVasive action (D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711) can be affirmatively tied to U.S. Patent No. 9,301,854 on the evidence I retrieved. To definitively confirm or exclude the '854 patent from the Medtronic, ZimVie, and Globus matters, the operative complaints and docket reports in those cases should be retrieved from PACER/CourtListener and the asserted-patent lists verified directly. I have deliberately not asserted '854's presence in those cases, and I have not auto-corrected or substituted any patent numbers — all identifiers above are reproduced literally as they appeared in the sources.

I'll verify the structured data with targeted searches before concluding.

No direct hits yet. Let me probe the patent owner and litigation angle, plus try the PTAB docket directly.

The Delaware case asserts the '854 patent. Let me check for IPRs naming it specifically and for NuVasive/Medtronic petitions.

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings on file for US 9,301,854. Count: 0. Breakdown: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied. The USPTO ODP structured block is canonical and returns nothing, and my independent searches for petitions naming US 9,301,854 (or challenging its claims) surfaced none — every Moskowitz-family IPR I could find targets a different patent in the same family.

Bottom line defensive posture: the '854 patent is PTAB-clean but PTAB-untested — no claim has been canceled, no claim has been confirmed, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel runs against anyone. That cuts both ways: a defendant still has the full prior-art universe available (no estoppel to worry about), but also gets no free "claim 1 is dead" argument. The two real signals for a defendant are (a) the '854 comes from a family that has been hit with at least a dozen IPR petitions by Globus (2020) and Medtronic (2025–2026) — the same art packages are already built; and (b) the '854 appears to have expired (Google Patents legal status: "Expired - Lifetime," adjusted expiration 2025-11-22 — verify independently), which materially changes the defensive calculus from "injunction risk" to "past-damages-only risk."

---

Per-proceeding entries

There are no proceedings to report for US 9,301,854 itself. Rather than pad the record with the '854, I list below the related family proceedings that do NOT involve the '854 patent — a defendant facing the '854 needs these because the art, the estoppel posture, and the claim-construction law are shared.

IPR2020-01303, -01304, -01305, -01306, -01307, -01308, -01309, -01310 — Globus Medical, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (eight petitions)
• Filed: 2020-07-21
• Status: All eight institution decisions: DENIED (December 2020 through 2021-02-05). Not a proceeding on the '854 patent.
• Judge panel: not retrieved
• Petition grounds: § 103 obviousness over prior art directed to intervertebral cages with internal screw guides and bi-directional screws; challenged patents were 8,353,913; 9,889,022; 10,028,740; 10,251,643; 10,307,268; 10,478,319 (the '268 drew two petitions, a first and a conditional second). None of these is the '854, but all are continuations sharing the '854's specification.
• Institution decision: denied. Per Fish & Richardson, "the PTAB found that Globus ... failed to meet its burden and was not likely to prove any of the challenged claims ... unpatentable" (Fish & Richardson, 2021-03-02).
• Final Written Decision: none (never instituted).
• Settlement / termination: none reported; parallel E.D. Pa. litigation proceeded.
• Appeal: not an IPR appeal — the district court case went up separately (see below).
• Defensive value: This is the counter-example to rely on. Moskowitz has a perfect 8-for-8 record defeating institution in this family. Do not assume a Medtronic-style petition walks in.

Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 2024-1696 (Fed. Cir., decided 2026-09-11)

• Type: Federal Circuit appeal from district court (E.D. Pa., No. 2:20-cv-03271) — included because it is the controlling claim-construction ruling for the '854 family, not a PTAB appeal.
• Disposition: Affirmed. The panel upheld the district court's construction of "universal" as "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," affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement on the '913 and '022 patents, and affirmed denial of Moskowitz's JMOL motion on the '319 patent (Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Med., Inc., No. 24-1696; Becker's Spine Review).
• Why this matters for the '854: Moskowitz withdrew its allegations on claim 15 of the '913 patent precisely because "universal" appeared in the claim body rather than only the preamble. The '854's claim 1 — as reflected in the patent's own abstract — recites "a universal, intervertebral bone fusion spacer." If that is accurate, the '854's independent claim carries the same narrowing limitation, and the Federal Circuit has now affirmed that this construction knocks products out on summary judgment. This is likely your single best non-infringement lever. Verify the printed text of '854 claim 1 before relying on it.

Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC — 2025–2026 campaign

• Type: Inter Partes Review (multiple petitions). None names US 9,301,854.
• Status/granularity as retrieved (verify each against PTAB E2E):
  • IPR2025-01598 — U.S. Patent 9,005,293. Filed 2025-09-29. Patent Owner filed a § 314(a) discretionary-denial request on 2025-12-08; Petitioner opposed on 2026-01-08; the Board issued a Director discretionary decision referring the petition for merits review on 2026-01-27 (Docket Alarm docket).
  • IPR2026-00124 — U.S. Patent 11,096,797. Filed 2025-11-10. Trial Instituted; institution decision 2026-04-22 (ipverse case page). This is the family's effective expiry-year patent (a '854 descendant).
  • IPR2026-00265 — U.S. Patent 10,064,738. Filed 2026-02-20; challenged claims 1–7, 9, 11–12, 22, 24–25, 28, 32–33 on § 103 over Moskowitz 440 (US 2008/0033440) in view of Waugh (US 2008/0249569), alternatively + Michelson (US 6,972,019) (analysis).
  • IPR2026-00285 — U.S. Patent 10,603,183. Filed 2026-03-02; challenged claims 1–4, 6, 8, 10–14, 18–20 on the same three-reference package (analysis).
  • Additional Medtronic petitions on 12,011,367 and IPR2026-00121 appear in the record; the targeted patents for those are not confirmed in my sources.
• Judge panels: not retrieved for any of these.
• Institution decisions: only IPR2026-00124 confirmed instituted as of my sources.
• Final Written Decisions: none retrieved.
• Defensive value: Medtronic is running the industrial-scale version of the Globus playbook, and its art package (Moskowitz's own earlier publication US 2008/0033440 as primary reference + Waugh + Michelson) is the one to study. Critical caveat for the '854: Moskowitz 440 published 2008-02-07. The '854's priority chain runs to 2005-04-12 / 2005-08-23 / 2006-09-29 / 2007-08-21. If the '854's challenged claims are entitled to that chain, Moskowitz 440 is not § 102 prior art to the '854 at all — which is precisely why Medtronic aimed this package at the 2012–2013-priority continuations ('738, '183, '797, '367) rather than at the '854.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. Untouched. Zero claims canceled, zero claims confirmed, zero claims construed by the Board. There is no FWD to cite, no IPR certificate to download, and no claim-level disposition anywhere in the PTAB record for US 9,301,854. Any statement that a particular claim of the '854 has been invalidated would be false. The only claim-level rulings that touch this family are the Federal Circuit's non-infringement affirmances in the Globus appeal, which are about claim scope ("universal"), not validity.

Estoppel landscape. Because nothing was instituted on the '854, § 315(e)(2) estoppel has not attached to anyone — not to NuVasive, not to Medtronic, not to Globus. A current defendant facing the '854 can raise any § 102/§ 103 ground, including grounds that could have been raised elsewhere. Conversely, the Globus IPRs (all denied) generate no estoppel either. The one estoppel pocket to watch: Medtronic's instituted IPR2026-00124 on 11,096,797 will, at FWD, bar Medtronic and its privies from re-litigating grounds raised or reasonably raisable in that trial — but that binds Medtronic, not you, and it is a different patent.

Pattern signals. Three clear patterns. (1) Same-petitioner seriality is now Medtronic, not Globus — Medtronic has filed a portfolio-wide campaign in the family (2025–2026) across at least 9,005,293; 10,064,738; 10,603,183; 11,096,797; 12,011,367, explicitly coordinated with a stay motion in D. Minn. No. 0:25-cv-00769. (2) The patent owner fights and appeals — Moskowitz defeated 8/8 Globus IPRs in 2021 and litigated the Globus case to jury verdict, judgment, and a Federal Circuit appeal decided 2026-09-11. (3) No defensive aggregator in the chain — the prior-art packages are being built by direct competitors (Globus, Medtronic), not by Unified Patents; the Unified Patents hit in my search (IPR2022-00806) is an unrelated patent.

Family/litigation context is the real risk surface, not the PTAB. The '854 is presently asserted in Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC, D. Del. No. 1:25-cv-00711 (patent report entered 2025-06-06, CourtListener), alongside U.S. 7,972,363; 9,005,293; 9,924,940; 10,016,284 and later continuations. Note that the real PTAB war is being fought over the later-expiring continuations, not the '854 — consistent with the '854 having run out of term.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Do not build a defense on an invalidated-claim theory — there is none. Instead, verify the two facts that likely defeat the '854 outright:

   • Expiration. Google Patents lists legal status "Expired - Lifetime" with an adjusted expiration of 2025-11-22 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9301854/en). Its 20-year term runs from the 2005-08-23 non-provisional (App. Ser. No. 11/208,644), plus PTA. If confirmed against the face of the patent and the USPTO Patent Center term calculation, the '854 supports only past damages within the 6-year window of 35 U.S.C. § 286, and no prospective relief. Pull the citation to the front of any invalidity/non-infringement opinion.
   • "Universal." Read the printed text of '854 claim 1. If it recites "universal" in the body, apply the Federal Circuit's 2026-09-11 construction (No. 24-1696) — an accused implant designed only for one region/approach falls outside the claim on the same reasoning that produced SJ of non-infringement in Globus.

2. Mind the § 315(b) clock. The NuVasive complaint was filed 2025 (patent report docketed 2025-06-06); one year from service of that complaint is the outer IPR deadline for NuVasive on the '854. If service occurred mid-2025, that window has already closed as of today (2026-09-28) — but confirm the actual service date before relying on it, and note that the bar applies only to the served party and its privies/real parties in interest, not to you.

3. Track the family IPRs that will generate reusable art and estoppel. Calendar the statutory one-year trial clock (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) — FWD due within 12 months of the institution decision):

   • IPR2026-00124 (11,096,797) — instituted 2026-04-22 → FWD due on or about 2027-04-22. Watch this one closely: the '797 is a direct '854 descendant and its FWD will reveal exactly how the Board treats the Moskowitz/Waugh/Michelson cage-and-screw-guide art.
   • IPR2025-01598 (9,005,293) — referred for merits review 2026-01-27; institution decision pending.
   • IPR2026-00265 (10,064,738) and IPR2026-00285 (10,603,183) — filed 2026-02-20 and 2026-03-02; institution decisions due on the Board's ~6-month track.

4. Reuse the art, but watch the priority date. The Medtronic package (US 2008/0033440 + US 2008/0249569 + US 6,972,019) is only § 102/§ 103 art against claims whose effective filing date postdates the reference's publication. Before importing it against the '854, pin the '854's effective filing date against the 2005-08-23 / 2006-09-29 / 2007-08-21 chain. If the '854 gets its earliest priority, that package is unusable and you need pre-2005 art.

Confidence note: I could not query PTAB E2E or the ODP AIA-trial endpoint directly within this session, and I did not retrieve APJ panel names or FWDs for any of the family proceedings listed. The zero-count finding for US 9,301,854 rests on the structured ODP block plus negative search results, and should be re-verified against PTAB E2E before it is relied on in a filing.

I'll start by pulling the assignment and litigation records for US 9301854.

Let me look for the recorded assignment reel/frame data and litigation history.

Let me try to pin down the specific assignment reel/frame records and the litigation venue history.

Ownership Analysis — US 9,301,854 B2

Important data limitation, stated up front: I could not retrieve the underlying reel/frame numbers, execution dates, or correspondent-of-record fields from the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov) — those pages are not reachable through the search tools available to me, and the Google Patents legal-events feed reproduced in the patent text exposes assignor/assignee names and recording dates but not reel/frame or correspondent. The timeline below is reconstructed from Google Patents legal events, USPTO/PTAB prosecution records, and federal court dockets. I have not invented reel/frame numbers. Any entry marked "reel/frame not exposed" should be verified directly at the Assignment Center before being relied on. Please treat correspondent identifications as unconfirmed.

---

Inventors

Pattern note: Three of the four inventors share a surname and the same Rockville address — a family inventor group with no institutional assignee. The fourth (Valdivia y Alvarado) is the odd one out and is also the first to divest, assigning his interest to Nathan C. Moskowitz on 2015-05-04, before the patent even issued (2016-04-05). The two remaining co-inventors divested on 2016-08-03, roughly four months post-issuance. This is not the "all inventors flee within 12 months of filing" pattern; it is the distinct pattern of inventor interests being consolidated into a single principal in the run-up to formation of a holding entity — a preparatory step, not a fire-sale.

---

Original assignee

There was no corporate original assignee. US 9,301,854 issued with no assignee on its face — Google Patents records the original assignee as "Individual," and the application was filed on 2013-01-14 by the four named inventors personally. The patent never had an operating-company owner at any point.

• Product embodying the claims: None known. Neither the inventors nor Moskowitz Family LLC is on record as manufacturing or selling a spinal implant. The accused commercial products belong to third parties (NuVasive Base/Brigade/CoRoent; Globus Coalition/Monument; Medtronic/Warsaw Orthopedic).
• Primary line of business of the current owner: Moskowitz Family LLC is a Maryland LLC at 212 North Adams Street, Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20850. Its own complaint (NuVasive, D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711, ¶7) describes it as a company "created to develop human spine related devices and protect and license any resulting inventions and intellectual property," holding "nearly one hundred United States patents." Its Rule 7.1 disclosure in that case states "No Parents or Affiliates Listed." — i.e., single-purpose, no corporate parent.
• Current status: Active, operating as an IP holding and enforcement entity. The patent itself is Expired – Lifetime with an adjusted expiration of 2025-11-22, so any enforcement is retrospective (past damages only).

---

Assignment timeline

Chronological from the Google Patents legal-events feed and prosecution records. Reel/frame and correspondent are not exposed in the sources I could reach — they are shown as "not exposed" rather than guessed.

• 2015-05-04 (executed) / recorded on or about 2015-05-04 — Reel/frame not exposed

  • Conveyance: Assignment (recorded as an ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST)
  • Assignor: Pablo A. Valdivia y Alvarado
  • Assignee: Nathan C. Moskowitz (individual)
  • Correspondent: Not exposed in the retrieved record. Note (not a finding on this entry): the prosecution correspondence address of record for the Moskowitz family applications is Fish & Richardson P.C. (TC), Customer No. 26191, P.O. Box 1022, Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022 (visible on the face of the '319 file history, same patent family). Whether Fish & Richardson filed this assignment is unconfirmed.
  • Context: Consolidation of inventor interests into the lead inventor — personal, pre-issuance cleanup of title, not an acquisition.

• 2016-08-03 (executed) / recorded on or about 2016-08-03 — Reel/frame not exposed

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Mosheh T. Moskowitz
  • Assignee: Nathan C. Moskowitz (individual; Google Patents renders the assignee name as "MOSKOWITZ, NATHAN C.")
  • Correspondent: Not exposed.
  • Context: Consolidation of inventor interests — same pattern, post-issuance.

• 2016-08-03 (executed) / recorded on or about 2016-08-03 — Reel/frame not exposed

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Ahmnon D. Moskowitz
  • Assignee: Moskowitz, Nathan C. (recorded with the surname misspelled "MOSKOWTIZ" in the Google Patents feed — a clerical string in the source, noted literally)
  • Correspondent: Not exposed.
  • Context: Consolidation of inventor interests — completes single-principal ownership.

• 2018-03-14 (executed) / recorded on or about 2018-03-14 — Reel/frame not exposed

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Nathan C. Moskowitz (individual)
  • Assignee: Moskowitz Family LLC (Rockville, MD)
  • Correspondent: Not exposed. If a single attorney/firm appears as correspondent on both the 2015/2016 consolidations and this 2018 LLC transfer, that is the recurrence worth flagging — but I cannot confirm it from the retrieved data.
  • Context: Transfer to a founder-owned, licensing-only holding entity. This is the last recorded assignment of title. It occurred ~10 years after the 2007 parent filing and ~4 years before the first assertion naming this family's patents.

Litigation overlay (not assignments, but they date the enforcement activity):

• 2019-11-20 — Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., W.D. Tex. 6:19-cv-672 (transferred 2020-07-02 to E.D. Pa. 2:20-cv-03271). Globus counter-filed IPR2020-01303 through -01308; all six petitions were denied institution (Dec. 2020 – Jan. 2021).
• 2025-06-06 — Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC, D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711. The Patent/Trademark Report to the Commissioner (Doc. #3) lists US 9,301,854 B2 among ten asserted patents (also 7,972,363; 9,005,293; 9,924,940; 10,016,284; 10,426,633; 10,925,753; 11,376,136; 11,771,567; 12,144,743).
• 2025 — Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. et al., D. Minn. 0:25-cv-00769 (Medtronic responded with IPR2025-01598).
• 2025-11-22 — Adjusted expiration of US 9,301,854.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9301854
    2005 : Priority date Apr 12
    2013 : Filed by individual inventors
    2015 : Valdivia assigns rights to N Moskowitz
    2016 : Mosheh and Ahmnon assign to N Moskowitz
         : Patent issued Apr 5
    2018 : Assigned to Moskowitz Family LLC
    2019 : First suit vs Globus Medical
    2025 : Suit vs NuVasive in Delaware
         : Patent expires Nov 22

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present (qualified). Title moved from natural persons to Moskowitz Family LLC, a Maryland single-purpose LLC, on 2018-03-14 (reel/frame not exposed). The qualifying evidence is documentary, not name-based: the owner's own pleading states the LLC was "created to develop human spine related devices and protect and license any resulting inventions and intellectual property" (D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711 ¶7), the Rule 7.1 disclosure states "No Parents or Affiliates Listed," and there is no product anywhere in the record. Caveat: this is not the classic "operating company dumps patents into a shell" fact pattern — there was never an operating assignee, and the LLC is founder-owned by the lead inventor. It functions as a licensing-only IP holder, which is NPE status under the standard RPX/Unified definition, but it is an inventor-controlled entity, not an arm's-length acquisition vehicle.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No assignee in the chain (Nathan C. Moskowitz; Moskowitz Family LLC) matches the named lists — Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or any Spangenberg entity. Moskowitz Family LLC is, however, a repeat patent plaintiff (Globus 2019; NuVasive 2025; Medtronic 2025) and appears in the Unified Patents litigation database via the case link on the patent record (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/…/case/1:25-cv-00711). I found no RPX/Unified "high-frequency plaintiff" designation for it.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not determinable. The Assignment Center correspondent field is not exposed in any source I could reach, so I cannot identify the attorney or firm of record on the 2015, 2016, or 2018 recordings. What I can state is that Fish & Richardson P.C. (Customer No. 26191, Minneapolis, MN) is the prosecution correspondence address of record across the Moskowitz family applications (documented on the '319 file history, an exhibit in IPR2020-01305). That is a prosecution relationship, not a confirmed assignment-recording relationship, and a large general-practice firm of this type is not itself an NPE tell. No finding.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. The chain is four recordings spread over ~35 months (May 2015 → Aug 2016 → Mar 2018), and every intermediate assignee is either three natural persons or the founder individually — not chained, distinct LLCs. There is no sequence of unrelated entities flipping the patent in under 24 months, and the terminal assignee has held title continuously since 2018-03-14.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The last recorded assignment (2018-03-14) predates the NuVasive complaint (2025-06-06) by more than seven years. There is no late-hour title transfer staged to establish standing or set venue. (Worth noting separately, as context rather than as this signal: the '854 patent was asserted ~5.5 months before its 2025-11-22 expiration, which is a late-life assertion pattern but not a pre-litigation transfer pattern.)

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No bankruptcy of any assignor or assignee appears in the record. The inventors are natural persons and Moskowitz Family LLC is an active, litigating entity as of 2026 (a five-day jury trial was set for 2027-02-08 in D. Del.).

7. Privateering — not present. Privateering requires an operating company transferring rights to an NPE that asserts on its behalf against competitors. Here the transferor was a natural person (Nathan C. Moskowitz) and the transferee is his own family holding entity. No operating company is in the chain at any point, so there is no principal whose competitors are being targeted on its behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates at Moskowitz Family LLC, an active plaintiff. It did not end at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. The patent has not been neutralized.

---

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

Justification: The chain terminates at Moskowitz Family LLC (last recorded assignment 2018-03-14; reel/frame not exposed), a Maryland single-purpose LLC whose own pleadings describe it as created to "protect and license" IP, which lists no parent or affiliate under Rule 7.1, and which has no product embodying the claims — a strong Signal 1 hit. That single strong signal, plus the weak signal of serial assertion (Globus 2019; NuVasive 2025, where the '854 is one of ten asserted patents per the D. Del. Commissioner report; Medtronic 2025), supports a moderate rather than high-confidence call, because the conventional NPE markers that would push it higher are all absent: no third-party acquisition, no cascading LLC chain, no pre-litigation transfer, no known NPE principal, and no bankruptcy. The material distinction a reader should carry away is that Moskowitz Family LLC is a founder-owned, non-practicing enforcement vehicle — economically an NPE, but not an arm's-length patent-troll acquisition play.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 9301854) — or the legacy index at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Please pull the reel/frame and correspondent fields directly from that interface; they are the two data points I could not verify and the two on which Signals 1 and 3 ultimately turn.

I'll research US patent 9301854 and its prior art citations.

Let me retrieve the full citation list from the patent record.

I have partial citation data. Let me retrieve the complete prior-art citation tables and key reference details.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent 9,301,854 B2

1. Identification of the patent (interpreted literally)

Priority chain (as stated on the face/cross-reference section): 13/741,361 → continuation of 13/084,543 (Apr. 11, 2011) → divisional of 11/842,855 (Aug. 21, 2007; US 7,942,903) → continuation-in-part of 11/536,815 (Sep. 29, 2006; US 7,846,188) → continuation-in-part of 11/208,644 (Aug. 23, 2005; US 7,704,279).

Critical point for the §102 analysis: the granted claims 1–20 are tool / tool-assembly claims (gripper with prongs engaging slots or indentations of an intervertebral cage; a screw guide held between the prongs; handle; driver assembly with a flexible drive shaft). The cervical-facet-staple and lumbar-facet-staple subject matter described in the specification sits in claims 21–35, which were canceled and therefore has no patentable weight here.

2. Sourcing note (read before using the table)

The front-page "References Cited" list I retrieved for US 9,301,854 (via the PubChem/NCBI patent record for US‑9301854‑B2) contains roughly 55+ U.S. patent documents plus foreign documents. The search snippets returned the identifier list reliably but did not return, for each document, its title, assignee, and publication date. Per my operating rule, I will not fabricate bibliographic data I cannot verify. Accordingly I split the answer into:

• Tier A – references I can characterize with reasonable confidence (verified in retrieved sources or well-established public record), and
• Tier B – identifiers retrieved from the citation list but whose titles/dates I could not independently verify in this session (must be confirmed in USPTO Patent Center / Global Dossier before any office action).

3. Cited references

Tier A — characterizable references

Tier B — identifiers appearing in the US 9,301,854 citation list (titles/dates unverified in this session)

Surgical staplers, clips, screwdrivers / general instrumentation:
US 2,360,942; US 4,064,881; US 4,960,420; US 5,005,749; US 5,413,583; US 5,454,819; US 5,916,224; US 5,951,574; US 5,960,522; US 6,613,055; US 6,652,543; US 5,715,912.

Intervertebral implants / fusion cages / disc prostheses:
US 4,554,914; US 4,599,086; US 4,636,217; US 4,904,261; US 4,997,432; US 5,062,850; US 5,123,926; US 5,290,312; US 5,405,391; US 5,514,180; US 5,660,188; US 5,667,472; US 5,782,832; US 5,865,848; US 5,888,223; US 5,968,054; US 5,976,136; US 6,126,689; US 6,342,074 B1; US 6,368,350 B1; US 6,375,682 B1; US 6,419,704 B1; US 6,432,106 B1; US 6,458,159 B1; US 6,527,804 B1; US 6,533,818 B1; US 6,558,423 B1; US 6,572,653 B1; US 6,579,318 B2; US 6,582,468 B1; US 6,629,998 B1; US 6,641,614 B1; US 6,719,794 B2; US 6,723,126 B1; US 6,733,532 B1; US 6,764,491 B2; US 6,770,094 B2.

Published applications / foreign:
US 2002/068977 A1; US 2002/143338 A1; US 2003/130737 A1; US 2004/088054 A1; US 2004/177531 A1; US 2004/193272 A1; WO 2004/093749 A1 (and, per the family listing, FR 2 727 005).

Action required: run these identifiers through USPTO Patent Center / Espacenet bulk export to obtain verified titles, assignees and dates before relying on any of them in a §102/§103 chart.

4. Most relevant prior art and §102 mapping

§102 anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every element of the claim as arranged. Applying that to the granted claim set:

• Claim 1 requires: (a) a gripper with a plurality of prongs whose distal ends engage a slot/indentation formed adjacent an edge of the upper surface of the intervertebral cage, and (b) a screw guide positioned between the prongs that controls screw direction into the cage's integral screw guide.
• Claims 2–6 add prong-retained screw guide, opposing slots/indentations, integral trajectory guide, and tubular gripper portion.
• Claim 7 / 16 add the driver assembly with a flexible drive shaft between handle and drive bit.
• Claims 8–20 are the tool-assembly counterpart, adding the spacer itself: intervertebral cage with first and second integral screw guides, first and second screws, bi-directional guide angulation (claim 17), self-tapping/self-drilling screws (claim 18), bone-graft cavity (claim 19), and ridges (claim 20).

Assessment of the cited art against this claim set:

1. No cited reference appears to disclose the full combination of claim 1 (pronged gripper engaging cage-end slots/indentations plus a screw guide clamped between the prongs). The interbody-cage references (US 6,712,794; US 6,558,423; US 6,764,491 and the Tier B cage family) are relevant only to the spacer element of claim 8 and to claim 1's preamble. They would more realistically be §103 art, not §102.
2. The screwdriver/instrumentation references (US 6,652,543; US 6,613,055 and similar) map to the driver assembly limitation of claims 7 and 16 — but the recited flexible drive shaft extending between handle and drive bit for manipulating a screw of an expandable/non-expandable screw box is a narrower configuration; verify whether any of these discloses a flexible-shaft driver.
3. US 7,628,816 (Spondylodesis device) is the closest cited reference for the "attachment member = plate" species recited in the specification, but the plates there are fixed to the implant and vertebrae, not a prong-gripper/screw-guide tool.
4. The stapler references (US 4,064,881, US 4,960,420, US 5,005,749, US 5,413,583, US 6,613,055) and the facet-staple disclosure in the specification target the cervical/lumbar facet staple embodiments — which, again, sit in the canceled claims 21–35 and therefore cannot be asserted against the live claims.
5. Same-family documents (US 7,704,279; US 7,846,188; US 7,942,903) are not prior art to US 9,301,854 — they are the priority/support chain and share the same inventive entity.

Bottom line: on the record retrieved, none of the cited references appears to anticipate any of claims 1–20 under §102 standing alone. Their realistic role is as §103 background art — interbody cages with integral screw guides and plate fixation (§103 combination of a cage reference with an insertion-tool/driver reference). Anticipation by any single cited reference would require it to disclose the prong/slot engagement and the inter-positioned screw guide and (for claims 7/16) the flexible-shaft driver in one document.

5. Caveats

• The bibliographic details (exact titles, assignees, publication dates) for the Tier B identifiers were not verified in this session; treat them as a citation-index list only.
• The granted patent's front page and the exact "References Cited" set should be re-pulled directly from USPTO Patent Center (US 13/741,361) or Google Patents' "Patent Citations" table, since the retrieved data came from a secondary mirror (PubChem/NCBI) and search snippets.
• Non-patent literature commonly associated with this family (Traynelis, Clinical Neurosurgery vol. 50 (2002); Wai et al., Seminars in Spine Surgery (2003); Guyer et al., Spine (2003); Grob et al., Spine (2005); and three PCT ISRs) appeared in a related family member's listing (US 10,390,969), not confirmed on US 9,301,854 itself — verify before citing.
• Nothing here is a legal conclusion on validity, claim scope, or the status/expiry of the patent.

I'll start by searching for the actual claim text and prior art relevant to this patent, since the "Prior Art section" wasn't included in the material provided to me.

I have strong grounding now. Let me confirm which IPR targets the '854 patent specifically and retrieve its full granted claim set.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,301,854 B2

("Bi-directional fixating transvertebral body screws and posterior cervical and lumbar interarticulating joint calibrated stapling devices for spinal fusion")

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

---

0. Note on the "Prior Art section"

The instruction referenced "the results from the Prior Art section of this page," but no prior-art section was actually transmitted in the material provided to me — only the patent's own description and the previously generated summary/litigation sections. I therefore reconstructed the prior-art landscape from (a) the full '854 text you supplied, and (b) live search results, principally the PTAB petitions and IPRs that third parties have filed against this exact patent family. Those petitions are the most probative evidence of what a skilled artisan/petitioner treats as the relevant art. I flag explicitly which identifications are third-party characterizations rather than my own independent verification of each reference's full disclosure.

---

1. Threshold issues that control the analysis

1.1 Which claims are being tested

There is a real discrepancy between the previously generated summary and the primary claim text I retrieved, which I flag per instructions:

• The previously generated Patent Summary states Claim 1 is "A tool assembly comprising… an intervertebral bone fusion spacer…" (attributed to the D. Del. complaint chart).
• The pre-grant publication of this very application (US 2013/0282017 A1, which is the publication of application 13/741,361 that issued as the '854) lists Claim 1 as "A tool for manipulating and inserting a universal, intervertebral bone fusion spacer…" and lists the "tool assembly" claim as Claim 8. (https://patents.justia.com/patent/20130282017#2)

Both versions recite the same inventive core, so the § 103 analysis is unaffected by the numbering, but any chart or validity opinion should pin down the granted claim numbering from the issued '854 patent text rather than the pre-grant publication. ⚠️ Unresolved.

The claim set relevant here (per the pre-grant publication, which is the best verbatim source I retrieved):

• Claim 1 — tool for manipulating/inserting a "universal" bone-fusion spacer; spacer includes an intervertebral cage with a first integral screw guide; each longitudinal end of the cage includes a slot or indentation formed adjacent to an edge of an upper surface; tool has a gripper with a plurality of prongs, each prong's distal end engaging a respective slot/indentation, and a screw guide positioned between the plurality of prongs for controlling screw direction.
• Claim 8 — "tool assembly" = the spacer (cage with first and second integral screw guides + first and second screws disposed therein) plus the tool.
• Claims 2–7, 9–16 — dependents (prongs holding screw guide; slot/indentation on the screw guide; integral trajectory guide; handle with tubular gripper portion; rectangular/circular handle; driver assembly with flexible drive shaft).
• Claims 38, 39 (as charted in the family's PTAB petition) — method claims (measure disc space, determine disc-space type, select spacer, position screw guide between prongs, insert screws, confirm placement).

1.2 Priority and which references even qualify (this is decisive)

The '854 is a pre-AIA patent (application 13/741,361, filed Jan. 14, 2013, claiming a chain back to provisional 60/670,231, filed April 12, 2005).

• If the tool/spacer claims are entitled to the 2005 priority date, then the § 102(b) critical date is April 12, 2004, and any reference published after that date qualifies only under § 102(e) (i.e., only if its own filing date precedes the '854's actual filing date and the inventors' date of invention).
• The tool, gripper-prong, universal-spacer and screw-guide limitations do not appear in the 2005 provisional or the 2005/2006 parent applications. They appear to be added in the 2011 applications (13/084,543 filed Apr. 11, 2011 and 13/108,982 filed May 16, 2011) that this application continues. The patent's own Cross-Reference section confirms the '854 is a continuation of 13/084,543 (filed 2011) and 13/108,982 (filed 2011).

Consequence: the key secondary references (Waugh, Fanger, Moskowitz 440, Allain) all post-date 2005, so a § 103 ground built on them only works if the Patent Owner is denied the 2005 priority date for these claims — a family-wide priority/written-description fight that is in fact already being litigated. The Petitioners themselves frame it this way (e.g., Patent Owner's POPR in the '367/'797 petitions argues Palmatier's § 102(e) status "spans several asserted Moskowitz patents," https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558745](/patent/1558745)). This is the single most important vulnerability/defense to assess.

1.3 Claim construction — "universal"

The Federal Circuit, in Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 24-1696 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2026) (precedential), affirmed that the term "universal" in the preamble is limiting (https://fedcircuitblog.com/2026/09/11/opinions-orders-september-11-2026/). That case concerned the '913, '022 and '319 patents, not the '854, but the '854 uses the identical "universal, intervertebral bone fusion spacer" language, so the holding is directly transferable. Practically, this helps an obviousness case: the prior art must show a spacer usable across different disc-space types/approaches, and the Waugh reference does exactly that (cervical, thoracic, lumbar; multiple approaches).

1.4 A claim-drafting defect worth noting (§ 112 adjacency)

In Claim 1 as published, the spacer is recited as having "a first integral screw guide," yet the screw-guide limitation then refers to "the first integral screw guide and the second integral screw guide" without antecedent introduction of the second. The same pattern appears in Claim 8 (which does recite both). This antecedent-basis defect is a § 112(b) indefiniteness issue and also complicates § 103 mapping. Flagging it because it may be the cleanest invalidity theory of all if the granted claim retains the wording.

---

2. Elements of the independent claims, distilled

Elements B–D and G are the bone-fusion cage with integrated, angled, bidirectional screw guides concept; E–F are the insertion/manipulation tool with prongs plus an interposed screw guide concept.

---

3. Prior art relied upon in the family's own PTAB proceedings (best available "prior art section")

The following are the references actually asserted by Petitioners (Globus and Medtronic) against Moskowitz patents, as surfaced in live search results. Identifications are as the petitions characterize them.

---

4. Combinations that render the claims obvious

GROUND A (primary — directly on point for '854's tool claims): Waugh + Fanger (+ Neumann)

This is the combination the family's own PTAB petitions use against exactly these "tool"/"tool assembly" claim limitations, which is strong evidence of what a PHOSITA would have found obvious.

Mapping

Why a PHOSITA would combine (as the petitions articulate, and as KSR supports):

1. Same field, same problem: both references address delivery and fixation of an intervertebral fusion implant with screws.
2. Known need for accurate/reproducible screw delivery — to ensure adequate bone purchase, protect neural/vascular structures, avoid screw collision, and avoid damaging the spacer. Fanger's guide member provides exactly that.
3. Reducing the number of instruments — combining the gripper (Fanger) with the implant screw guides (Waugh) lets one tool retain the spacer and guide the screws, "reduc[ing] the number of tools involved in a surgical procedure."
4. Predictable result / no change in principle of operation — modifying Fanger's tabs to engage Waugh's side slots is a simple substitution of known mating features.
5. Neumann's cannulated gripper is a well-known off-the-shelf handle-guiding feature; its addition is a design choice with predictable effect.

Reasonable expectation of success: high — the combination is the mechanical analogue of decades-old screw-through-guide techniques (acetabular cup screws, fracture-fixation plates), which the petitions expressly invoke.

---

GROUND B (cage/screw side): Tisserand + Bonutti (+ Mathieu, + Brantigan)

This ground (used against the sibling '022 claims) attacks the spacer + bidirectional screw-guide concept:

• Tisserand discloses a cage with pre-formed recesses through which two screws are directed one rostrally and one caudally — i.e., the "bi-directional fixating transvertebral screw" concept — at an angle, into cortico-cancellous bone.
• Bonutti supplies the spacer/graft-cavity context; Mathieu supplies the 25°–70° divergent borehole screw-guide range (expressly overlapping the '854 specification's own "25 degree" internal drill-guide embodiment); Brantigan supplies the bone-graft slots in the cage sidewall (mapping to the "bone graft holes/ridges" the '854 touts).

Motivation: providing pre-formed angled guides (a) avoids in-situ drilling (time, inaccuracy, heat, debris), and (b) positions screws in the stronger cortico-cancellous peripheral bone — a well-recognized biomechanical advantage. Selecting a specific angle within a known disclosed range is a design choice (KSR; In re Aller). Substituting Brantigan's graft slots for a hollow graft space is a predictable substitution.

---

GROUND C (alternative to Ground A for the tool limitations): Allain + Fanger

• Allain discloses an intervertebral cage plus an implantation instrument with a guide (head + guidance element) for delivering an anchor along a predetermined path — i.e., a tool that both holds the implant and controls fastener trajectory.
• Fanger supplies the prong/tab retention and pathway alignment.

Motivation: controlling anchor trajectory to avoid the pedicles (Allain's stated purpose) is the same objective as controlling screw trajectory in the '854; combining Allain's guided-instrument concept with Fanger's prong-retention features is a predictable, same-field combination.

---

GROUND D (secondary reference for graft features): Waugh + Fanger + Brantigan

Adds Brantigan's peripheral slots communicating with the central graft aperture to meet any claim element directed to bone-graft holes/slots in the cage sidewall. Motivation: maximize graft volume and vascular access — a stated, conventional goal.

---

GROUND E (relevant to the later Moskowitz-family patents, and to the priority-free version of the tool claims): Moskowitz 440 + Waugh (+ Michelson 019)

This is the ground Petitioners actually ran against the '183 and '738 patents. Moskowitz 440 is the Patent Owner's own earlier published application (U.S. Pub. 2008/0033440) from the parent family; Petitioners use it as disclosing the cage + bidirectionally oriented internal screw guides, and add Waugh for the missing tool-engagement/anti-back-out features and Michelson 019 for the entrance-larger-than-bore geometry.

⚠️ Caveat: Moskowitz 440 is by the same inventive entity, so under pre-AIA § 102(e) it is not "by another" and would not be § 102(e) prior art against the '854. It is usable only if the reference is treated under a different statutory subsection (e.g., if a different inventive entity can be shown, or under AIA § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) for later-filed family members). This ground is therefore strong for the post-AIA family members but weak for the pre-AIA '854 unless the priority/inventorship analysis changes. Flagging this as a genuine legal risk to the ground.

---

5. The overarching § 103 rationale (KSR)

Beyond any single pairing, the claims as a whole are a combination of known elements each performing its known function:

1. Interbody cage with bone-graft cavity (Michelson, Brantigan, Waugh, Tisserand, and the SynFix-LR commercial device);
2. Screws angled through the cage into the adjacent vertebral bodies, including in opposite (bi-directional) directions (Tisserand; Mathieu; SynFix-LR's four diverging locking screws as a commercial "stand-alone" ALIF);
3. Integral/pre-formed screw guides in the implant (Tisserand, Waugh, Allain; conventional in orthopaedics per the petitions' acetabular-cup/plate analogy);
4. An insertion tool with prongs engaging implant slots and an interposed guide with pathways (Fanger);
5. Handle/gripper and flexible-shaft driver details (Neumann; routine mechanical design).

Combining these yields "only predictable results" and satisfies a known need (stand-alone fusion fixation without pedicle screws; accurate screw trajectory). Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), such a combination of known elements to solve a known problem, where the results are predictable, is obvious.

---

6. Dependent and method claims

• cl. 2/9 (prongs hold screw guide in place) — inherent to Fanger's tab-guided alignment.
• cl. 3, 4, 10, 11 (screw guide with slots/indentations receiving prongs) — Fanger's tabs engaging implant slots; design choice.
• cl. 5, 12 (integral trajectory guide) — Fanger pathways; Tisserand pre-formed guides.
• cl. 6, 13 (tubular gripper receiving handle) — Neumann.
• cl. 7, 16 (driver with flexible drive shaft) — the specification itself frames this as an accommodation for avoiding the spinous process; flexible-shaft drivers are conventional mechanical elements, so this is a predictable design choice (a specific prior-art flexible-shaft driver would need to be identified to make this ground airtight — ⚠️ not verified here).
• cl. 14, 15 (rectangular/circular handle) — Fanger expressly says the handle can be "virtually any shape and size"; pure design choice.
• cl. 38, 39 (methods) — measuring a disc space and selecting a suitably sized implant is routine and inherent (radiographs, fluoroscopy, trial implants); "determining the disc-space type" is a mental step inherent to any fusion procedure; "positioning the screw guide between the prongs" and "inserting screws" follow directly from Ground A. The petitions chart these exact steps to Waugh + Fanger.

---

7. Secondary considerations / rebuttals to anticipate

• Priority defense: The Patent Owner's strongest response is that the tool/spacer claims are entitled to the 2005 priority date, which would knock out Waugh, Fanger, Moskowitz 440 and Allain as § 102(e) art (they post-date 2005). Petitioners must prove lack of written-description support in the 2005–2007 disclosures for the "gripper-prong + interposed screw guide + universal spacer" limitations. This is a factual, family-wide diligence/conception fight (see the '367/'797 POPRs).
• "Universal" scope: Post-Globus (Fed. Cir. 2026), "universal" is limiting; but Waugh's cross-region, multi-approach disclosure actually supports the obviousness case by supplying a "universal" spacer.
• Teaching away / bodily incorporation: Patent Owner may argue Fanger's tool is for a different implant and that combining requires bodily incorporation; the counter is that the petitions frame the modification as engaging Waugh's existing side slots with Fanger's tabs — a substitution, not a bodily incorporation — with predictable results.
• Unexpected results / long-felt need: No evidence in the record I retrieved of unexpected results for the tool claims. The "flexible fusion via preserved facets," "fewer transfusions," etc. arguments in the specification are not tied to the tool claims' patentable weight and are commensurate-scope problems.

---

8. Bottom line

1. The strongest § 103 combination against the '854's tool and tool-assembly claims is Waugh + Fanger, optionally + Neumann, with Tisserand + Bonutti (+ Mathieu, + Brantigan) as the parallel ground attacking the spacer/bidirectional-screw-guide concept, and Allain + Fanger as an alternative for the guided-instrument limitations.
2. All of the decisive secondary references post-date the 2005 priority date, so the entire obviousness case turns on the priority/written-description question — if the '854's tool claims are only entitled to the 2011 filing date, the art is squarely § 102(e)/§ 102(a) and the grounds are strong; if 2005 holds, Waugh/Fanger/Moskowitz 440/Allain are removed and only the older art (Tisserand 1996, Brantigan 1993, and pre-April-2004 devices) remains.
3. The claims are, at bottom, a predictable assembly of known interbody-cage, screw-guide, and insertion-tool elements combined to solve the known problem of stand-alone, accurately-guided vertebral fixation.

Flagged inconsistencies/uncertainties (per instructions — not auto-corrected):

• Claim-1 identity differs between the previously generated summary ("tool assembly…") and the pre-grant publication ("tool for manipulating…"; tool assembly is claim 8). Both recite the same core; the granted '854 numbering should be pulled from the issued patent text.
• Claim 1 (as published) has an antecedent-basis defect ("a first integral screw guide" then "the first … and the second integral screw guide"), a potential § 112(b) issue.
• Petitioner ID 1539286 charts claims 38/39 of a "tool assembly" claim set matching the '854's structure while its text refers to "the '913 patent"; I could not conclusively verify which patent (the '854 vs. its sibling '913) that petition targets. All reference identities/dates above are reproduced literally as they appeared in the search results and are Petitioners' characterizations, not independently verified against each reference's full text.
• I found no IPR petition confirmed as targeting U.S. 9,301,854 specifically in the results reviewed; the '854's confirmed litigation presence is Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive (D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711). Absence of a found petition is not proof none exists.