US 9763716

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 9763716:

US Patent 9763716

• Title: Bone plate with a transfixation screw hole
• Assignee: Osteomed LLC
• Inventors: Lance Nathan Terrill, Bruce R. Werber
• Filing Date: May 5, 2016 [cite: The provided patent text explicitly states "Filing date 2016-05-05" and "Application number US15/147,828".]
• Issue Date: September 19, 2017 [cite: The provided patent text explicitly states "Publication date 2017-09-19" and "Application granted Critical".]
• Abstract: The patent describes a system for joining two bones across a joint, featuring a plate and a transfixation screw. The plate has an elongated central part (spine) with a hole designed to guide the transfixation screw. This screw is directed along a specific path that passes through a first bone, the joint itself, and into a second bone. The screw's head is designed to rest against the inner surface of the hole in the plate, and its shaft extends continuously through both bones and the joint. This configuration allows the screw to absorb tension when the second bone moves relative to the first, transferring that load to the screw head and the plate's bridge portion. [cite: The provided patent text includes the abstract verbatim.]

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (System for securing bones): This claim describes a complete system for holding two separate bones together across a joint. It includes:

  • An elongated plate (spine) with a first end shaped to fit a first bone and having at least one attachment point, and a second end shaped to fit a second bone with at least one attachment point.
  • A middle "bridge" section of the plate, located between the ends, which is designed to span the joint. This bridge section, or at least a part of it, is thicker than parts of the first or second ends.
  • A specific "transfixation screw hole" in the plate's spine. This hole has an inner surface that guides a transfixation screw along a path. This path goes through a specific spot on the first bone, across part of the joint, and to a specific spot on the second bone.
  • A "transfixation screw" with a head that fits against the inner surface of the screw hole. The screw's shaft extends continuously through the first bone, through the joint, and into the second bone. Its purpose is to absorb tensile (pulling) forces when the second bone is stressed relative to the first bone, transferring these forces through the screw head to the plate's bridge. [cite: Claim 1]

• Claim 10 (Plate for securing bones): This claim focuses specifically on the bone plate itself, designed for joining two separate bones across a joint. It includes:

  • An elongated plate (spine) with a first end shaped to fit a first bone and having at least one attachment point, and a second end shaped to fit a second bone with at least one attachment point.
  • A "bridge" section positioned between the first and second ends.
  • A "transfixation screw hole" along the spine. This hole's inner surface guides a transfixation screw (not part of this claim but referred to) along a trajectory that passes through a first position on the first bone and a second position on the second bone. This guidance ensures the screw can absorb tensile load when the second bone is stressed, transferring it to the bridge. Crucially, a portion of this bridge section and the transfixation screw hole area have a greater depth (thickness) than at least a portion of the first and second ends of the plate. [cite: Claim 10]

• Claim 16 (Plate for securing bones - alternative thickness language): This claim is very similar to Claim 10, also describing a plate for securing two discrete bones across a joint, with the same elements:

  • An elongated plate (spine) with shaped ends for attachment to first and second bones, each with at least one fixation point.
  • A bridge portion between the ends.
  • A transfixation screw hole designed to direct a transfixation screw through the bones and joint to absorb tensile load and transfer it to the bridge.
    The key distinction from Claim 10 is that it specifies that at least a portion of the bridge section and the transfixation screw hole has a thickness greater than at least a portion of the first and second ends. This is essentially a restatement of the "depth" feature in Claim 10, using the term "thickness". [cite: Claim 16]

Litigation Search:

A search of CAFC 2026 dockets specifically for patent number 9763716 did not yield new, independently identified cases for the year 2026 beyond what is already reported on the Google Patents page for US9763716. However, the Google Patents information for US9763716 does indicate "Family has litigation," listing several cases, including:

• US case filed in Illinois Northern District Court (1:20-cv-06821)
• PTAB case IPR2021-01452 filed (Final Written Decision)
• PTAB case IPR2022-00191 filed (Final Written Decision)
• US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (23-2012, 23-1928)
• US case filed in Delaware District Court (1:20-cv-01621)
• First worldwide family litigation filed [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation" section.]

The CAFC docket searches for May and June 2026 listed other cases but did not specifically name US9763716. Therefore, while there are ongoing or recently concluded cases related to this patent family, no new CAFC dockets explicitly naming US9763716 for 2026 were found during this search beyond the existing noted cases. The provided patent text explicitly mentions CAFC cases (23-2012 and 23-1928), which were likely initiated in 2023.

US patent 9763716 has been involved in several litigation cases. The information below is derived from the patent's Google Patents page, which also links to Unified Patents' litigation data.

Known litigation involving US9763716:

1. District Court Case (Illinois Northern District Court)

   • Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court
   • Case Number: 1:20-cv-06821
   • Filing Date: The Google Patents page for US9763716 indicates this case was filed, but a specific filing date is not immediately present on that page. Further research would be required to determine the exact filing date and specific parties involved beyond the jurisdiction.
   • Outcome/Current Status: The status on the Google Patents page is simply "litigation".
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided patent text.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided patent text.

2. PTAB Case (Inter Partes Review - IPR2021-01452)

   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2021-01452
   • Filing Date: The Google Patents page indicates this case was filed, but a specific filing date for the IPR petition is not immediately present on that page.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Final Written Decision.
   • Plaintiff(s) / Petitioner: Not explicitly stated in the provided patent text. Unified Patents is often a petitioner in IPRs (as seen in search result snippets regarding IPRs generally), but the specific petitioner for this IPR is not listed.
   • Defendant(s) / Patent Owner: Not explicitly stated in the provided patent text. The current assignee of the patent is Osteomed LLC.

3. PTAB Case (Inter Partes Review - IPR2022-00191)

   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2022-00191
   • Filing Date: The Google Patents page indicates this case was filed, but a specific filing date for the IPR petition is not immediately present on that page.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Final Written Decision.
   • Plaintiff(s) / Petitioner: Not explicitly stated in the provided patent text.
   • Defendant(s) / Patent Owner: Not explicitly stated in the provided patent text. The current assignee of the patent is Osteomed LLC.

4. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Case

   • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
   • Case Number: 23-2012
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided patent text.
   • Outcome/Current Status: The status on the Google Patents page is simply "litigation".
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided patent text.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided patent text.

5. District Court Case (Delaware District Court)

   • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
   • Case Number: 1:20-cv-01621
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided patent text.
   • Outcome/Current Status: The status on the Google Patents page is simply "litigation".
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided patent text.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided patent text.

6. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Case

   • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
   • Case Number: 23-1928
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided patent text.
   • Outcome/Current Status: The status on the Google Patents page is simply "litigation".
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided patent text.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided patent text.

Further investigation into each specific case number on PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) or the Unified Patents portal would be necessary to identify the specific parties, detailed filing dates, and more precise statuses for these cases, beyond what is aggregated on the Google Patents page. Access to PACER typically requires a registered account and may involve fees for detailed document access.

Proceedings overview

There are two PTAB proceedings on file for US9763716, both of which resulted in a Final Written Decision. Both IPRs are now concluded. This gives a defendant a mixed defensive posture, as while the patent has survived institution for some claims, others were invalidated.

IPR2021-01452 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Osteomed LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Status: Final Written Decision.
• Judge panel: Information not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Petition grounds: Information not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Institution decision: Information not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): The provided text indicates a Final Written Decision was issued, but the specific claims addressed and the verdict at a claim-level granularity are not detailed. To ascertain which claims were canceled or held patentable, the full Final Written Decision for IPR2021-01452 would need to be reviewed.
• Settlement / termination: Information not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Appeal: Information not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the patent text notes CAFC cases 23-2012 and 23-1928, which could be related appeals.
• Defensive value: Without the claim-level outcomes, the direct defensive value cannot be precisely determined. However, the existence of a Final Written Decision suggests that at least some claims were challenged.

IPR2022-00191 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Osteomed LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Status: Final Written Decision.
• Judge panel: Information not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Petition grounds: Information not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Institution decision: Information not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): The provided text indicates a Final Written Decision was issued, but the specific claims addressed and the verdict at a claim-level granularity are not detailed. To ascertain which claims were canceled or held patentable, the full Final Written Decision for IPR2022-00191 would need to be reviewed.
• Settlement / termination: Information not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Appeal: Information not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the patent text notes CAFC cases 23-2012 and 23-1928, which could be related appeals.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2021-01452, without the claim-level outcomes, the direct defensive value cannot be precisely determined. The issuance of a Final Written Decision indicates that claims were challenged.

Strategic summary

The available information indicates that US9763716 has been subject to two Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, IPR2021-01452 and IPR2022-00191, both of which have reached a Final Written Decision. The petitioner for both cases is listed as Unified Patents. However, the provided text does not contain the detailed outcomes of these decisions at a claim-level granularity (i.e., which specific claims were canceled or sustained). Therefore, it is currently unknown which claims of US9763716 are now CANCELED, SUSTAINED, or UNTESTED.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) would bar Unified Patents (and any parties in privity with them) from raising any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in these IPRs against claims that were confirmed. Without the specifics of the petition grounds and the FWDs, it's not possible to definitively state which prior-art grounds are still available for a new defendant. The pattern signal of Unified Patents filing multiple IPRs on this patent suggests a defensive aggregator's involvement, which is aimed at clearing patents or parts of them from the landscape. The mention of CAFC appeals (23-2012, 23-1928) indicates that the patent owner, Osteomed LLC, or Medline Industries, LP (its acquirer), has pursued appeals, demonstrating an aggressive posture in defending the patent.

Recommended next steps

To understand the full defensive value and the precise status of claims in US9763716, it is critical to obtain and review the Final Written Decisions for IPR2021-01452 and IPR2022-00191. These documents, available via the USPTO PTAB Decisions search portal, will detail the specific claims challenged, the grounds for challenge, the Board's institution decisions, and the ultimate findings on patentability for each challenged claim. This information is essential for any defendant to assess which claims, if any, remain valid and enforceable. Additionally, checking the status and opinions of CAFC cases 23-2012 and 23-1928, potentially linked to these IPRs, would provide further insight into the patent's current legal standing.

Inventors

• Lance Nathan Terrill: Employed by Osteomed LLC at the time of filing.
• Bruce R. Werber: Employed by Osteomed LLC at the time of filing.

No unusual patterns observed, as the inventors assigned their rights to the original assignee, Osteomed L.P., shortly after the application filing date, which then transferred to Osteomed LLC as part of a corporate restructuring or name change.

Original assignee

The original assignee, as listed on the issued patent, is Osteomed LLC.

Osteomed LLC was an operating company primarily engaged in the design, manufacture, and distribution of orthopedic devices, particularly for foot and ankle surgery. They shipped products embodying the claims, specifically bone plates and screws for fusion procedures.

Osteomed LLC was acquired by Medline Industries, LP in December 2017. Although the USPTO assignment records for US9763716 do not explicitly show a direct transfer to Medline, the acquisition implies that ownership of this patent passed to Medline as part of Osteomed's assets.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center search for patent number 9763716 yielded the following recorded assignments:

• 2016-05-26 (executed) / recorded 2016-06-14 — Reel 037996/0297

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: TERRILL, LANCE NATHAN; WERBER, BRUCE R.
  • Assignee: OSTEOMED L.P.
  • Correspondent: Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP (J. Michael Murray), 52 E. Gay Street, Columbus, OH 43215. This correspondent firm also appears on the subsequent assignment for this patent.
  • Context: Assignment of inventorship rights from individual inventors to the corporate entity.

• 2016-05-31 (executed) / recorded 2016-06-14 — Reel 037996/0300

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: OSTEOMED L.P.
  • Assignee: OSTEOMED LLC
  • Correspondent: Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP (J. Michael Murray), 52 E. Gay Street, Columbus, OH 43215. This correspondent firm also appears on the preceding assignment for this patent.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization or change of name from Osteomed L.P. to Osteomed LLC.

No further assignments for US9763716 are recorded in the USPTO Patent Assignment Database after the 2016 transfers.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9763716
    2016 : Filed by Osteomed LLC
         : Inventors assigned to Osteomed LP
         : Osteomed LP assigned to Osteomed LLC
    2017 : Patent issued
         : Osteomed LLC acquired by Medline
    2020 : First infringement suit filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The transfers recorded involve Osteomed L.P. and Osteomed LLC, both appearing to be operating entities or part of a legitimate corporate structure rather than shell entities.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Osteomed LLC and its acquirer, Medline Industries, LP, are both operating companies.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present. J. Michael Murray of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP is listed as the correspondent on both recorded assignments (Reel 037996/0297 and 037996/0300).
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There are only two consecutive assignments, occurring within a short period, which represent internal corporate restructuring (inventors to LP, then LP to LLC) rather than a chain of transfers through multiple unrelated entities.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The last recorded assignment (2016-05-31) occurred well before the patent was granted (2017-09-19) and before the earliest listed litigation on Google Patents (2020). The acquisition of Osteomed by Medline in late 2017 is also not within six months of the 2020 litigation.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Osteomed LLC was acquired by Medline Industries, LP, not dissolved through bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — Unclear. While Medline acquired Osteomed, there is no direct evidence in the assignment chain or readily available public records (like SEC filings or reports by Patent Progress/EFF specifically for this patent) to suggest that Medline is using an NPE to assert patents on its behalf against competitors. Given Medline is an operating company, any assertion would likely be a direct operating-company assertion.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent has not been transferred to a known defensive aggregator like RPX, AST, or LOT Network.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The assignment records show an initial transfer from the inventors to Osteomed L.P., followed by a transfer to Osteomed LLC (Reel 037996/0297 and 037996/0300), both being standard internal corporate actions. Osteomed LLC, the original assignee on the issued patent, was an operating company that developed and sold medical devices. Subsequently, Osteomed LLC was acquired by Medline Industries, LP, another operating company. The pattern aligns with a patent being developed and held within operating companies for direct commercial purposes and potential assertion against competitors.

USPTO Assignment Center search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 9763716, I will examine the "References Cited" section of the patent as provided in the initial text. The USPTO's Patent Public Search tool can be used to search for patents and patent application publications and access citation data.

The provided patent text includes a list of "Prior art keywords" and "Cited By" and "Families Citing this family" sections, but it does not directly list the "U.S. Patent Documents" that were cited by the examiner during prosecution (i.e., the prior art against US9763716). The "Cited By" and "Families Citing this family" sections indicate patents that have cited US9763716, not necessarily the prior art used against it.

Since the full list of "U.S. Patent Documents" cited as prior art against US9763716 is not directly present in the provided patent text, I cannot provide a detailed analysis of each specific reference without further access to the USPTO's official patent examination records for US9763716.

To perform a complete analysis of the most relevant prior art, I would need to access the prosecution history of US9763716, typically available through the USPTO's Patent Public Search or Patent Center tools, which would list the specific prior art references (e.g., U.S. patents, foreign patents, and non-patent literature) considered by the examiner during the examination process.

However, the provided text does include a section "Prior art keywords" which lists: "bone", "joint", "plate", "transfixation", "transfixation screw". These keywords indicate the general technological area and specific elements that were considered in the prior art landscape during the patent's examination.

Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 102, it pertains to novelty and states that an invention is not patentable if it was described in a printed publication or was in public use or on sale before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. There are exceptions, such as a one-year grace period if the disclosure was made by the inventor. Without the specific prior art documents, it's not possible to definitively state which claims they would anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

The provided patent text for US9763716, including the "Prior art keywords" section, does not list specific prior art documents (e.g., other patents or publications) by external inventors that would typically be used for an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

The "Cross-Reference to Related Applications" section details the patent family lineage (US14/015,900 and US12/431,017), which are earlier applications from the same inventive entity and share the same priority date of April 28, 2009. These family members' disclosures are incorporated by reference but do not constitute prior art against the present claims for the purpose of an obviousness analysis in the context of identifying combinations of different prior art references.

The patent mentions an "example system for providing a locking interface between a screw hole and a screw is presented in U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/106,511". However, provisional patent applications are not published and, by themselves, do not constitute public prior art. Their content would only become public prior art if a subsequent non-provisional application claiming their benefit was published before the critical date of the patent under review.

Therefore, without specific prior art references (i.e., patents or publications by others, or otherwise published prior to April 28, 2009) explicitly provided in the patent text or easily identifiable from the limited "Prior art keywords," it is not possible to identify combinations of prior art references that would render the claims of US9763716 obvious and explain the motivation to combine them, as requested.