US 10251643

I'll search for authoritative information on US 10,251,643 and its litigation/docket history.

Let me check whether US 10,251,643 itself appears in any CAFC docket and confirm the PTAB outcome.

Let me verify the second CAFC docket number associated with this family and confirm whether the '643 patent itself was on appeal.

Analyst Summary — US Patent No. 10,251,643 B2

Scope note: I searched for the literal identifier 10251643 (and the 10,251,643 formatting). Per your rule, I have not auto-corrected any numbers. Everything below that I state as fact is grounded in the patent text you supplied or in search results; I flag uncertainty explicitly at the end.

1. Bibliographic Data

Continuity chain (per the patent's own Cross-Reference):
15/934,622 (this patent) → continuation of 13/093,812 (now US 9,924,940) → continuation of 12/347,990 (now US 7,951,180) → divisional of 11/208,644 (now US 7,704,279) → provisional 60/670,231.

The family also includes later-filed continuations US 10,238,383 (from 16/018,904), US 10,952,723 (from 16/362,152), and US 11,864,755 (from 17/208,640).

2. Abstract (verbatim, 10,251,643)

"An apparatus and method for joining members together using a self-drilling screw apparatus or stapling apparatus are disclosed. The screw apparatus includes a shell and first and second first screw members having tapered ends and threaded bodies that are disposed within the shell. A drive mechanism rotatably drives the first and second screw members from the shell in opposite directions and causes the screw members to embed themselves in the members to be joined. The screw apparatus can be used to join members such as bones, portions of the spinal column, vertebral bodies, wood, building materials, metals, masonry, or plastics. The stapling apparatus includes first and second lever arms rotatably joined together at a fulcrum, and the lever arms rotate in opposite directions. First and second cartridges are disposed at the ends of the lever arms. Each cartridge is capable of holding a staple including a bracket, a nail member and an alignment slot. When the ends of the lever arms are rotated towards each other the staples from the cartridges are interlocked. The staples can be also be used to join members such as bones, portions of the spinal column, or vertebral bodies."

Important observation: The abstract is generic (it describes the 2005-era BDFT screw/stapler disclosure of the parent), but the issued claims are narrowly directed to an expandable spinal implant, not to the screw or the stapler. The claim set is markedly narrower than the specification's disclosure. This abstract/claim mismatch is typical of a long continuation chain in which the claim set was rewritten late in prosecution.

3. Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claim

Claim 1 is the only independent claim. Paraphrased:

An artificial expansile spinal implant having:

1. Two shells (first and second) — e.g., rostral and caudal endplate-contacting shells;
2. An expansion mechanism between the shells that includes (a) first and second threaded bodies and (b) a rotatable tool-engagement portion;
   • Turning the tool-engagement portion rotates the first threaded body relative to the second, driving the shells apart;
   • The tool-engagement portion is oriented so a tool approaches it along the direction of insertion (i.e., instrumented from the surgical approach side);
3. The implant is sized to be inserted into an intervertebral space, with the shells facing and engaging the opposing vertebral bodies;
4. Two different sets of bone-engagement features on each shell:
   • A first set of engagement features (e.g., smaller spikes) to hold the implant in place; and
   • A second set of engagement features that are larger, extend further, and have substantially tapered tips configured to pierce the vertebral endplates when the device is introduced and expanded.

Key structural differentiators of claim 1 over a generic expandable cage: (i) the pinion/gear-driven two-threaded-body expansion mechanism engaged along the insertion axis, and (ii) the two-tier spike architecture on each shell (smaller retaining features plus larger tapered endplate-piercing features).

Dependent claims worth noting (representative):

• Claim 3 / 8 / 12 — shell material limitation: the shells and the first set of engagement features comprise PEEK (poly-ether-ketone).
• Claim 6 / 7 — the shells define holes into which the larger (second-set) engagement features at least partially extend; per claim 7 the first set is more numerous than the second set.
• Claim 8 / 13 / 14 / 15 — the second set comprises screw members / threaded screws extendable through screw holes, rotatable in claim 15.
• Claim 10 — at least first and second screws from the first shell into one endplate, and third and fourth screws from the second shell into the other endplate.
• Claim 18 / 19 / 20 — the expansion mechanism is a drive screw, a rotatable gear, or a pinion, respectively.
• Claim 21 — the shells are rostral and caudal shells facing in substantially opposite directions, movable so that sequential turning of the expansion mechanism produces height expansion.
• Claim 22 — each shell curves substantially continuously around its perimeter.
• Claim 23 — the shells form boomerang shapes (corresponding to the boomerang-shaped thoracolumbar IBFD 700 in FIGS. 7A–7B).
• Claim 24 — shell perimeters conform to caudal/rostral vertebral body shapes.
• Claim 25 — further comprising an alignment cylinder.
• Claims 4 and 11 — "means for expanding geometrically in a second direction" (means-plus-function).
• Claim 17 — "means for placement of bone material."

These claims map closely to the two-dimensionally expanding IBFD 700 disclosed in FIGS. 7A–7B (shells 710/711, height screws 712, endplate spikes 713).

4. Litigation and PTAB History (as of April 26, 2026)

District court

• Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00672 (W.D. Tex., filed Nov. 20, 2019). The '643 patent was one of the asserted patents; the complaint was served on Globus on Nov. 21, 2019.
• Transferred (Judge Albright, July 2, 2020) to the E.D. Pa. as No. 2:20-cv-03271 (formally docketed there July 6, 2020). Case closed August 13, 2024.

PTAB

• IPR2020-01310, Globus Medical, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC — challenged claims 1–3, 6–8, 10, 12–17, 19, and 20 of the '643 patent.
• Result: institution DENIED. The Board's decision (Petravick, Powell, Mayberry, APJs), dated February 4, 2021, is styled "Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 U.S.C. § 314" — the Board found the Petition failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This tracks Google Patents' annotation "IPR2020-01310 filed (Not Instituted – Merits)" and Fish & Richardson's March 2, 2021 announcement that PTAB categorically denied all eight Globus IPRs (covering the '913, '022, '740, '643, '268, and '319 patents).
• I found no evidence of a Federal Circuit appeal specifically of IPR2020-01310. Since institution was denied, no final written decision issued, and the denial itself is not appealable in the ordinary course.

CAFC 2026 dockets — an important scope caveat

Google Patents associates this family with two CAFC case numbers: 24-1696 and 24-1753. I verified both:

• 24-1696 — Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., decided September 11, 2026, precedential (Prost, Schall, Stoll, JJ.). This appeal concerned US 8,353,913, US 9,889,022, and US 10,478,319 — not the '643 patent. The holding: the "universal" preambles were limiting; summary judgment of noninfringement affirmed as to the '913 and '022 patents; substantial evidence supported the jury's noninfringement verdict on claim 1 of the '319 patent; denial of JMOL affirmed.
• 24-1753 — Globus's cross-appeal, voluntarily dismissed with each side bearing its own costs (order issued April 24, 2025; mandate issued).

⚠️ Bottom line on your specific request: Based on my searches, US 10,251,643 was not the subject of the September 11, 2026 CAFC precedential decision, nor of the consolidated 24-1696/24-1753 appeal. The '643 patent was asserted in the E.D. Pa. district case, but the patents carried up on appeal were the '913, '022, and '319. I could not locate a distinct CAFC 2026 docket centered on the '643 patent. If one exists, it was not surfaced by my searches, and I would not assert its absence with certainty — treat that as unresolved rather than as a negative finding.

(Separately, I did find a 2026 PTAB filing, IPR2026-00124, Medtronic v. Moskowitz Family LLC, but that concerns US 11,096,797, and a related D. Minn. action, Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 0:25-cv-00769 — neither involves the '643 patent. Courts appear to be treating the '913/'022/'319 CAFC decision as persuasive supplemental authority in the newer NuVasive litigation, Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC, D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711.)

5. Explicit Uncertainty Flags

1. Expiry date. The Google Patents page states "Anticipated expiration 2025-08-23," which corresponds to a 20-year term running from the August 23, 2005 filing of the parent 11/208,644 (with a terminal disclaimer tying this continuation to that term). The current-date discrepancy in your prompt (April 26, 2026) means the patent would already be expired. I did not independently verify maintenance-fee payments against USPTO Patent Center or confirm the effect of the terminal disclaimer on the exact expiry date.
2. Whether '643 was actually tried. I confirmed the '643 patent was asserted in the E.D. Pa. case and was the subject of IPR2020-01310. I did not find a primary source confirming whether the '643 infringement allegations were still live at the December 2023 trial; contemporaneous reporting says Moskowitz "narrowed its infringement allegations to claim 1 of the '319 patent and two other patents not at issue in this appeal," and I cannot confirm from the sources retrieved which those two other patents were.
3. Assignee accuracy. Google Patents itself disclaims that the assignee list "may be inaccurate." The face of the patent (per Exhibit 1001 in IPR2020-01310) lists Applicant/Assignee Moskowitz Family LLC, Rockville, MD. Nathan C. Moskowitz and Mosheh T. Moskowitz are named as inventors, and the assignment records show a two-step chain (to Nathan C. Moskowitz, then to Moskowitz Family LLC).
4. Claim-dependency detail. The PTAB's institution decision states claim 1 is the only independent claim among those challenged. I read all 25 claims in the supplied text and did not identify any other independent claim, but I note this is my own reading rather than an EXPRESS ABANDONMENT or reexamination record.

If you want, I can pull the full text of the February 4, 2021 IPR2020-01310 institution decision and walk through the Board's §314(a) and §325(d) reasoning claim-by-claim, or verify the current maintenance-fee/expiry status against USPTO Patent Center.

I'll research the litigation history for US Patent 10251643 using multiple targeted searches.

I'm finding significant litigation. Let me dig deeper into specific cases and verify the '643 patent's involvement.

Based on my research, here is the litigation history I could confirm for US Patent 10,251,643 B2 (the "'643 patent"), a Moskowitz Family LLC spinal implant patent. I've flagged where the record is incomplete.

Source note

The Google Patents family page for US10251643B2 explicitly flags litigation/tribunal activity, listing: PTAB case IPR2020-01310 ("Not Instituted – Merits"), a case in Texas Western District Court, a case in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court, and Federal Circuit appeals 24-1753 and 24-1696.

Confirmed proceedings specifically involving the '643 patent

1. Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc. (district court infringement)

• Plaintiff: Moskowitz Family LLC
• Defendant: Globus Medical, Inc.
• Original jurisdiction / case no.: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, 6:19-cv-00672 (filed Nov. 20, 2019; served on Globus Nov. 21, 2019)
• After transfer: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2:20-cv-03271 (transfer ordered July 2, 2020; effected/assigned July 6, 2020)
• Filing date (original complaint): November 20, 2019
• Role of the '643 patent: The '643 patent was one of eight Moskowitz patents asserted (the others included the '913, '022, '740, '268, '319, '367, and '386 patents). The Aug. 25, 2021 Markman opinion (E.D. Pa.) construed terms across those patents and describes the '643 patent as relating to "an intervertebral mechanism that expands between vertebral bodies and engages vertebral endplates to keep the mechanism in place."
• Outcome / status: The case ultimately proceeded to an eight-day jury trial in December 2023 on three patents (the '913, '022, and '319); the jury returned a complete defense verdict of non-infringement for Globus. The Federal Circuit affirmed in full on September 11, 2026 (Appeal No. 24-1696). Caveat: The public record I retrieved does not clearly show the final disposition of the '643-specific infringement allegations within that case (it appears the case was narrowed to the '913/'022/'319 patents before trial). I cannot state with confidence whether the '643 claims were dropped, dismissed, or otherwise resolved short of trial.

2. Globus Medical, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC (inter partes review)

• Petitioner: Globus Medical, Inc.
• Patent Owner: Moskowitz Family LLC
• Forum: USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
• Case no.: IPR2020-01310 (Patent 10,251,643 B2)
• Petition filing date: July 21, 2020
• Claims challenged: 1–3, 6–8, 10, 12–17, 19, and 20 (grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gutlin + Barber, and Gutlin + Barber + Sutcliffe)
• Outcome: Institution DENIED — Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), dated February 4, 2021. The Board found the petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim. (This was one of eight Globus IPR petitions against Moskowitz patents that the PTAB denied; Fish & Richardson secured the denials on Moskowitz's behalf.)

3. Federal Circuit appeals

• Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 24-1696 (Fed. Cir.) — appeal from E.D. Pa. 2:20-cv-03271; decided September 11, 2026, affirming Globus's non-infringement win (construction of "universal" upheld; SJ of non-infringement as to the '913 and '022 patents upheld; substantial evidence supported the jury's non-infringement verdict on the '319 patent).
• Fed. Cir. No. 24-1753 — the Google Patents family page lists a second Federal Circuit case (24-1753) associated with this patent family. I could not confirm the parties or subject matter of 24-1753 from the sources retrieved, and I will not speculate. I'd recommend verifying this docket directly on the CAFC/PACER/Unified Patents portals.

Cases I checked that do NOT appear to involve the '643 patent

• Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. et al. (D. Minn., 0:25-cv-00769, filed Feb. 28, 2025): The asserted patents are the '293, '674, '284, '738, '505, '633, '183, '797, '136, '755, and '367 patents. The '643 patent is not among the asserted patents in this action (as reflected in the complaint exhibits and the related IPR filings, e.g., IPR2025-01598, IPR2026-00121, IPR2026-00285).
• Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC / NuVasive, Inc. (D. Del., 1:25-cv-00711, complaint filed June 6, 2025): This suit involves a newer portfolio (e.g., the '743 patent). I did not find the '643 patent identified among the asserted patents in the portions of the record retrieved. This is an area of residual uncertainty — I could not fully verify the complete list of asserted patents in that case.

Summary table

Caveats

• I did not find any litigation in which the '643 patent was asserted against a party other than Globus. The NuVasive and Medtronic suits appear to rest on different (though related) Moskowitz patents.
• Case numbers, dates, and outcomes above are drawn from the parties' own PTAB filings, the PTAB institution decision, the E.D. Pa. Markman opinion, Federal Circuit materials, and firm/legal-press reporting. Docket entries can change; for the appellate docket 24-1753 and the precise disposition of the '643 allegations in the Globus case, I recommend confirming directly via the CAFC (cafc.uscourts.gov), PACER, and the Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist).

Bottom line: US 10,251,643 has a confirmed litigation/enforcement footprint against Globus Medical (2019 W.D. Tex. → 2020 E.D. Pa. infringement suit, plus a PTAB IPR IPR2020-01310 in which institution was denied on Feb. 4, 2021, and the related Federal Circuit appeal 24-1696 decided Sept. 11, 2026). The second listed Federal Circuit appeal (24-1753) could not be verified.

I'll verify the PTAB record before writing. Note the structured ODP block says "no PTAB proceedings," which conflicts with the Google Patents flag and the earlier sections — let me resolve that.

Let me get the Board's reasoning and the ground details, plus confirm no other IPR touches the '643.

Let me confirm there are no other AIA trials on the '643 and check for any later petitions or appeals.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — US Patent No. 10,251,643 B2

Scope note & data conflict (flagging explicitly): The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt (USPTO Open Data Portal) returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. That block is wrong / stale as to this patent. Google Patents' family page flags "IPR2020-01310 filed (Not Instituted – Merits)," and I independently retrieved the Board's own decision paper, the parties' filings, and contemporaneous counsel reporting confirming a proceeding on the '643 patent. Per the prompt's instruction to "fill in … any you find," I proceed on the verified record and treat the ODP block as an ingest gap, not as a negative finding. Everything below is grounded in the retrieved papers; I flag anything I could not verify.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trials on the '643 patent: one (1). Status breakdown: 0 claims invalidated · 0 claims canceled · 0 settled · 1 institution denied (merits) · 0 active · 0 FWDs issued. The single proceeding — IPR2020-01310 (Globus Medical, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC) — was denied institution on the merits on 2021-02-04, so no claim of the '643 patent has ever been adjudicated unpatentable by the PTAB. Defensive posture: this is a "one-shot IPR that misfired" patent, not a hardened one — the petitioner lost on the first primary reference (Gutlin) without any estoppel attaching, meaning the '643's claims are untested on the merits but also un-narrowed and un-cleansed. Critically, no final written decision issued, so the patent owner has no IPR-driven narrowing and no petitioner-side estoppel exists — but the patent's practical exposure is now moot because it lapsed (anticipated expiration 2025-08-23).

IPR2020-01310 — Globus Medical, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC

Proceeding overview

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)
• Patent: U.S. Patent No. 10,251,643 B2
• Filed: 2020-07-21
• Status: Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) — Paper 7, dated 2021-02-04. No trial instituted.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Meredith C. Petravick, Neil T. Powell, and James J. Mayberry; opinion authored by Petravick.
• Patent Owner counsel: Fish & Richardson P.C. (lead: Timothy W. Riffe; backup: Joseph V. Colaianni, Indranil Mukerji, Brian J. Livedalen, Kenneth Wayne Darby, Jr., Laura C. Whitworth). (From Moskowitz's § 42.8 Mandatory Notices.)

Petition grounds (verbatim from the Petition)

Petitioner challenged claims 1–3, 6–8, 10, 12–17, 19, and 20 (15 claims; claim 1 the sole independent claim) on two § 103(a) grounds:

• No § 112 ground was asserted; no § 102 ground was asserted.
• Petitioner's expert: Dr. Jorge A. Ochoa (Ex. 1003).
• Petitioner's stated claim construction of "first and second shells" was "the ends of an implantable intervertebral device, which ends are capable of moving in at least two directions defined by at least two axes" — this self-imposed construction is what the Board used to reject the Petition.

Institution decision — 2021-02-04 (denied)

The Board declined to institute under § 314(a), finding "the information presented in the Petition fails to establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one of" the challenged claims. Summary of the panel's § 314(a) reasoning:

1. Gutlin alone does not teach "first and second shells" under Petitioner's own construction. The Petition equated Gutlin's upper/lower implant parts 5, 2 (apposition surfaces 20, 19) to the claimed "first and second shells." The Board agreed with Patent Owner: "Gutlin discloses upper and lower implant parts 5, 2 moving along central axis 11 to expand intervertebral implant 1 … but Gutlin does not disclose upper and lower implant parts 5, 2 being capable of moving in a second direction defined by a second axis. And, Petitioner provides no other sufficient explanation … of how Gutlin teaches the claimed first and second shells under Petitioner's own construction."
2. Petitioner's fallback reliance on Barber was inadequately pleaded. The Petition pointed to Barber's brackets 45 to suggest lateral + vertical expansion, but the Board held: "The Petition … does not assert with any clarity or particularity that it would have been obvious to modify Gutlin's implant parts 5, 2 to expand laterally like Barber's brackets 45 or provide any sufficient rational underpinning that such a modification would have been obvious." A failure to state the obviousness rationale with particularity is fatal at the § 314(a) stage.
3. Because independent claim 1 was not shown unpatentable, the dependent claims falling from it were not reached.

Procedural note: The denial was a merits-based § 314(a) denial, not a § 325(d) discretionary denial. This matters because unlike the parallel Globus petitions, this one failed on substance rather than on redundancy-on-the-record.

Final Written Decision

None. No FWD ever issued — trial was never instituted, so no claim was adjudicated. (Do not represent otherwise; the public record contains no claim-cancellation paper for the '643 patent.)

Settlement / termination

No settlement. The proceeding terminated by operation of the institution denial. No termination-by-settlement entry exists.

Appeal

None available / none taken. Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and Cuozzo, a decision denying institution is "final and nonappealable" in the ordinary course. Because no FWD issued, there was no appealable final decision, and the Federal Circuit docket entries associated with this family (24-1696 and 24-1753) turn on the E.D. Pa. Globus case (patents '913/'022/'319) — not any IPR appeal of the '643. I found no Federal Circuit appeal of IPR2020-01310, which is consistent with § 314(d). (Also noting: this Feb. 2021 denial predates the Office's formal Director-Review procedure, so no Director-Review request was filed/pending.)

Defensive value

1. No estoppel attaches — for anyone. Because there was no final written decision, § 315(e)(1)/(2) estoppel never triggered. Globus (and its privies) are not estopped from re-raising Gutlin/Barber/Sutcliffe — or anything else — though the one-year § 315(b) clock from 2019 service has long since run against Globus. A new, differently-situated defendant faces no estoppel either and could file a fresh IPR on a stronger primary reference (e.g., Weber, or a § 102 anticipation theory) — subject to the separate § 315(b) bar and the Office's current discretionary-denial environment.
2. The patent owner's win is thin. It rests on the Board accepting Moskowitz's argument that the reference simply didn't disclose two-axis movement, plus a pleading-particularity defect in Petitioner's Barber theory. That is a single-reference mismatch, not a merits validation of the claims — an important distinction from a "survived two IPRs" posture.

Strategic summary

Claim status of US 10,251,643:

• CANCELED: none.
• HELD PATENTABLE BY THE PTAB: none (a denial of institution is not a patentability holding).
• SUSTAINED IN FACT / UNTESTED: all 25 claims (claim 1 independent; claims 2–25 dependent). The 15 challenged claims (1–3, 6–8, 10, 12–17, 19, 20) were never reached on the merits; the 10 unchallenged claims (4, 5, 9, 11, 18, 21–25) were never presented. Any suggestion that these claims are "confirmed" or "hardened" by IPR2020-01310 is inaccurate — the Board decided only that Globus didn't clear the § 314(a) threshold on its chosen art.

Estoppel landscape:

• No § 315(e) estoppel exists for Globus or its privies because the proceeding ended before institution and never produced an FWD. This is the flip side of the patent owner's win: Moskowitz got the denial but did not get the estoppel shield that a fully-tried IPR would have created.
• For a currently-asserting party, all prior-art grounds remain on the table, limited only by (i) the § 315(b) one-year bar measured from the defendant's own service date, and (ii) the Office's present discretionary-denial regime (patent age / "settled expectations," Fintiv-style factors). Note the patent has been in force since 2019-04-09 — i.e., now over six years — which makes a discretionary denial under the current settled-expectations policy a live risk for any new petitioner.

Pattern signals:

• No repeat petitioner on this patent: Globus filed exactly one IPR against the '643 (IPR2020‑01310). Globus did file eight IPRs total across the family (IPR2020‑01303 through ‑01310, covering the '913, '022, '740, '643, '268, and '319 patents) — a coordinated multi-patent campaign, all eight of which were denied. See Fish & Richardson, "Fish Secures Denial of IPR Petitions on Behalf of Moskowitz Family" (2021-03-02).
• No defensive aggregator: Unlike many heavily-asserted medical-device patents, the '643 challenge was not brought by a third-party/aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents). Every IPR in this family came from a direct litigation adversary (Globus), and the newer wave of Moskowitz IPRs (IPR2025‑01598, IPR2026‑00121/00124/00217/00265/00285, all Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC) targets different patents — the '293, '633, '183, '797, '136, '755 — not the '643.
• Patent owner does not appear to have needed to defend an FWD appeal, because it won at the institution stage everywhere in this campaign.

Recommended next steps

1. If you face an infringement assertion on the '643: the patent has not been narrowed or invalidated, but its remaining commercial value is limited by expiry — Google Patents lists "Anticipated expiration 2025-08-23" (20-year term running from the 2005-08-23 parent filing, with a terminal disclaimer on the face of the patent tying this continuation to that term). Verify current term/maintence-fee status on USPTO Patent Center before building any damages defense, since past-damages exposure under § 286 is capped at six years and the patent now appears expired.
2. Grounds still legally available: because there is no IPR estoppel, you may run any prior-art ground the earlier Petition did not — including anticipation under § 102 (the Globus Petition offered none) and any § 112 theory (none was raised). For a new IPR, benchmark against the Board's actual reasoning: attack "first and second shells" / two-axis movement and the two-tier tapered engagement features, and avoid the "Petitioner's own construction" trap that sank Globus — plead any Gutlin/Barber-type modification theory with an express rational underpinning. Also calendar the § 315(b) one-year date from your own service, and assess discretionary-denial exposure given the >6-year patent age.
3. Primary sources to cite/link:
   • Decision Denying Institution (Paper 7, 2021-02-04): Globus Medical, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC, IPR2020‑01310 — host paper via Docket Alarm: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2020-01310/ (the "Institution_Decision‑7" PDF). Confirm the authoritative copy on USPTO PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov) / the Board's Decisions page.
   • Petition (2020-07-21) and Patent Owner Mandatory Notices: same PTAB docket.
   • No FWD exists to link; no CourtListener opinion exists for this IPR.
4. If no PTAB activity existed: it does — but for completeness, no PGR and no CBM were ever filed on the '643 (it issued 2019-04-09, so the PGR window closed ~2020-01-09; CBM is inapplicable to a spinal-implant patent), and no reexamination/ex parte reexam is reflected in the record I retrieved. The structured ODP "no proceedings" block should be treated as an ingest error for this patent, not as evidence of absence.

Bottom line: US 10,251,643 has been the subject of exactly one AIA trial — IPR2020‑01310 (Globus v. Moskowitz), filed 2020‑07‑21, institution DENIED on the merits 2021‑02‑04 by APJs Petravick, Powell, and Mayberry. No claim was canceled, no FWD issued, no settlement occurred, no appeal was available or taken, and no estoppel resulted. The claims are legally intact but were never PTAB-tested on the merits, and the patent appears to have lapsed — so the practical defense is now expiry, not PTAB history.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10,251,643 using targeted searches against the USPTO assignment databases and related sources.

Let me dig deeper for specific reel/frame numbers, correspondents, and assignment records.

I have strong leads now. Let me pin down the specific reel/frame entries and the recurring correspondent for the '643 chain.

Assignment Record Reconstruction — US Patent No. 10,251,643 B2

Source limitation up front (per your "don't fabricate" rule): I retrieved this patent's legal-events and chain-level assignment evidence from Google Patents, PTAB filings, and the parties' own court/agency papers. I was not able to pull the Assignment Center's per-patent hit list for US 10,251,643 directly (the dynamic search pages at assignmentcenter.uspto.gov were not returned in my search results). Where I cite a reel/frame below, I mark explicitly whether it is confirmed for the '643 or chain-level corroboration from a sibling Moskowitz application's 37 CFR 3.73(c) statement. Please verify against USPTO Assignment Center before relying on any specific reel/frame.

Inventors

Observations on the inventor profile:

• The '643 patent names only two inventors — Mosheh T. and Nathan C. Moskowitz. This is narrower than the family's flagship filings (e.g., the '319, '268, '633 patents name Ahmnon D. Moskowitz, Pablo A. Valdivia Y. Alvarado, and Eric Sugalski as co-inventors).
• These are physician/family inventors, not corporate employees. There is no "all inventors departed the original assignee within 12 months" fire-sale tell, because the inventors are the assignee's principals. No employer-abandonment pattern is present.

Original assignee

Moskowitz Family LLC — 212 North Adams Street, Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20850. A Maryland limited liability company formed by Dr. Nathan C. Moskowitz.

• Primary line of business: IP holding and licensing. Per Moskowitz's own complaint in Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00711 (D. Del.), the company "was created to develop human spine related devices and protect and license any resulting inventions and intellectual property," and owns "nearly one hundred United States patents."
• Does it ship a product embodying the claims? No. Moskowitz expressly pleads that it "has not practiced any of the Asserted Patents through commercial manufacture, sale, offer for sale, or importation of patented articles." Prototypes were made "solely for research and demonstration purposes," prior to issuance, and "never sold." Globus Medical's own SEC Form 10-K goes further and describes Moskowitz flatly as "a non-practicing entity."
• Current status: Operating as an active IP-holding/assertion entity — not dissolved, not in bankruptcy, not acquired. It is currently asserting a large Moskowitz portfolio against Globus, NuVasive, and Medtronic.

Assignment timeline

The Google Patents legal-events record shows exactly two post-filing reassignment events for the '643 patent, both in 2018:

• Executed ~2018-04 (recorded 2018-04-23) — Reel/Frame: chain-level candidate 045997/0805

  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignor: Mosheh T. Moskowitz
  • Assignee: Nathan C. Moskowitz (212 N Adams St, Rockville, MD 20850)
  • Correspondent: Not confirmed on the '643 record. The Moskowitz portfolio's inventor-assignment recordings in this window were filed through Dresch IP Law, PLLC, with submitter Abby Remer (confirmed on Reel 048949/0098, a sibling Moskowitz assignment). Fish & Richardson P.C. is the prosecution firm of record on the patent face. Flag: Dresch IP Law is a recurring recorder across this portfolio (it appears on multiple Moskowitz reel entries — see §NPE signals 3).
  • Context: Internal consolidation — funneling co-inventor rights to the lead inventor prior to vesting the family holding company.

• Executed ~2018-06 (recorded 2018-06-07) — Reel/Frame: chain-level candidate 045586/0373

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Nathan C. Moskowitz
  • Assignee: Moskowitz Family LLC (Rockville, MD)
  • Correspondent: Same portfolio recorder pattern (Dresch IP Law, PLLC / Abby Remer).
  • Context: Transfer-to-holder — ultimate vesting of the patent in the Moskowitz family IP LLC before issuance.

Reel/frame caveat: The two reel/frame values above (045997/0805 and 045586/0373) were extracted from 37 CFR 3.73(c) chain-of-title statements filed in related Moskowitz applications, which list these exact recordings for these exact parties. They are highly consistent with the '643 legal events (same parties, same 2018 window) but are not verified as the '643-specific reel/frame entries. Treat as corroborating, not conclusive.

No other assignees appear in the chain. There is no transfer to Acacia, Marathon, IV, or any third-party monetization vehicle, and no security interest, license, or release recorded against this patent in the sources I retrieved.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10251643
    2005 : Priority date Apr 12
    2005 : Parent application filed
    2018 : Continuation filed Mar 23
         : Mosheh T Moskowitz assigns to Nathan C
         : Nathan C Moskowitz assigns to the LLC
    2019 : Patent issued Apr 9
         : Suit filed against Globus Medical
    2020 : Globus files IPR2020-01310
         : Case transferred to E D Pa
    2021 : PTAB denies institution
    2023 : Jury defense verdict for Globus
    2026 : Federal Circuit affirms Globus

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two independent, non-inferential sources establish non-practicing status: (a) the patent owner's own pleading that it "has not practiced any of the Asserted Patents through commercial manufacture, sale, offer for sale, or importation" (Moskowitz v. NuVasive, D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711), and (b) Globus Medical's SEC Form 10-K, which states "Moskowitz, a non-practicing entity, alleges that Globus willfully infringes…" The chain itself is short and clean — Mosheh T. Moskowitz → Nathan C. Moskowitz → Moskowitz Family LLC (recordings of ~2018-04-23 and ~2018-06-07; chain-level reels 045997/0805 and 045586/0373) — and the resulting entity holds and asserts the patent against multiple manufacturers (Globus, NuVasive, Medtronic) without ever selling a covered product.

Important qualification: This is an inventor-controlled "portfolio-holding licensor" NPE, not a classic troll. The textbook anonymous-shell tells (cascading single-purpose LLCs, registered-agent addresses, cash purchase from a failing operating company, directory-listed monetizer with a hired attorney) are largely absent — the asserting entity sits at the named inventor's own office and is run by him. The only secondary signal that fires is the recurring recorder (Dresch IP Law, PLLC / Abby Remer across reels 048237, 048260, 048949), which is weak and consistent with a boutique servicing one inventor's portfolio.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center (search "10251643" or assignee "Moskowitz Family"): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Related Google Patents legal-events page: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10251643B2](/patent/US10251643B2)/en

Residual gaps I could not close: (i) the exact reel/frame of the two '643-specific assignment recordings; (ii) the identity of the correspondent of record on those two recordings as opposed to the sibling-application recordings; (iii) whether any unrecorded license or covenant-not-to-sue exists. None of these gaps, if filled, appears capable of changing the NPE verdict given the owner's own admissions.

I'll start by pulling the USPTO/Google Patents record for US 10,251,643 and its cited prior-art references.

The generic page didn't surface the reference list. Let me target the citation section and the IPR petition's art.

Let me try to locate the front page / "References Cited" section of the '643 patent itself.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 10,251,643 B2

0. Scope note and a transparency flag (read first)

Your task asks me to "look at each patent citation for 10251643." I want to be explicit about what I could and could not verify, because the answer differs depending on which "citation" list you mean.

• The authoritative full text you supplied for US 10,251,643B2 does not contain a front‑page "References Cited / U.S. Patent Documents" list, and it does not contain an "Citations" (reference‑based) table. It jumps from Classifications → Definitions/Landscapes → Abstract → Description → Claims, and then includes only the post‑issuance tables ("Cited By (38)" and "Families Citing this family (153)"). Those two tables are documents that cite the '643, i.e. later art — not prior art against the '643.
• My searches for the '643's own examiner-cited reference list (front page / IDS / Patent Center "References Cited") did not return the list itself. I therefore cannot give you a verified, item-by-item enumeration of every examiner citation and its claim mapping. I say that plainly rather than reconstruct one.
• What I did retrieve, and what is far more probative than a front-page list, is the prior art actually asserted against the '643's claims in the only adversarial validity proceeding on this patent: PTAB IPR2020‑01310 (Globus Medical v. Moskowitz Family LLC). That is the correct "most relevant prior art" set for this patent, and I analyze each reference below with full citation, dates, disclosure, and §102 mapping.

Two further flags:

1. Temporal inconsistency to resolve: the prior sections in this analysis reference a Federal Circuit decision dated September 11, 2026, while this section is run at April 26, 2026. Both cannot be operative. I treat the litigation timeline as owned by the earlier sections and do not restate it; the date discrepancy itself is worth resolving upstream.
2. I did not auto-correct any identifier. "US 5,236,460 to Barber" and "US 2002/0143399 to Sutcliffe" are reproduced exactly as the petition states them.

1. The controlling legal framework (why the dates matter)

The '643 issued from application 15/934,622 (filed March 23, 2018), but it is a continuation that claims benefit back through 13/093,812 → 12/347,990 → 11/208,644 (filed August 23, 2005) → provisional 60/670,231 (filed April 12, 2005). Because the benefit chain is entirely pre‑AIA (all pre‑March 16, 2013), pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 govern, and Google Patents reflects this by listing the §102/§103 prior-art date as April 12, 2005.

Practical consequence for the art below:

This last point is analytically significant: the strongest structural reference against claim 1 (Gutlin) is not a §102(b) statutory bar, which limits how it can be used and is one reason the challenge was framed as §103.

2. The prior art actually asserted against the '643 (IPR2020-01310)

The asserted grounds (Grounds 1 and 2) were entirely §103(a) obviousness grounds — none was a §102 anticipation ground. This matters for your question: no reference was contended to anticipate the claims.

(Petition filed July 21, 2020; institution denied Feb. 4, 2021.)

2.1 Gutlin et al. — WO 2004/052245 A1 (primary reference)

• Full citation: WO 2004/052245 A1, "Intervertebral Implant" (Zwischenwirbelimplantat), Gutlin, Michael and Schar, Manuel; applicant Synthes AG Chur (CH) / Synthes (USA); PCT/CH2002/000674; Int. Class. A61F 2/44.
• Dates: International filing date December 6, 2002; international publication date June 24, 2004; published in German.
• Disclosure (per the petition's summary of Ex. 1028/1029): Intervertebral implant 1 with lower implant part 2 and upper implant part 5. Each part has an apposition part (4, 8) with an apposition surface (19/20) provided with "three-dimensional texturing" to rest against the adjacent vertebral endplates. A threaded spindle 9 with external thread 10 is guided in the upper part and threadedly engages internal thread 7 in bore 30; the spindle is connected to the lower part so as to be axially fixed but rotatable. The two implant parts are secured against rotation about central axis 11, so turning the threaded spindle 9 about the central axis displaces the two implant parts (2, 5) relative to one another (distraction/expansion). Parts and spindle are coaxial along the common central axis.
• Potential §102 mapping against the '643: Gutlin maps well onto the expansion elements of claim 1 — "first and second shells" (parts 2/5 with apposition surfaces), "expansion mechanism positioned between the shells," "first and second threaded bodies," and "rotatable tool engagement portion... rotate the first threaded body with respect to the second threaded body to drive expansion." That is precisely why it was the primary reference.
• Why it does not anticipate claim 1: Gutlin does not disclose (a) the two-tier engagement-feature architecture — a first set of endplate-engaging features plus a second, larger set that extends further and has substantially tapered, endplate-piercing tips — Gutlin has only "three-dimensional texturing" on the apposition surfaces; and (b) the express requirement that the tool engagement portion be positioned to be engaged by a tool extending along the direction of insertion (Gutlin's spindle is coaxial with the implant axis, turned about that axis, which the Petitioner had to argue rather than point to). The Board also rejected Petitioner's attempt to read "first and second shells" onto Gutlin's parts (see §2.4).

2.2 Barber — U.S. Patent No. 5,236,460

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 5,236,460, "Vertebral Body Prosthesis," Barber.
• Date: issued August 17, 1993.
• Disclosure (per the petition): Vertebral prosthesis 11 with an inner body 23 telescopically mounted to an outer body 13. Inner body has an upper platform 29 with sharp pins 31 and an axial pin 33 extending upward to pierce the vertebral bones; outer body has a lower platform 19 with pins 21. Brackets 45 are flat plates that move laterally on platforms 29/19, each with flanges 47 having holes 48 for receiving a screw to secure the prosthesis to the vertebral bones.
• Potential §102 mapping against the '643: Barber is the reference that supplies the two different kinds of bone-engagement structures: (i) sharp pins that pierce bone, and (ii) screws received in holes of brackets. On a generous reading that is a "first set" of engagement features plus a "second set" comprising screw members extended through holes — i.e., it maps onto claims 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16.
• Why it does not anticipate the '643: Barber is a vertebral-body (corpectomy) replacement prosthesis designed to replace a resected vertebra between adjacent vertebrae — it is not an implant configured for introduction into an intervertebral space with rostral/caudal shells engaging the opposing endplates of a preserved disc space. It also lacks the gear/pinion-driven first-and-second-threaded-body expansion mechanism of claim 1. Barber is therefore secondary (obviousness) art, not an anticipatory reference.

2.3 Sutcliffe — U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0143399 A1

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0143399 A1 (Sutcliffe). Note: I retrieved the number, applicant name, and publication date from the IPR petition's grounds table; I did not retrieve the publication's title or full text in this run, so I decline to characterize its disclosure beyond what the petition's use implies.
• Date: published October 3, 2002.
• Role: relied on only for the screw-member-through-holes limitations of dependent claims 8, 10, and 16 (the "second set of engagement features comprise screw members extendable through the holes" family).
• Potential §102 mapping: none as an anticipating reference for claim 1; it was applied to narrow dependent claims only.

2.4 What the Board actually held (the dispositive reasoning)

The Board's decision excerpt I retrieved shows the Board agreeing with the Patent Owner on the threshold element:

"Petitioner fails to meet its burden of showing with particularity how Gutlin teaches 'first and second shells' under Petitioner's own construction... Petitioner does not even allege that [Gutlin's] upper and lower implant parts 5 and 3 are 'capable of moving in at least two directions defined by at least two axes,' let alone how they move." — PO Resp. 14–16, as quoted and accepted by the Board. "We agree with Patent Owner."

Because the petition's own construction of "shells" required ends "capable of moving in at least two directions defined by at least two axes," and Gutlin's parts 2/5 are constrained to move along one axis (central axis 11), the primary reference failed on the very first limitation. That failure cascaded, and institution was denied on February 4, 2021.

Take-away for your question: the closest prior art to the '643 — Gutlin — was affirmatively held not to disclose the claimed "shells," and no asserted reference was ever argued to anticipate any claim. There is therefore no identified §102 anticipation reference for claim 1 (or any of claims 2–25) on the record I retrieved.

3. Art that is often mistaken for "citations" but is NOT prior art here

For completeness, because these appear adjacent to the citation data on the Google Patents page and are easy to misread as references:

• "Cited By (38)" — e.g., Warsaw Orthopedic's US 11,285,014; US 11,376,134; US 11,517,443; Medtronic's US 11,291,554; Life Spine's US 11,602,439 / 11,602,440 / 11,857,432; Nofusco's US 11,723,778 / 11,806,247; and Moskowitz Family's own US 2019/0282230 A1. All have 2020+ priority dates and post-date the '643's 2005 priority; they are evidence of the crowded expandable-cage field, not §102 art.
• "Families Citing this family (153)" — e.g., FR 2897259 (LDR Medical), AR 038680 (Synthes), US 7,955,357 (Ellipse), plus the Moskowitz family's own later descendants (US 7,846,188; US 7,972,363; US 9,814,601; US 9,744,052; US 9,532,821; etc.). These are either later third-party filings or sibling family members — recall that a continuation's own parent/child family members are not §102 prior art against it (they share the same priority).
• PCT/US2005/016493 (filed May 11, 2005) — cited within the '643 specification as the applicants' own earlier two-dimensional cervical/artificial-disc expansion disclosure. It is not §102 art: it is the applicants' own work, and its May 11, 2005 filing date is after the '643's April 12, 2005 effective filing date. It is an internal incorporation-by-reference, not a citation against the claims.

4. Bottom line

Most relevant prior art for US 10,251,643B2: WO 2004/052245 A1 (Gutlin) as the primary reference, combined with US 5,236,460 (Barber) and, for the screw-in-hole dependent claims, US 2002/0143399 A1 (Sutcliffe). All three were advanced under §103(a) only; none was asserted — and none appears — to anticipate any claim under §102, and the PTAB denied institution without ever reaching the merits of the combination, because Gutlin failed on the "first and second shells" limitation.

5. What I could not obtain, and what would close the gap

To give you the literal, complete "each citation" list you asked for, these are the sources still needed:

1. The '643 front page ("References Cited") — available via USPTO Patent Center / Patent Full-Text (patft) for patent 10,251,643, or the issued-patent PDF (patentimages). My searches did not return this list.
2. The patent's Information Disclosure Statements in 15/934,622 — the examiner-cited U.S. and foreign patent documents (Google's "prior art keywords" for this patent are spinal implant, shell, shells, expansile, artificial expansile, and the examiner of record is Pedro Philogene, Art Unit 3733 per the earlier section), which will identify the references that were actually considered and why none was applied in a rejection on the merits.
3. The full IPR2020-01310 institution decision (Feb. 4, 2021) — the excerpt confirms the §103 grounds and the "shells" holding, but the complete claim-by-claim reasoning (and any §325(d)/discretionary analysis) would let me map the art limitation-by-limitation.
4. The complete text of Sutcliffe (US 2002/0143399 A1) — needed before I would characterize its disclosure independent of the petition's use of it.

If you want, I can take (1) and (2) next and produce the literal examiner-citation table with per-claim §102/§103 labels, which is what your prompt strictly requested.

I'll research the prior-art references identified in the IPR and on the patent's face, then build the §103 analysis.

Let me pull the Board's actual reasoning for denying institution, plus the Barber and Sutcliffe references.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,251,643 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note: I used the prior-art record appearing on this page — the IPR grounds Google Patents flags (IPR2020‑01310), the "Cited By (38)" list, and the "Families Citing this family (153)" list — plus the underlying petition/exhibit materials I retrieved. Per your rule I have not auto-corrected any identifier. All dates are taken from the sources as retrieved.

1. Governing framework and the applicable § 103 provision

• Pre-AIA § 103(a) applies. The '643 patent's earliest effective filing date is April 12, 2005 (Prov. 60/670,231), and the claim set was carried forward from 11/208,644 (filed Aug. 23, 2005) through US 7,951,180 and US 9,924,940. Both dates precede March 16, 2013, so the AIA § 102/§ 103 regime does not govern. Consistent with this, Globus's Petition pleaded its grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA).
• Graham/KSR framework. Obviousness is assessed from the perspective of a PHOSITA at the time of invention, considering (1) scope and content of the prior art, (2) differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill, and (4) objective indicia. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
• Level of ordinary skill. The Petition proposed a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering or a related discipline plus several years of experience in spinal implant design/development (the Petition's § VII "The Level of Skill in the Art"; I have only a fragment of that section, so treat the exact year-count as unverified).
• Claim construction standard. The Board applied the Phillips district-court standard under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Critically, petitioner proposed that "shells" mean "the ends of an implantable intervertebral device, which ends are capable of moving in at least two directions defined by at least two axes." That self-imposed construction became the dispositive issue (see § 7).

2. The prior-art references on this page, and their § 102 status

Sources: Petition, IPR2020‑01310; EX1028 / WO 2004/052245; US 7,691,147; US 5,236,460; US 2002/0143399 A1; US 6,805,714.

Grounds as pleaded (Pet. 5):

3. Ground 1 — Gutlin + Barber against independent claim 1

Claim 1 was broken into elements [1]–[10] in the Petition's claim chart (EX1027). Mapping:

Where the strongest disclosure sits. Element [10] is the real heart of the claim, and Barber is unusually well matched to it: it discloses a first set of shorter sharp pins and a second, longer, sharp-tipped member on the same platform — precisely the "two-tier" architecture claim 1 recites. Barber's specification states the purpose directly: "The pointed tips of the pins firmly anchor the prosthesis in place. The sliding brackets provide additional stability."

Dependent claims: 2 (perpendicular extension — Barber's pins extend axially/perpendicularly from the platforms); 3, 12 (PEEK — Gutlin's radiolucent-material/PEEK disclosure); 6 (shells define holes into which the second set extends — Barber's hole 41 in platform 19 and threaded mounting of pin 33 to platform 29); 7 (holes + perpendicularity + first set more numerous than second — Barber: plurality of pins 21 plus a single axial pin 37); 13, 14, 15 (screw holes / threaded screws through the holes / rotatable threaded screws — Barber's holes 48 + screws 53, which are inherently threaded and rotatable); 17 ("means for placement of bone material" — Gutlin's recesses "suitable for the accumulation of substances that support fusion, for example spongiosa"); 19 (rotatable gear — Gutlin's gear crown 23); 20 (pinion — weakest mapping; see § 7).

4. Ground 2 — Adding Sutcliffe (claims 8, 10, 16)

Sutcliffe supplies the multi-screw, angulated, shell-integrated fixation the Petition needed for the screw-hole claims:

• Claim 8 — shells define screw holes; screw members extend through the holes at least partially into the endplates: Sutcliffe's eyes 6 / collars 7 / passages 8 with cortical screws 9 driven into the vertebral surfaces 10.
• Claim 10 — at least two screws per shell: Sutcliffe's FIGs. 3 and 6 show two screws into the upper vertebra and two into the lower.
• Claim 16 — first and second pluralities of screw holes: same disclosure.

The Petition framed the substitution as functional equivalence: Sutcliffe's integral screw guides perform the same anchoring function as Barber's flange-and-screw, while recessing the screw heads to eliminate prominent anterior hardware — reducing irritation of overlying muscle, the esophagus (cervical), and the aorta/IVC (thoracic/lumbar) (Pet. §§ XI.A–B).

5. Motivation to combine — why a PHOSITA would have done this

The Petition's rationales, which are legally cognizable under KSR, are as follows:

1. Same field of endeavor / reasonably pertinent. All three references are instrumented vertebral or intervertebral implants for spinal stabilization and arthrodesis. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (any need or problem known in the field can supply the motivation).
2. Barber articulates the very advantage sought. Barber expressly links sharp-tipped pins to firm anchoring and sliding brackets to additional stability — the same problem Gutlin's expandable implant faces (migration/subsidence before fusion). A reference that states the advantage the combination achieves is a classic teaching.
3. Gutlin points toward the improvement. Gutlin's apposition surfaces carry "three-dimensional texturing" — evidence that the art was already working on endplate engagement, which makes adding Barber's pierce-and-anchor features a predictable next step rather than a leap.
4. Predictable use of known elements per their established functions. Spikes/teeth for endplate purchase and screws for vertebral-body fixation were both routine in intervertebral implants by 2005. The combination changes no principle of operation of Gutlin's threaded-spindle expander; it merely bolts on a known fixation modality. KSR (predictable results; "design incentives").
5. Sutcliffe supplies a recognized, safety-driven motivation. Recessing screw heads beneath the vertebral surface to avoid anterior hardware prominence was a known objective — and notably, the '643 specification itself recites these very complications ("potential esophageal compression/injury in the cervical spine secondary to high plate profile or pullout," and "devastating vascular injury in the lumbar spine with plate movement… into anterior iliac vasculature"). A challenger can cite the patent's own background as evidence of the recognized problem.
6. Multiple screws per endplate. Sutcliffe's two-screws-per-end-part teaching was known to increase purchase in poor bone stock and to resist moments perpendicular to the screw axes.
7. PEEK. Both Gutlin and Sutcliffe disclose PEEK for radiolucency ("the fusion can be assessed more readily after the operation") — a stated, concrete reason to select that material for claims 3/12.

6. Alternative / additional combinations available from this page's prior-art record

Because Google Patents' "Prior Art" listing here does not include a conventional "Patent Citations" list of the examiner's own references on the '643, the cleanest additional candidates must pre-date the critical date:

• Kambin, US 5,665,122 ("Expandable Intervertebral Cage and Surgical Method") — an expandable cage with upper/lower components separated by an advancing expansion screw bearing on conical recesses, with passageways for bone-growth material. This is a strong substitute or supplement for Gutlin on elements [3]–[5] and for claim 18 ("expansion mechanism comprises a drive screw"), and Kambin itself cites Barber US 5,236,460 on its face. (EX1008)
• Synthes AR038680A1 (2002‑02‑19) and ATE496593T1 (2003‑02‑06) — intervertebral implants appearing in the "Families Citing this family" list with pre-2005 priority; usable only as cumulative art, and I have not verified their content.

Important negative finding: several visually attractive references in the "Families Citing this family" list cannot be prior art here because they post-date April 12, 2005 — e.g., FR2897259B1 (2006), US 2007/0270960A1 "Extendable anchor in a vertebral implant" (SDGI/Warsaw, 2006), US 7,658,782 and US 7,758,648 (2006), US 2008/0177333A1 "Adjustable jacking implant" (2006), US 7,855,357 (Ellipse), and EP 2 271 285 B1 / US 7,985,256 / US 8,070,813 (Grotz & Pretti, Howmedica Osteonics — "selectively expanding spine cage" with extendable fixation elements whose "distal tip… should be sharp enough to penetrate into the vertebral end plate"). EP 2 271 285 expressly cites Barber US 5,236,460 and describes nearly the same two-tier concept, but its priority is 2008 — it is not available against this patent. A challenger reaching for it would be making a legal error. (EP2271285B1)

Also note that the Moskowitz-family members in the "Citing" list (US 7,846,188; US 7,972,363; US 7,942,903; US 9,814,601; US 9,532,821; US 9,744,052; US 9,845,993; US 11,903,849) share the '643's priority and common ownership — they are not prior art.

7. Where the § 103 theory is weak — the Board's denial and the Patent Owner's rebuttal

This is the most important part of an honest analysis: the theory was tested once, at the institution stage, and it failed.

• IPR2020‑01310, Globus Medical, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC — Decision Denying Institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), February 4, 2021 (Google Patents: "IPR2020‑01310 filed (Not Instituted – Merits)").
• The dispositive ground was the Petition's own claim construction. Petitioner construed "first and second shells" as "ends… capable of moving in at least two directions defined by at least two axes." The Board agreed with Patent Owner that the Petition never explained how Gutlin's upper/lower implant parts move in two directions — Gutlin's parts move only along the single central axis 11. Because the Petition failed its own construction, it failed to show the "shells" limitation with particularity. The Board: "We agree with Patent Owner… Petitioner fails to meet its burden."
• Patent Owner's Preliminary Response also attacked: the "engagement features" limitations (failure to show Gutlin or Barber discloses them as claimed); the dependent claims; Barber's failure to disclose "wherein the first and second shells define screw holes" (claim 13); the absence of any "pinion" in Gutlin or Barber (claim 20); and the failure to show how "screw members [are] configured to be extended from the shells" (claims 8/10/16). (PO Preliminary Response)

What the denial does and does not mean.

• It is not a merits holding that the claims are non-obvious. A § 314(a) denial is a threshold failure of the petition. There is no final written decision, no IPR estoppel, and the denial is non-appealable in the ordinary course (37 C.F.R. § 42.100; Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs., 590 U.S. 45 (2020)). The claims remain subject only to the ordinary statutory presumption of validity.
• The denial is highly fact- and construction-specific. Its central defect — petitioner's own two-axis construction of "shells" — is a self-inflicted wound. A future challenger advancing (a) a different construction of "shell," and/or (b) a better-developed record on the "two sets of engagement features" and "screw holes define[d] in the shells" limitations, would not be bound by the February 4, 2021 decision. The remaining § 314(a) deficits (claim 20 "pinion," claim 13 screw holes) are pleading/evidentiary gaps that better art could fill — e.g., Kambin's expansion screw for claims 18/20.
• The related district-court litigation does not supply a validity ruling. The jury returned a non-infringement verdict on the '913/'022/'319 patents, affirmed at Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 24‑1696 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2026). Non-infringement says nothing about § 103, and the '643 was not among the patents tried.

Secondary-considerations vulnerability. The only "objective indicia" language in the specification is:

"To our knowledge there has not been any other previously described bidirectional screw… the description of zero to subzero profile anterior or posterior horizontal spinal plates… has not been previously described… an intervertebral three-in-one construct… has not been previously reported… calibrated facet joint staples… have not been previously described."

Every one of those statements is directed at the BDFT screw, the mini-plates, the three-in-one cage, and the facet stapler — not at the expansile implant of claim 1. There is therefore no specification-supported nexus between those asserted innovations and the claimed subject matter, which materially weakens any secondary-considerations rebuttal a patent owner could mount against Grounds 1–2. (Whether any real-world secondary considerations exist — commercial success, licensing, copying — is not in this record.)

Claims that were never mapped. Globus challenged only claims 1–3, 6–8, 10, 12–17, 19, 20. Claims 4, 5, 9, 11 (two-dimensional/geometric expansion, including "means for expanding geometrically in a second direction") and claims 21–25 (rostral/caudal shells, continuously curving perimeters, boomerang shapes, perimeters conforming to vertebral-body shapes, and an alignment cylinder — i.e., the FIGS. 7A–7B IBFD 700 subject matter) were left unaddressed. Those are the strongest positions in the claim set against this particular combination. Note, however, that the Petition did point to Barber's laterally sliding bracket 45 as evidence of lateral (second-direction) expansion — so a future challenger could attempt to reach claims 4/5/9/11 through Barber, though Patent Owner disputed that reading.

8. Bottom line

1. The most defensible § 103 attack is Ground 1: Gutlin + Barber for claim 1, with Gutlin + Barber + Sutcliffe for the screw-hole/multi-screw dependent claims. The combination is supported by: a Gutlin disclosure that maps cleanly to every element of claim 1 except the engagement-feature limitations ([1]–[7]); a Barber disclosure that maps densely onto those remaining limitations, including the "larger / extends further / tapered tips" requirement via its two-tier pin architecture; a PEEK teaching in both Gutlin and Sutcliffe for claims 3/12; and Sutcliffe's two-screws-per-endplate teaching for claims 8/10/16.
2. Motivation to combine is well supported by (i) common field of endeavor, (ii) Barber's express statement of anchoring/stability advantages, (iii) Gutlin's own emphasis on endplate texturing, (iv) Sutcliffe's recognized anti-prominence rationale — which the '643 specification itself acknowledges as the problem with the prior art — and (v) predictable, additive use of known fixation elements without changing Gutlin's principle of operation.
3. But the theory has already failed once — at institution on February 4, 2021 — and it failed principally because of petitioner's own two-axis construction of "shells" and pleading gaps on other limitations. That is a warning that any renewed challenge must (a) litigate the shell construction independently, (b) map the engagement-feature and screw-hole limitations with particularity, (c) supply art for the "pinion" limitation (e.g., Kambin US 5,665,122), and (d) reach claims 21–25, which no one has yet attempted.

Uncertainty flags

• I could not retrieve the full text of the February 4, 2021 Decision; my account of the Board's reasoning rests on the retrieved portions of the Institution Decision, which are explicit as to the "shells" holding and the Board's agreement with Patent Owner, but I have not read the entire decision.
• I have not verified whether Gutlin or Barber were before the '643 examiner during prosecution (the Petition contains a § V.B "'643 Patent Prosecution History" section I could not retrieve), so I cannot state whether this art is "new" or merely "old art, new argument" under § 325(d).
• The Petition references a Baynham reference used by the examiner against the related '268 patent; I have no evidence that Baynham was used in the '643's own prosecution. I flag it as a lead, not a finding.
• My characterization of the level of ordinary skill is based on a fragment of the Petition; the precise degree/experience formulation is unverified.
• All claim-mapping above reflects petitioner's allegations as pleaded. Nothing in this analysis is a judicial or Board holding of unpatentability.