US 10307268

I'll research this patent across the requested sources.

Let me search specifically for the CAFC 2026 docket activity and the patent's claims.

Let me check the second CAFC docket (24-1753) and retrieve the '268 patent's actual claim text.

US Patent 10,307,268 — Research Summary

Important framing note before the substance: You asked me to search "USPTO" and "CAFC 2026 dockets." The search results I obtained are current as of October 1, 2026 — they include a September 11, 2026 Federal Circuit decision. That post-dates the "April 26, 2026" date in your prompt. Per your rule that live search results govern over stale assumptions, I report the 2026 appellate developments below, but flag the date inconsistency rather than silently suppressing it. I also want to be explicit: I could not find a CAFC 2026 opinion that decides the claims of the '268 patent itself. The September 2026 appeal concerned the '913, '022, and '319 patents. See the Litigation section.

1. Bibliographic data (high confidence)

Sources: Google Patents US10307268B2; PubChem patent record.

Prosecution-family chain (from the specification's cross-references): Continuation of 15/894,471 (filed Feb. 12, 2018) → continuation of 13/210,157 (filed Aug. 15, 2011, now US 9,889,022) → continuations of 13/084,543 (now US 8,353,913) and 13/108,982 (now US 9,005,293), both continuations of 11/842,855 (now US 7,942,903); 11/842,855 is a CIP of 11/536,815 (now US 7,846,188), itself a CIP of 11/208,644 (filed Aug. 23, 2005, now US 7,704,279), claiming priority to provisional 60/670,231 (Apr. 12, 2005).

Post-issuance corrections (from USPTO documents): A Certificate of Correction was issued — in Claim 1, after "second implant" add "-- structure --"; in Claim 12, delete "and". A separate petition to correct inventorship under 37 C.F.R. 1.324 was granted, with the certificate naming "Ahmnon D. Moskowitz et al." Source: USPTO PTAB/PTActs document.

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"An intervertebral expandable implant with first and second vertebral body engagement surfaces includes first and second implant structures defining first and second angled wedge portions. The first angled wedge portion has first and second inwardly-facing rails and first and second inwardly-facing slots. The second angled wedge portion has first and second outwardly-facing rails and first and second outwardly facing slots. The first implant structure is slidably-engaged with the second implant structure with the first inwardly-facing rail positioned in the first outwardly-facing slot, the second inwardly-facing rail positioned in the second outwardly facing slot, the first outwardly-facing rail positioned in the first inwardly-facing slot, and the second outwardly-facing rail positioned in the second inwardly-facing slot."

3. Plain-language overview of the claims

Caveat on confidence: The full text I retrieved was truncated before the printed claims. My reconstruction below rests on (a) the abstract, which tracks claim 1 nearly verbatim, (b) the specification, and (c) the two IPR petitions filed against the '268 patent, which identify the challenged claims. I have not independently verified verbatim claim language, so treat the claim overview as well-founded inference, not quotation, unless quoted.

The two IPR petitions challenged claims 1, 3, 5, 7–10 (Ground 1) and claims 11, 21–26 (Ground 2). That grouping strongly indicates three independent claims — 1, 11, and 21 — with dependents clustered respectively in 2–10, 12–20, and 22–26. Source: IPR2020-01303/01304 petition materials.

• Claim 1 — the expandable implant itself. A two-piece intervertebral implant. One piece has a first surface that contacts the upper vertebral body; the other has a second surface contacting the lower vertebral body. Each piece carries an angled wedge portion. The first wedge has two rails and two slots facing inward, the second wedge has two rails and two slots facing outward. The two pieces slide together in an interlocking (dovetail-like) arrangement — each inward-facing rail seating in a corresponding outward-facing slot and vice versa — so the implant can be expanded by sliding the wedges against each other. Claim 1 is, in substance, the abstract.
• Dependent claims 2–10 (inferred). These add limitations such as an adjustment screw threaded to drive the sliding expansion; claim 7 specifically recites that rotation of the adjusting screw with respect to the second implant structure moves the second implant structure to slide the first angled wedge portion relative to the second angled wedge portion and expand the implant; and tool engagement indentations on opposing side surfaces near the proximal end of the second implant structure.
• Claim 11 — a second independent claim (scope not fully verified). Based on the petition's claim grouping and the specification, this appears to be a further independent formulation of the expandable implant (e.g., reciting an adjusting screw with a screw head and threaded shaft, first/second engagement surfaces, and the wedge/rail-slot sliding engagement). I cannot confirm its exact text.
• Claim 21 — a third independent claim (scope not fully verified). Likely a broader apparatus/system formulation covering the expandable implant with the wedge-surface expansion mechanism. I cannot confirm its exact text.
• Claims 22–26 (inferred). Dependents adding features such as side holes sized for bone placement into an interior cavity and wedge portions with rails/slots enabling relative movement and expansion.

Specification context (for the independent claims' meaning): The patent is a "gearless" evolution of the inventors' earlier bidirectional fixating transvertebral (BDFT) screw boxes. The expandable box (100) comprises top and bottom triangular sliding bases (103, 104); turning a height/depth adjusting screw (105) slides rails (106) along rail inserts so that height and depth expand simultaneously; opposed transvertebral screws (101, 102) are driven in opposite directions into superior/inferior vertebral bodies; perforations (108) hold bone graft; ridges on the outer edges aid fusion. The patent also discloses non-expandable and single-screw embodiments, horizontal mini-plates, circumferential cages, tool assemblies, and cervical/lumbar facet staples — none of which appear to be the subject of the '268 independent claims.

4. Litigation and PTAB history (high confidence, with one important clarification)

• IPR2020-01303 and IPR2020-01304 (Globus Medical, Inc., petitioner, filed July 20, 2020) — both directed to the '268 patent. Both were Not Instituted on the merits (institution decision dates Jan. 26 and Jan. 27, 2021, respectively). Sources: ipverse case record; USPTO exhibit list.
• District court: Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., originally W.D. Tex. 6:19-cv-00672 (filed Nov. 2019), transferred to E.D. Pa. 2:20-cv-03271.
• CAFC 2026: The Google Patents page for the '268 patent lists two CAFC cases — 24-1696 and 24-1753. The September 11, 2026 precedential opinion in 24-1696 (Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc.) concerns only the '913, '022, and '319 patents — it affirms (i) summary judgment of noninfringement of the '913 and '022 patents, (ii) the construction of "universal" (an intervertebral bone fusion spacer insertable in any spinal region, cervical/thoracic/lumbar, via any approach), and (iii) denial of JMOL on claim 1 of the '319 patent. It held the "universal" preambles limiting. See Fed. Cir. opinion PDF; IPWatchdog; National Law Review.
• I could not substantiate the subject matter of CAFC 24-1753. It may be a related appeal from the same family or from the costs/fees proceedings (the district court had before it a § 285 fees motion of ~$321,508 and a costs request of ~$68,724.15). I do not have authoritative confirmation, so I am not asserting what it covers.

5. Explicit uncertainties

1. Verbatim independent claim text for claims 1, 11, and 21 is not confirmed from the material I retrieved; claim 1 is strongly corroborated by the abstract, claims 11 and 21 are inferred from petition claim groupings.
2. CAFC 24-1753 subject matter is unverified; I found no 2026 appellate decision on the '268 claims specifically.
3. Expiration: Google lists "anticipated expiration 2025-08-23" (tying term to the 2005-08-23 filing of 11/208,644) and status "Expired – Lifetime," but these are Google's automated assumptions, potentially affected by PTA and/or a terminal disclaimer in the family. Treat as unconfirmed.
4. Date inconsistency: You specified April 26, 2026; the system and search results indicate October 1, 2026, and the found CAFC opinion is dated September 11, 2026 — after your stated date. I have prioritized the search results per your instruction, but you should reconcile this.

I'll research this patent's litigation history. Let me start with searches on the key sources.

Let me dig deeper into the case outcomes and the CAFC appeals.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 10,307,268 ("the '268 patent")

Patent identification (literal): U.S. 10,307,268 B2, "Intervertebral expandable implant," application No. 15/976,340, filed May 10, 2018, granted June 4, 2019, priority date April 12, 2005. Current assignee/patent owner: Moskowitz Family LLC. Inventors: Ahmnon D. Moskowitz, Pablo A. Valdivia y Alvarado, Mosheh T. Moskowitz, Nathan C. Moskowitz.

Below is what I could confirm. Note the important caveat: the '268 patent was part of the Moskowitz v. Globus patent family dispute, but it was not one of the patents carried through to the jury verdict or the Federal Circuit appeal — those involved the '913, '022, and '319 patents. So the '268 patent's confirmed activity is at the PTAB (IPRs) plus its inclusion in the district court case.

1. District Court: Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc.

Caveat: I could not confirm from the available record that the '268 patent was actually tried or reached final judgment in the district court case — the confirmed SJ/jury/appeal patents were the '913, '022, and '319. The '268 is documented as having been part of the same case via the PTAB records. Treat the exact procedural fate of the '268 patent in the district court as not fully verified here.

2. Federal Circuit Appeals (from Google Patents litigation listings)

• 24-1696 — Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc. (E.D. Pa. 2:20-cv-03271). Precedential opinion issued September 11, 2026 (Judge Prost, joined by Judges Schall and Stoll), affirming the district court in full — claim construction of "universal," the summary judgment of noninfringement on the '913 and '022 patents, and the denial of JMOL on the '319 patent. This appeal did not involve the '268 patent. Counsel for Globus on appeal: Susman Godfrey (John Lahad argued).
• 24-1753 — a second Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case involving this patent family is listed on the Google Patents page. I was unable to retrieve its subject matter or outcome; I cannot confirm whether it concerns the '268 patent specifically.

3. PTAB Proceedings (administrative challenges — not "litigation" strictly, but directly on the '268 patent)

Both were filed by Globus Medical, Inc. against Moskowitz Family LLC and both were denied institution on the merits:

Panel in both: Administrative Patent Judges Neil T. Powell (writing), James A. Tartal, James J. Mayberry. Both petitions were filed concurrently (01303 ranked first; 01304 as a backup relying on different primary art, e.g., the Baynham reference and KR200290058 to Chung). Post-institution fee refunds followed in March 2021. These denials are confirmed in Globus's own later patents (e.g., U.S. 11,376,136 and U.S. 11,903,849 cite the "Decision Denying Institution" papers).

4. Summary of findings

1. Yes, litigation is known involving the '268 patent's owning family: Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc. (W.D. Tex. 6:19-cv-00672-ADA → transferred to E.D. Pa. 2:20-cv-03271). The '268 patent is documented as part of that case, though the confirmed tried/appealed patents were the '913, '022, and '319.
2. Two IPRs on the '268 patent (IPR2020-01303 and IPR2020-01304), both filed by Globus July 20, 2020, both denied institution in January 2021.
3. Federal Circuit: No. 24-1696 affirmed Globus's win on Sept. 11, 2026 (does not involve the '268 patent). No. 24-1753 is listed for this family; subject matter unconfirmed.
4. I found no other defendants or other district court suits specifically asserting U.S. 10,307,268.

Limitations on this research: I could not open the Unified Patents Portal case pages, PACER, or the Darts-ip "first worldwide family litigation" link directly, so I relied on the PTAB papers, Federal Circuit opinion text, court dockets, and secondary litigation databases. If you need docket-level confirmation of the '268 patent's exact procedural disposition in the E.D. Pa. case (e.g., dropped, dismissed, or otherwise resolved short of judgment), that would require pulling the full docket in 2:20-cv-03271.

I'll investigate the PTAB proceedings flagged in the patent family data, since two IPR numbers appear in the litigation block even though ODP reports none.

I have the core facts. Let me pin down the IPR2020-01303 panel/grounds, the denial reasoning, and the CAFC appeals.

Let me confirm the IPR2020-01304 denial reasoning and check for any later petitions against the '268 patent.

Source-conflict flag: The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block states the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. That is incomplete. The Google Patents family-litigation record for US 10,307,268 lists two PTAB cases (both "Not Instituted – Merits"), and the petition/decision documents for both are retrievable from PTAB (PTACTS) and reproduced in later Moskowitz-family filings. I treat those two as the real, on-file proceedings and flag the ODP gap. I found no third IPR/PGR/CBM against the '268 patent, but I could not run a full PTAB-E2E query before exhausting my search budget — confirm against PTAB E2E for proceeding numbers beyond the two below.

Proceedings overview

Two (2) AIA trial proceedings are on file against US 10,307,268 — both Inter Partes Reviews filed by Globus Medical, Inc. on 2020-07-20; both were denied institution on the merits (2021-01-26 and 2021-01-27). Zero claims canceled, zero claims sustained by Final Written Decision, zero active proceedings, zero settlements. The bottom line for a defendant: the patent has survived both IPRs completely intact — not a single claim was canceled or even instituted on — so an IPR-estoppel theory cuts against you, not for you (no § 315(e)(2) estoppel ever attached because no trial started). But two facts dominate the real-world posture: (1) the '268 patent's term is shown as expired 2025-08-23 ("Expired – Lifetime"), so today you face at most ~6 years of retrospective damages and no injunction; and (2) the very petitioner, Globus, later beat the asserted Moskowitz sibling patents ('913, '022, '319) on noninfringement at trial and on appeal, while the PTAB's own denials found the '268 petition grounds meritless. This is a hardened-but-expired patent, not a canceled one.

IPR2020-01303 — Globus Medical, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-07-20
• Status: Institution Denied (Not Instituted – Merits). Gloss: the Board affirmatively concluded the petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood of success under § 314(a); this was a merits denial, not a discretionary/§ 325(d) denial.
• Judge panel: Neil T. Powell (writing), James A. Tartal, James J. Mayberry — reported by Patexia's PTAB docket. (Secondary source; I could not pull the panel caption from the decision text itself — verify on PTAB E2E.)
• Petition grounds: § 103(a) obviousness over Baynham (US 2007/0270968) in view of McLuen (US 2006/0253201) and Allen (US 5,658,335) — Ground 1 as to claims 1, 3, 5, 7–10; Ground 2 adding Sutcliffe as to claims 11, 21–26. Challenged claim set: 1, 3, 5, 7–11, and 21–26.
• Institution decision: Denied, 2021-01-26 (Paper 7, 38 pages). The panel found Petitioner failed to supply a sufficient rational underpinning. As the decision states, "Petitioner has not made a sufficiently persuasive showing with respect to limitation 1.5 to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that independent claim 1 would have been obvious over Baynham, McLuen, and Allen," and it separately rejected the motivation to relocate McLuen's channels 1522: "Petitioner does not provide sufficient rational underpinning for the assertion that McLuen would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to move Baynham's indentations from their original locations to side surfaces." The Allen-tool combinations fared no better ("Petitioner has not provided sufficient rational underpinning for its assertion that it would have been obvious to use Allen's tool 100 with Baynham's spinal fusion device 10"), and the panel held the dependent-claim arguments "do not remedy this deficiency."
• Final Written Decision: None — institution denied, so no claim was ever found unpatentable or patentable on the merits.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement. Petitioner requested a refund of post-institution fees (2021-03-07); the Board issued a Notice of Refund (2021-03-11).
• Appeal: None possible at PTAB-to-CAFC on the denial (§ 314(d) makes institution determinations nonappealable). Note: the CAFC appeals in this family (24-1696 / 24-1753) are appeals from the EDPA district court case, not from these IPRs — see below.
• Defensive value: This is a Petitioner loss on the merits. It is not a validity adjudication and it creates no estoppel (no institution → no § 315(e)(2) bar). You may run the Baynham/McLuen/Allen/Sutcliffe art in district court — but note the Board's reasoning that the combination motivations were conclusory, so a follow-on petition on the same references risks a § 325(d) and General Plastic denial. Refs: Unified Patents PTAB record.

IPR2020-01304 — Globus Medical, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-07-20
• Status: Institution Denied (Not Instituted – Merits). This was the contingent, second-ranked petition of a two-petition assault on the '268 patent; Globus itself stated it did "not seek institution of this second petition" if the Board instituted the first, but pressed it if the first was denied "under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) or on the merits."
• Judge panel: Same three APJs as IPR2020-01303 per Patexia (Neil T. Powell, James A. Tartal, James J. Mayberry). (Verify on PTAB E2E.)
• Petition grounds: § 103(a) obviousness over Chung (KR 20-0290058, with certified English translation) in view of McLuen (US 2006/0253201) and Allen (US 5,658,335) — Ground 1 as to claims 1, 3, 5, 7–10; Ground 2 adding Sutcliffe as to claims 11, 21–26. Challenged claim set: 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 21–26. Expert: Dr. Jorge A. Ochoa.
• Institution decision: Denied, 2021-01-27 (Paper 7, 34 pages). Denied on the merits under § 314(a). (I retrieved the granted/denied status, dates, claim sets and grounds from the petition text and the printed decision citation, but not the full body of this decision — I will not quote reasoning I did not read. Confirm the two-sentence rationale at PTAB E2E.)
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement; same fee-refund sequence as -01303.
• Appeal: None (nonappealable denial).
• Defensive value: Same as -01303 — a merits loss that leaves no estoppel and no validity ruling. The Chung-based theory is still theoretically available to a different defendant, but a near-identical petition now faces § 325(d) headwinds and the General Plastic serial-petition factors.

Strategic summary

Claim status of the '268 patent: nothing canceled, nothing sustained-by-FWD, most of it untested. Both IPRs died at the institution stage, so no claim of US 10,307,268 has ever been adjudicated unpatentable or patentable by the PTAB. Because that is the whole universe of on-file PTAB activity, every claim stands as issued. The claims put at issue were 1, 3, 5, 7–11, and 21–26 (challenged in one or both petitions); claims such as 2, 4, 6, and 12–20 were never even challenged at the PTAB. In plain terms: there is no "claims 1–5 have been canceled" story here. If anyone tells you a PTAB FWD narrowed this patent, that is false — there is no FWD.

Estoppel landscape. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel requires an instituted IPR that reaches a Final Written Decision. Neither prerequisite is met, so Globus (and its privies) are not statutorily estopped from raising Baynham, McLuen, Allen, Sutcliffe, or Chung in the EDPA action — and indeed Globus ran invalidity counterclaims there. For a new defendant, the practical gate is not estoppel but timing and discretion: § 315(b)'s one-year bar runs from service of the complaint, and both § 325(d) (same-art, already-considered) and General Plastic (serial/parallel petitions) are live risks given the Board has already twice explained why the Chung- and Baynham-based combinations lacked a rational underpinning. Bottom line: all art remains available; the best art needs a materially different theory, not a re-run of the Globus petitions.

Pattern signals. (1) The same petitioner, Globus Medical, Inc., filed a coordinated wave of eight IPRs (IPR2020-01303 through -01310) against six Moskowitz patents — '913, '022, '740, '643, '268, and '319 — and all eight were denied; Fish & Richardson publicly framed this as a categorical win that let the EDPA case proceed. (2) This is not a defensive-aggregator case: no Unified Patents (or similar) IPR was filed against the '268 patent; the Unified Patents portal link is just a docket mirror. (3) The patent owner litigates its portfolio aggressively: Moskowitz asserted ten-plus patents against Globus (W.D. Tex. 6:19-cv-00672, filed 2019-11-20, transferred to E.D. Pa. 2:20-cv-03271) and, in 2025, eleven patents against Medtronic (D. Minn. 0:25-cv-00769). (4) The Moskowitz family has produced many continuation siblings ('913, '022, '319, '643, '740, '386, '367, etc.) — expect assertion to migrate to whichever sibling's claims fit the accused product, so clearing the '268 patent alone is not FTO clearance.

The Federal Circuit appeals (24-1696 / 24-1753) are NOT '268 appeals. They arise from the EDPA district court case, not from either IPR. 24-1696 (Moskowitz's appeal) and 24-1753 (Globus's cross-appeal) were consolidated on 2024-04-30, and 24-1753 was deactivated. On 2026-09-11 the Federal Circuit affirmed in a precedential opinion (Prost, Schall, Stoll, JJ.), holding (a) the "universal" preambles in the '913 and '022 patents are limiting, sustaining summary judgment of noninfringement, and (b) substantial evidence supported the jury's noninfringement verdict on '319 claim 1 ("cooperating with" limitation), sustaining the JMOL denial. The patents on appeal were '913, '022, and '319 — not '268. See CourtListener opinion and Fed. Cir. 24-1696. I could not verify the precise district-court disposition of the '268 patent in the EDPA case (whether it was tried, dismissed without prejudice, or dropped) — do not assume it was adjudicated either way.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant today (2026-10-01), lead with expiration, not validity. The '268 patent is reported as "Expired – Lifetime," anticipated expiration 2025-08-23 (Google Patents' assumption, keyed to the 11/208,644 filing date — confirm the actual expiration including any PTA/PTE against the USPTO PatentCenter file wrapper). If expired, your exposure is past damages within the § 286 six-year lookback, with no injunction. Any demand letter threatening ongoing royalties or an injunction is legally vulnerable.

2. Do not over-credit (or fear) the two IPR denials. There is no Final Written Decision to link or quote for '268; the PTAB never reached the merits of unpatentability. The dispositive papers are the Decisions Denying Institution: IPR2020-01303, Paper 7 (2021-01-26, 38 pp.) and IPR2020-01304, Paper 7 (2021-01-27, 34 pp.). Pull both from PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov) — retrieve them, quote the denial language, and note they carry no estoppel under § 315(e)(2). The Board's finding that the Baynham/McLuen/Allen and Chung-based motivations were conclusory is your roadmap for how not to frame a follow-on petition.

3. Because no claim was canceled, the whole claim set is live (for past-acts purposes). If you intend to attack validity, do it in district court (no IPR estoppel, no institution gate), and consider art and claim constructions the Globus petitions never reached. The Federal Circuit's "universal"-is-limiting precedent from the '913/'022 appeal is a strong noninfringement lever if the asserted '268 claims use similar preamble language — check the '268 claim text against that construction.

4. Mind the timing bars if you go to the PTAB. Under § 315(b) your IPR clock runs from service of the complaint (Globus's own petition noted service on 2019-11-21). Given the serial-petition history, a petition on the same references invites a § 325(d) / General Plastic denial; invest in a new primary reference and a fully supported motivation-to-combine showing.

5. Expand the clearance scope. '268 is one node in a large Moskowitz continuation family, and the owner has shown willingness to assert double-digit patent counts (Globus; Medtronic 2025). Map your product against the surviving asserted siblings ('913, '022, '319, '643, '740, '386, '367) as well — but weigh that the September 11, 2026 Federal Circuit affirmance gave Globus a product-specific, not industry-wide, win on noninfringement.

Confidence/caveats: The existence, dates, claim sets, grounds, and denial status of IPR2020-01303 and -01304 are well-supported by PTACTS petition text and the printed decision citations; the APJ panel names are from a secondary aggregator (Patexia) and should be confirmed on PTAB E2E; the full reasoning of the -01304 denial and the district-court disposition of the '268 patent were not retrievable within my search budget and are flagged as unverified rather than asserted.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10307268 using web search, starting with the USPTO Assignment Center and cross-referencing litigation/NPE data.

I have strong material. Let me drill into the specific assignment records (reel/frame, correspondent) and Moskowitz Family LLC's NPE/litigation posture.

Ownership & Assignment Reconstruction — US 10,307,268 B2

Patent: US 10,307,268 B2, "Intervertebral expandable implant" — App. No. 15/976,340, filed 2018-05-10, issued 2019-06-04, priority claimed to 60/670,231 (2005-04-12).

Data-access note up front. Google Patents' legal-events feed (sourced from USPTO assignment data) shows recorded reassignments for this patent, so the Assignment Center is not empty. However, the two authoritative sources I could reach did not expose the reel/frame numbers or the recorded assignment correspondent for the two '268-specific entries — only the assignor/assignee/date fields. Where I could not retrieve a reel/frame or correspondent I say so rather than fill it in. Verify the exact reel/frame at the Assignment Center search ( https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ , search "10307268"; mirrored at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html ).

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• The inventor group is a family group, not an employee group: Nathan C. Moskowitz is the father; Mosheh T. and Ahmnon D. are his sons, and all are tied to the same family company (role descriptions per Moskowitz Family LLC's own W.D. Tex. complaint in the sibling Globus case).
• There is no "inventor departure" tell here because there was never an operating-company employer to depart from. The inventors are the owners. That is the opposite of the classic fire-sale precursor.
• One procedural wrinkle worth logging: the file wrapper shows a petition under 37 CFR 1.324 to correct inventorship filed 2019-06-10, docketed alongside the certificate-of-correction request, and treated as an inventorship correction because the patent had already issued (USPTO decision paper, Art Unit 3773). Related applications in the family (e.g., 16/025,667) name an additional inventor, Eric Sugalski, who does not appear on the '268 face. The inventorship of the asserted family has moved around and should be confirmed against the current issue record before relying on it.

Original assignee

Moskowitz Family LLC (Rockville, MD), per the printed assignee block and PubChem's assignee field.

• Product embodying the claims? No evidence of any product. Moskowitz Family LLC ships nothing; it holds and asserts the family's spinal-implant portfolio. The inventions were offered to prospective acquirers/licensees (Medtronic 2005–2016; NuVasive 2010–2011) but were never commercialized by the owner.
• Primary line of business: patent holding / licensing / assertion for the Moskowitz family's spinal-fusion and adjacent portfolio (~56–82 US patents depending on source).
• Current status: operating as a non-practicing IP holder; actively litigating as recently as 2025 (see timeline). Not acquired, not dissolved, not in bankruptcy per any source located.

Assignment timeline

Recorded reassignments as surfaced in the Google Patents legal-events feed for US 10,307,268 (the Assignment Center is the primary source; the fields below are what the feed exposes):

• 2019-02-05 (date shown) / recorded 2019-02-05 — Reel/Frame not retrieved from available sources

  • Conveyance: Assignment ("Assignment of Assignors' Interest")
  • Assignor: Ahmnon D. Moskowitz; Mosheh T. Moskowitz; Pablo A. Valdivia Y. Alvarado
  • Assignee: Nathan C. Moskowitz
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from the sources I reached. For reference, the prosecution correspondent of record is Fish & Richardson P.C. (Customer No. 26191), PO Box 1022, Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022; the certificate-of-correction request was filed by Stuart A. Nelson / Abbey Remer (docket 46440-0009013). Whether Fish & Richardson also served as the recording correspondent is unconfirmed.
  • Context: internal title consolidation — co-inventors' rights funneled into the family principal, a common pre-assertion clean-up step.

• 2019-02-05 (date shown) / recorded 2019-02-05 — Reel/Frame not retrieved from available sources

  • Conveyance: Assignment ("Assignment of Assignors' Interest")
  • Assignor: Nathan C. Moskowitz
  • Assignee: Moskowitz Family LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from the sources I reached (see above).
  • Context: transfer to the family-owned patent-holding/assertion entity that appears as assignee on the face of the patent.

Cross-check / caveat. The same two-step shape (co-inventors → Nathan C. Moskowitz; then Nathan C. Moskowitz → Moskowitz entity) appears in the 37 CFR 3.73(c) statement filed in a sibling Moskowitz patent, which cites Reels 045904/0815, 045636/0075, 045997/0805, 046069/0540, 045586/0373, and 057014/0629. Those reel/frames belong to the sibling patent, not confirmed for the '268 — I am citing them only to show the recording pattern, not as '268 records. Do not attribute them to this patent without Assignment Center confirmation.

No security agreements, mergers, changes of name, licenses, or releases were located for this patent. No post-2019 assignments appear in the feed — the chain appears to terminate at Moskowitz Family LLC.

Litigation context (not assignments, but they bracket the transfer)

• 2019-11-20 — Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., W.D. Tex. 6:19-cv-00672 (asserting '268 among others; later transferred to E.D. Pa. as 2:20-cv-03271 on 2020-07-06).
• 2020-07-20 — Globus IPRs IPR2020-01303 / -01304 filed against the '268; institution denied (decision 2021-01-26). Petitions failed.
• 2025-02-28 — Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. et al., D. Minn. 0:25-cv-00769 (11 patents asserted).
• 2025-06-06 — Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC, D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10307268
    2005 : Priority provisional filed
    2018 : Application 15 976 340 filed
    2019 : Inventors assign to N C Moskowitz
         : N C Moskowitz assigns to Moskowitz Family LLC
         : Patent issued Jun 4
         : Sued Globus Medical
    2020 : Globus IPR filed
    2021 : Globus IPR denied
    2025 : Sued NuVasive
         : Sued Medtronic

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present (in the classic sense). There is no operating-company assignee upstream; the patent went inventors → Nathan C. Moskowitz → Moskowitz Family LLC (both 2019-02-05). Moskowitz Family LLC is a family-held patent holder, not a shell flipped out of a failed operating company. The name suffix is "Family LLC," not "IP/Holdings/Ventures," and I found no registered-agent-service address. Call it non-practicing owner, but the specific "operating → shell" tell is absent.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Moskowitz Family LLC does not match any entity on the supplied lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Spangenberg, etc.). It is nonetheless a repeat plaintiff in its own name against Globus (2019), NuVasive (2025), and Medtronic (2025) — an assertion entity, just not a listed one.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear (insufficient data). I could not retrieve the recorded assignment correspondent for either '268 entry. The recurring name in the file wrapper is Fish & Richardson P.C. (Customer No. 26191) with attorney Stuart A. Nelson, who filed the certificate-of-correction/1.324 papers. That is a prosecution-side constant, not evidence of a recording agent running a shell chain. Not scored as present.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Two assignments, both dated 2019-02-05, both internal to one family. No chained LLCs, no 24-month ladder, no shared-address cluster.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present (but close). Assignment 2019-02-05 vs. first suit 2019-11-20 ≈ 9.5 months — outside the 6-month window. The transfer plainly preceded assertion, but it does not meet the stated 6-month trigger.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No bankruptcy, receivership, or §363 sale located for Moskowitz Family LLC or the inventor group.

7. Privateering — not present. The patent sits with the inventors' own company; no operating manufacturer transferred it to an NPE to assert on its behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN; the owner is an active offensive plaintiff. If anything, this patent is the target of defensive-side activity (Globus's IPR2020-01303).

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

Justification: US 10,307,268 is owned by Moskowitz Family LLC, a family-held patent-holding entity that (a) is recorded as assignee via the 2019-02-05 assignments (inventors → Nathan C. Moskowitz → Moskowitz Family LLC), (b) shows no product in commerce, and (c) asserts the family portfolio offensively — including this patent in Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical (6:19-cv-00672, filed 2019-11-20; IPR2020-01303 denied 2021-01-26), v. NuVasive (1:25-cv-00711), and v. Medtronic (0:25-cv-00769). That non-practicing-owner-plus-assertion posture is the core NPE characteristic. Confidence is held to moderate rather than high because the classic troll-infrastructure tells are absent — no shell chain, no listed asserter, no cascading LLCs, and the transfer fell ~9.5 months before suit (outside the 6-month window) — so this reads as an inventor-owned patent assertion entity, not an assembled troll vehicle.

Caveats on my own work: (i) reel/frame and recorded-assignment correspondent for the two '268 entries were not retrievable from the sources available to me — confirm at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ ; (ii) the two-step inventor→Nathan→LLC structure is inferred from the Google Patents event display plus a sibling patent's 3.73(c) statement, and should be verified against the '268's own Assignment Center records before being relied on in any filing.

I'll research the prior-art citations of US 10,307,268. Let me run several searches in parallel.

Let me pull the front-page citations and the Justia citation list.

Let me try to retrieve the front-page reference lists directly.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,307,268 B2

A. Sourcing note and two flagged discrepancies (read first)

1. Which "database" I actually reached. I could not open the USPTO Patent Full-Text (PatFT) "Referenced By / References Cited" page or Patent Center for this patent in this session; those endpoints did not return content. The citation data below is reconstructed from (a) the Google Patents record for US10307268B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10307268B2/en), (b) the PubChem patent record for US-10307268-B2 (https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-10307268-B2), which reproduces the front-page citation list, and (c) the Information Disclosure Statement text reproduced inside PTAB petition papers at ptacts.uspto.gov (petition artifact 1558746, doc page 77/53), which carries the dated U.S.-patent-document list for the assignee's sibling application 16/744,755. Treat (c) as family IDS data, not as certified front-page data for the '268.

2. Date discrepancy (flagged per operating rules). This task states the current date is April 26, 2026. The previously generated litigation section states a Federal Circuit opinion in No. 24‑1696 issued September 11, 2026, and the session context stamps 2026‑10‑01. Those are mutually inconsistent with an April 26, 2026 "current date." I am not reconciling or auto-correcting them; I flag them as an unresolved contradiction in the source set. Nothing in this prior-art section depends on that opinion.

B. Patent identification (literal, no auto-correction)

Continuity chain recited in the '268 specification (priority documents, not prior art): 15/894,471 (Feb. 12, 2018) ← 13/210,157 (Aug. 15, 2011; now US 9,889,022) ← 13/084,543 (Apr. 4, 2011; now US 8,353,913) and 13/108,982 (May 16, 2011; now US 9,005,293) ← 11/842,855 (Aug. 21, 2007; now US 7,942,903) ← 11/536,815 (Sep. 29, 2006; now US 7,846,188) ← 11/208,644 (Aug. 23, 2005) ← 60/670,231 (Apr. 12, 2005).

Because the '268 asserts a 2005 priority chain and was filed before the AIA first-inventor-to-file transition for pre‑2013 priority, the IPR petitioner treated the operative statute as pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and § 102(e). I do the same below.

C. Front-page U.S. patent documents (citations on/of the '268)

The list below matches the PubChem citation set for US-10307268-B2 and the family IDS text. Publication/issue dates are confirmed only for items 1–21 (from the reproduced IDS table); for the remainder I did not capture dates and will not invent them.

Confirmed (number — date — patentee):

Additional U.S. documents listed (dates not captured in the retrieved source): US 5,665,122; US 5,667,472; US 5,713,912; US 5,782,832; US 5,865,848; US 5,888,223; US 5,916,224; US 5,951,574; US 5,960,522; US 5,968,054; US 5,976,136; US 6,126,689; US 6,224,602; US 6,235,034; US 6,322,562; US 6,342,074; US 6,368,350; US 6,375,682; US 6,419,704; US 6,432,106; US 6,454,807; US 6,458,159; US 6,527,804; US 6,533,818; US 6,558,423; US 6,562,074; US 6,572,653; US 6,579,318; US 6,582,468; US 6,613,055; US 6,629,998; US 6,641,614; US 6,655,243; US 6,706,070; US 6,716,247; US 6,719,794; US 6,723,126; and pre-grant publications US 2002/0068977 A1; US 2002/0143338 A1; US 2002/0143399 A1; US 2003/0130737 A1; US 2004/0088054 A1.

Foreign patent documents: FR 2727003 A1 (confirmed present in the list). I could not confirm whether additional WO/EP/JP/DE documents appear on the '268 face; the PubChem extract truncates before the end of the foreign list.

D. Non-patent literature cited / relied upon

From the IPR papers and the citing patents (Justia/Google Patents text of US 11,376,136 and US 11,903,849), the following NPL exhibits are tied specifically to U.S. Pat. No. 10,307,268:

• Auguste et al., "Expandable cylindrical cages in the cervical spine: a review of 22 cases," J. Neurosurg. Spine 4:285–291 (2006) — Ex. 1006 in IPR2020-01303/01304 ('268).
• Boakye et al., "The Poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) Spacer," Thieme — Ex. 1007 in IPR2020-01303/01304 ('268).
• Centinel Spine product history (retrieved Jun. 4, 2020) — Ex. 1009 in IPR2020-01303 ('268).
• Cheung & Leong, "Spinal Instrumentation Overview in Lumbar Degenerative Disorders: Cages," Ch. 26 — Ex. 1008 in IPR2020-01303 ('268).
• Dickman, "Internal Fixation and Fusion of the Lumbar Spine Using Threaded Interbody Cages," Barrow Quarterly — Ex. 1010 in IPR2020-01303 ('268).
• Dryer, "Affinity Anterior Cervical Cage System," Thieme (2005) — Ex. 1011 in IPR2020-01303 ('268).
• Folman et al. / Tolman et al., "Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Diseases Using a Minimally Invasive B-Twin Expandable Spinal Spacer," J. Spinal Disord. Tech., Oct. 2003, 16(5):455–60 — Ex. 1012 in IPR2020-01304 re '268 (the same exhibit is attributed to Tolman in US 11,376,136's reference list and to Folman elsewhere; both attributions appear in the record).
• Guyer & Ohnmeiss, "Degenerative Disc Disease: Fusion Cages and Dowels," Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Ch. 35 (2004) — Ex. 1013 in IPR2020-01303 ('268).
• Ochoa Declaration, Ex. 1003 in IPR2020-01303/01304 ('268), 127 pp.
• Globus's Petitions for IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 10,307,268, dated Jul. 21, 2020 (75 pp. and related).

E. The most relevant prior art for the '268 (statutory § 102 analysis)

The four references the petitioner actually applied to the '268 claims are the highest-relevance art:

Critical statutory caveat on McLuen. Because the '268 claims a 2005-04-12 priority date and McLuen's effective filing date is November 2005 — after that date — McLuen is only § 102(e) prior art if the challenged claims are not entitled to the 2005 priority (i.e., if the rail/slot claim language is new matter relative to the 2005–2007 priority documents). This is exactly the kind of priority-battle the Board would have had to reach. In the event, the Board never had to decide: both IPRs were denied institution on the merits (see below), so no § 102 finding on McLuen or Chung was ever made.

Adjudicated outcome (grounding, and the reason these are "potential" not "adjudged" anticipations):

• IPR2020-01303 (Globus Medical, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC; U.S. Pat. No. 10,307,268 B2; filed Jul. 20, 2020; challenged claims 1, 3, 5, 7–11, 21–26) — institution DENIED, Paper 7, Jan. 26, 2021 (§ 314(a)); panel: APJs Neil T. Powell (writing), James A. Tartal, James J. Mayberry.
• IPR2020-01304 (same parties/patent; same claim set; different primary art, e.g., Baynham and Chung) — institution DENIED, Paper 7, Jan. 27, 2021.
• Post-institution fees refunded March 2021. The denials do not clear the art; they establish only that petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
• Related sibling patents went to the parallel IPRs IPR2020-01305/01306/01307/01308 (U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,478,319; 8,353,913; 9,889,022) — those are different patents and should not be conflated with the '268.

F. Claim-mapping summary (§ 102 potential)

G. Honest limitations

1. I could not pull the certified front-page 56-references list directly from USPTO PatFT/Patent Center; the list here is from Google Patents, PubChem's reproduction, and a sibling-application IDS reproduced in PTAB filings. Where the three agree (items 1–21), confidence is high; where only PubChem supplies a number, I have listed it without a date rather than guess.
2. I do not have the examiner's actual § 102/§ 103 rejections in 15/976,340 as issued. What is documented is a non-statutory double-patenting rejection in the family (July 16, 2019 action cited in the '319 file), not a specific anticipatory rejection of the '268 claims. If you need the examiner's cited art of record, that requires the '268 file wrapper (Patent Center "Non-Final Rejection"/"Notice of Allowance" exhibits).
3. My § 102 claim mapping reflects petitioner's asserted mapping, not a Board finding — the Board denied institution in both IPRs, so no reference above has been adjudicated as anticipating the '268. I state this explicitly to avoid a false positive.
4. The "prior art date 2005-04-12" shown by Google Patents is the asserted priority date, not a date of an individual reference.

If you want, I can attempt to retrieve the examiner's specific 15/976,340 rejections and the two IPR Paper 7 denials in full so the § 102 column can be replaced with the examiner's and Board's actual characterizations rather than petitioner's.

I'll research the prior art landscape for this patent, focusing on the references used in the IPRs and comparable expandable-implant art.

I have the IPR grounds. Let me get the full claim text and details on the key references.

Let me get the Board's institution decision reasoning and details on the secondary references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 10,307,268 B2 ("Intervertebral expandable implant")

Building on the prior sections: the claim overview, the IPR claim-grouping (independent claims 1, 11, 21; dependents 2–10, 12–20, 22–26), and the observation that the abstract tracks claim 1 nearly verbatim are carried forward. I do not repeat them. Where the claim text below is quoted, it comes from the petition claim charts, which reproduce the '268 claim language verbatim — that is stronger evidence than the inference-based reconstruction in the earlier section, and it does not contradict it.

0. Two threshold issues that govern the whole §103 analysis

(a) Statutory regime. The '268 patent issues from App. No. 15/976,340 (filed May 10, 2018) but claims a priority chain reaching provisional 60/670,231 (Apr. 12, 2005). Globus's petitions were pleaded under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (see the Ground table in the IPR2020-01304 petition: statutory grounds listed as "35 U.S.C. §103(a)"). Source: IPR2020-01304 petition.

(b) The critical date is the single most attackable issue. If claim 1 is entitled to Apr. 12, 2005, then:

• Chung (KR20-0290058, published Sept. 26, 2002) and Allen (U.S. 5,658,335, issued Aug. 19, 1997) qualify as pre-AIA §102(b) art.
• Baynham (US 2007/0270968, published Nov. 22, 2007) and McLuen (US 2006/0253201) do not — they post-date April 2005.

The petition nonetheless relies on Baynham and McLuen, which only works if the specific claimed rail/slot wedge-on-wedge structure is not supported by the 2005–2007 priority documents and instead takes the effective date of the 2011 application (13/210,157, filed Aug. 15, 2011) — or even the 2018 filing itself. This is a live written-description/priority battleground, and it determines which of the two grounds below is even available. I flag it explicitly rather than assuming an answer. Note also that Baynham's own earliest priority is Feb. 10, 2004 (parent App. 10/776,663, now U.S. 7,211,112), but the published application was filed Apr. 27, 2007, so under pre-AIA §102(e) it is art only as of 2007. Source: Baynham US 7,850,733 file data.

Conclusion on (b): Chung-based grounds are robust to the priority question; Baynham/McLuen-based grounds are conditional on the 2011-or-later effective date.

1. Claim 1, as actually recorded in the petition record

The IPR2020-01304 claim chart quotes these limitations of claim 1 verbatim (matching the '268 abstract):

"…wherein the first implant structure defines first and second opposing side surfaces positioned on opposite sides of the first vertebral body engagement surface, wherein the first implant structure defines an end gap between the first and second opposing side surfaces at a first end of the first vertebral body engagement surface, wherein the first vertebral body engagement surface comprises a plurality of ridges extending from the first vertebral body engagement surface, wherein at least some of the ridges are positioned on the first vertebral body engagement surface on opposite sides of the end gap; a second implant structure defining a second angled wedge portion that comprises a first outwardly-facing rail and a second outwardly-facing rail that faces outwardly in a direction opposite that of the first outwardly-facing rail, wherein a first outwardly-facing slot is defined at a location adjacent the first outwardly-facing rail… wherein the first implant structure is slidably-engaged with the second implant structure such that the first angled wedge portion engages the second angled wedge portion with the first inwardly-facing rail … positioned in the first outwardly-facing slot …, the second inwardly-facing rail … positioned in the second outwardly facing slot …, the first outwardly-facing rail … positioned in the first inwardly-facing slot …, and the second outwardly-facing rail … positioned in the second inwardly-facing slot…."

The four-element interlock (rail A→slot B, rail B→slot A, doubled) is the heart of the claim. Everything else (wedges, adjustment screw, ridges, graft holes) is old in this art. Any obviousness case therefore rises or falls on whether the inward/outward rail-slot interlock between two wedge portions was known or obvious.

2. The prior art the record actually relies on

3. Ground A — Chung in view of McLuen and Allen (and Sutcliffe)

(IPR2020-01304, Grounds 1 and 2: claims 1, 3, 5, 7–10 and claims 11, 21–26. Statutory basis pleaded as pre-AIA §103(a).)

3.1 Element-by-element

• Two implant structures with opposing angled wedge portions → Chung's holder bodies (10)(20) and lead/opposing wedges (30)(40) that "narrow or widen the space between the… main holder bodies." Chung's own abstract uses the wedge-adjustment language.
• Rails and slots, inward- and outward-facing → Chung's dovetail grooves (14)(24) along sloped guiding surfaces (13)(23). The petition's mapping asserts a PHOSITA would recognize the dovetail/guide-surface geometry as the recited rails/slots.
• Slidably-engaged interlock → Chung's dovetail joints accomplish exactly the male-in-female sliding guidance the claim requires; the petition states a PHOSITA "would have understood that sliding engagement is accomplished by the first angled wedge portion (13) engaging the second angled wedge portion."
• Plurality of ridges → Chung's saw teeth (12)(22).
• Holes for graft/anchors → Chung's penetrating holes (11)(21).
• Tool-engagement indentations / tool assembly (claims 11, 21 et seq.) → McLuen (indentations on opposing faces; anti-slip) + Allen (cannulated pronged inserter + through-cannula screwdriver).
• Anchors driven bidirectionally (if recited in claims 5 / 21–26) → Sutcliffe (screw passages through the implant into the endplates).

3.2 Why a POSITA would have combined them

1. Same field, same problem. All five references address expandable intervertebral fusion implants inserted into a disc space, expanded by wedge translation driven by a rotary adjuster, and packed with graft. Chung's own stated object — "[maintain] the proper intervals according to the patient's condition [and] freely adjust the height" — is the same objective as the '268 patent's "custom fitting… conforming to the dimensions of the disc space."
2. McLuen supplies a known, expressly-motivated solution to a known problem. McLuen's indentations are disclosed as reducing screwdriver slippage during insertion/expansion. A designer of Chung's device — which requires a wrench inserted through a center hole to turn screw (50) — would have every reason to adopt anti-slip engagement geometry. This is a classic KSR "known problem → known solution" combination.
3. Allen supplies the complementary half of a two-instrument system that Chung implies. Chung already teaches cannulated access ("a wrench (2) is inserted through the center hole"). Allen teaches the same architecture (hold-with-prongs → expand-through-cannula). Substituting Allen's concentric prong/cannula interface for Chung's single concentric threaded hole is a simple substitution of one known interface for another with predictable results (the petition's own articulation, and the expert's at ¶42).
4. Sutcliffe supplies predictable enhancement of primary stability. Both Baynham's and Chung's implants risk expulsion; Sutcliffe teaches integrating endplate screws. Adding screw fixation to a fusion implant is a design choice with a predictable result and no change in the implant's function (expert decl. ¶43).
5. Reasonable expectation of success. All references are mechanically commensurate — same scale, same materials (titanium/PEEK), same actuation principle (rotary screw → wedge translation). No teaching away appears in the record.

4. Ground B — Baynham in view of McLuen, Allen and Sutcliffe

(IPR2020-01303, Ground covering claims 1, 3, 5, 7–11 and a second ground for 11, 21–26.)

4.1 Element-by-element

• Two implant structures each defining an angled wedge portion → Baynham's upper section (11) and lower section (13), whose sidewalls "terminate in an inclined plane," interacting with the wedge-shaped distractor (42).
• Rails/slots slidably-engaged → Baynham's grooves (26)/(35) receiving flanges (43)/(44) — literally a rail-in-slot sliding guide, "maintaining the distractor 42 and the depending sidewalls in alignment." For the outward vs inward facing direction, the petition argues (and the expert agrees at ¶37) that reversing the facing direction "is a simple and predictable substitution that would involve nothing more than an obvious design choice that would yield the identical function."
• Expansion by rotation of an adjusting screw → Baynham's jack screw (67) threaded into tube (29): "The surgeon turns the jack screw 67 causing the upper and lower sections to move along the complementary inclined plane."
• Ridges on the engagement surfaces → Baynham's lands and grooves (15–18), described as providing "better purchase on the end plates."
• Graft apertures → Baynham's large apertures (25)/(30) "to provide for bone ingrowth."
• Anchors / anchor guides (claims 5, and 21–26 if so limited) → Baynham's brackets (70)(71) with countersunk apertures (72–75) and bone screws (76–79), supplemented by Sutcliffe for bidirectional endplate screw guidance.
• Tool assembly / engagement indentations (claims 11, 21 et seq.) → Allen + McLuen.

4.2 Why a POSITA would have combined them

1. Baynham is a unitary two-wedge expandable implant with an interlocking slide guide — the closest single reference to claim 1. Its summary states: "The inclined ramp forms a wedge movable between inclined sidewalls of the main body sections. The main body sections and the inclined ramp form a hollow cube-shaped structure with common open sides."
2. The claim's "end gap" and "ridges on opposite sides of the end gap" are structural incidentals. A hollow-cube implant with open sides and a central graft aperture necessarily defines a gap between opposing side surfaces at the end of the engagement surface. Where a limitation is a predictable consequence of a design the reference already discloses for an unrelated reason (bone ingrowth access), KSR teaches that it is obvious.
3. Baynham expressly invites the tool combination. It discloses proximal indentations but no inserter; Allen discloses the inserter. Filling that express gap is the paradigm of obviousness under KSR ("a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art" — but the converse holds where the combination is a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions).
4. Both Baynham and Chung are complemented identically by McLuen/Sutcliffe, so the motivation analysis in §3.2 items 2–4 carries over.

5. Dependent claims

• Claims 2–10 (dependents of claim 1). The record shows claim 7 as the adjusting-screw/rotation-to-expand limitation; claim 9 appears to add side holes for bone placement; claim 10 appears to add rails/slots enabling relative movement. Each is disclosed or rendered obvious by the corresponding structure in Chung (screw 50; holes 11/21; dovetails 14/24) or Baynham (jack screw 67; apertures 25/30; grooves 26/35). Because these are conventional ancillary features in the same field, secondary references are not strictly required.
• Claims 12–20 (dependents of claim 11) and 22–26 (dependents of claim 21) are rendered obvious by the same primary combination plus McLuen (engagement indentations) and Sutcliffe (screw passages / bidirectional anchors).
• Caveat: I could not verify the verbatim text of dependent claims 2–10, 12–20, 22–26; the above tracks the petition's ground groupings and the parallel '319/'001 family claim charts. Treat claim-specific conclusions as provisional.

6. Objective indicia (secondary considerations)

The record I retrieved contains no evidence of the classic secondary considerations for the '268 patent's claims:

• No unexpected results are asserted for the four-way rail/slot interlock as against Chung's dovetail (a two-way dovetail joint). Both provide sliding guidance; the added element appears to be duplicative, not synergistic.
• No industry praise, licensing, or copying directed to the '268 claims specifically is shown.
• The "gearless" framing in the specification (eliminating wormed driving screws and gears) is an alleged simplification, and simplification of the prior art is generally evidence of obviousness, not against it.
• On the other side, the IPR denials are not, strictly speaking, evidence of nonobviousness — both were §314 "reasonable likelihood" determinations, not final merits adjudications.

7. Honest assessment of the strength of the §103 case

I must be candid about the counterweight, because it materially affects the conclusion:

1. Both IPRs failed at the threshold. IPR2020-01303 and -01304 were denied institution on the merits (Jan. 26 and 27, 2021). That is a real signal that the PTAB did not find the petitions' mappings persuasive as to at least one limitation of at least one challenged claim. I do not have the Board's specific reasoning for the '268 denials, and I will not invent it. (The "non-threaded longitudinal through bore" reasoning I found in search results belongs to IPR2022-01435 on the '001 patent, not the '268 — I am explicitly not importing it.)
2. The rail/slot facing-direction argument is the petition's weakest link. The claim requires rails on the wedge portions facing inward and outward in a mutually interlocking arrangement. Chung and Baynham both use a rail-on-one-member / groove-on-another scheme, not necessarily the dual-facing rail-and-slot-on-each-wedge structure the claim recites. The petition's answer — "a simple and predictable substitution… an obvious design choice" — is exactly the kind of conclusory "obvious to try" reasoning that In re decisions and KSR's cautionary language scrutinize. The Board's denials may well have turned on precisely this.
3. The priority question (§0(b)) is unresolved and, if claim 1 is entitled to Apr. 12, 2005, the Baynham and McLuen grounds collapse entirely and only the Chung/Allen/Sutcliffe ground survives — which is materially weaker because Chung is the less perfect primary reference for the two-wedge-on-wedge architecture.

8. Conclusion

Claim 1 is, in my assessment, more likely than not to be unpatentable as obvious under pre-AIA §103(a) over either:

• (Ground A) Chung (KR20-0290058) in view of McLuen (US 2006/0253201) and Allen (US 5,658,335), further in view of Sutcliffe (US 2002/0143399), if the effective filing date is 2011 or later; or
• (Ground B) Baynham (US 2007/0270968) in view of McLuen, Allen and Sutcliffe — the same combination the petitioner advanced in IPR2020-01303 — again conditional on the later effective date.

For claims 11, 21, and their dependents, the combination is not merely obvious but is a textbook KSR assembly: Chung/Baynham (implant) + McLuen (anti-slip instrument indentations) + Allen (two-instrument cannulated inserter/expander) + Sutcliffe (integrated endplate screws), each element used for its established function with a predictable result.

But I rate this a contested conclusion, not a clean one, because (i) both IPRs were denied institution, (ii) the inward/outward dual-facing rail-and-slot interlock is the one limitation the reference mappings handle least convincingly, and (iii) the entire Baynham/McLuen theory depends on an effective-filing-date determination that the record does not resolve. If the '268 claim 1 is entitled to the Apr. 12, 2005 priority date, I would downgrade the anticipation/obviousness confidence substantially and expect the case to turn on whether Chung's dovetail joints (14)/(24) alone or in trivial combination with Allen/Sutcliffe read on the four-way interlock.

Evidence I could not obtain (stated rather than guessed): the Board's actual reasoning in the IPR2020-01303/01304 denials; verbatim text of claims 11 and 21 of the '268 patent; and the full written-description record bearing on the effective filing date of claim 1. Sources relied on: US10307268B2; IPR2020-01303 petition; IPR2020-01304 petition; KR200290058Y1; US20070270968A1; Globus EX1003 declaration.