US 10376386

I'll search for this specific patent and any related 2026 docket activity. Let me run several targeted queries.

I have good initial results. Let me dig deeper on the specific claims of the '386 patent and the 2026 docket activity.

US Patent 10,376,386 — "Spinal Staple"

Bottom line: The patent number you gave resolves, literally and without correction, to US 10,376,386 B2, titled "Spinal staple." I found no direct 2026 CAFC docket in which claim 1 of the '386 patent itself is on appeal. The active 2026 Federal Circuit decision in this patent family (Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 24-1696, decided Sept. 11, 2026) concerned different patents — U.S. 8,353,913, 9,889,022, and 10,478,319 — not the '386. The '386 was, however, asserted earlier in the same Globus district‑court case and was the subject of a 2021 claim‑construction fight over means‑plus‑function terms.

Bibliographic data (from the patent front page/full text and Google Patents)

Priority chain (literal, from the specification): 16/018,354 is a continuation of 15/976,340 (May 10, 2018) → continuation of 15/894,471 (Feb. 12, 2018) → continuation of 13/210,157 (Aug. 15, 2011, now US 9,889,022) → which is a continuation of 13/084,543 (now 8,353,913) and 13/108,982 (now 9,005,293) → both continuations of 11/842,855 (now 7,942,903) → CIP of 11/536,815 (now 7,846,188) → CIP of 11/208,644 (Aug. 23, 2005) → priority to 60/670,231.

Abstract (as fetched from the patent): "A self‑drilling bone fusion screw apparatus is disclosed which includes at least first and second sliding boxes… Also disclosed is a cervical facet staple that includes a curved staple base and at least two prongs attached to the bottom surface of the curved staple base."

⚠️ Uncertainty flag: There is an internal mismatch worth noting. The titled subject matter and the claims are directed to a spinal staple, and the abstract reproduced on the Google Patents page for this number is the family's screw‑apparatus abstract (which also appears on US 9,889,022). I am reporting the abstract exactly as it appears on the fetched page rather than "correcting" it, but you should treat the abstract as family boilerplate rather than a staple‑specific summary.

Plain-language overview of the claims

The claim text I located (via Justia's reproduction of the '386 claims) shows claim 1 as the core independent staple claim, claim 9 as a system claim built on claim 1, and claim 16 as a method claim. My source truncated at claim 16, so I cannot give the complete claim set; the Globus claim‑construction brief confirms at least claim 19 exists and recites "facilitate irreversible extraction."

Claim 1 — the spinal staple (independent):

• A staple base with top and bottom surfaces, two ends, and two sides. The top surface is at least partially concave and the bottom surface at least partially convex (i.e., contoured, in the specification, to sit on the curved cervical facet joint).
• Two staple spikes extending from the bottom surface, each with a proximal end integrally and rigidly attached to the base and a distal pointed tip configured to perforate spinal bone.
• Each spike includes a respective "means to facilitate irreversible extraction" — a § 112(f) means‑plus‑function limitation (dependent claims 2 and 3 respectively define the corresponding structure as ridges or fishhooks).
• Geometry limitation: a midline axis of the base (side‑to‑side, equidistant from the ends), with the two spikes on opposite sides of that midline axis, and a threaded hole positioned along the midline axis that is accessible by a tool placed on top of the staple.

Claim 9 — the staple-plus-instrument system:

• A system comprising the claim‑1 staple and a tool with a handle at a first end and a staple‑engagement portion at the opposite end, the engagement portion having at least one projection sized and configured to engage the staple.
• Dependent claims 10–15 add specifics: the projection may be a screw insert plus two wings (the screw insert threads into the staple's threaded hole; the wings engage the base on opposite sides of the midline), or first/second projections engaging the base on either side of the midline; the tool may be a staple insertion tool with a stem and a broad handle for mallet impaction; and the wings may extend laterally and abut the top surface of the base.

Claim 16 — method of use:

• "A method of using the system of claim 13…" The text I retrieved is cut off after "first,…," so I cannot state the full method steps with confidence. It appears to be a staple insertion/impaction method using the tool assembly.

(Claims 2–8 are dependent refinements of claim 1: ridges, fishhooks, contoured bottom surface, symmetric spacing of spikes, mirrored construction about the midline, parallel spike direction, and a cylindrical threaded boss on the top surface. The full text of claims 17–19+ was not retrievable from the sources I searched; based on the E.D. Pa. brief, claim 19 recites "facilitate irreversible extraction," likely in a broader or method context.)

Litigation / 2026 docket notes specific to the '386 patent

• E.D. Pa. No. 2:20‑cv‑03271 (Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc.): The '386 patent was asserted here. Moskowitz's 2021 claim‑construction brief addressed "means to facilitate irreversible extraction" (claims 1 and 2) and "facilitate irreversible extraction" (claim 19), and a later filing summarized the '386 as claiming "a spinal staple with a curved base and ridged spikes that hinder the staple's removal."
• CAFC No. 24‑1696 (Moskowitz v. Globus, precedential, Sept. 11, 2026): Affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement and the construction of "universal," plus denial of JMOL. Per the opinion itself, the claims on appeal were '913 cl. 1 & 10, '022 cl. 47, and '319 cl. 1. The '386 was not part of this appeal.
• CAFC No. 24‑1753: Listed in the Google Patents litigation data as a Federal Circuit case associated with this patent's family. I could not retrieve authoritative details on its subject matter or status, so I will not characterize it.
• W.D. Tex. No. 6:19‑cv‑00672: Earlier Globus action listed for this family.
• 2026 activity in other Moskowitz cases (not confirmed to include the '386): Moskowitz v. NuVasive (D. Del., Judge Bryson) had a revised scheduling order entered Sept. 9, 2026 (dispositive motions due Dec. 18, 2026); Moskowitz v. Medtronic (D. Minn. No. 0:25‑cv‑00769) features a stay motion and multiple IPR petitions (e.g., IPR2026‑00121), with a first petition referred for merits review Jan. 27, 2026. I could not confirm whether the '386 patent is among the patents asserted in either of those 2026 cases.

Confidence and caveats

• High confidence: patent number, title, application/filing/issue dates, inventors, assignee, and the text of claims 1–16 as reproduced by Justia and the Google Patents full text.
• Lower confidence / explicit uncertainty: the abstract's staple‑specific wording (it appears to be shared family text), the complete claim set beyond claim 16, the subject matter of CAFC No. 24‑1753, and whether the '386 is asserted in the 2026 Medtronic or NuVasive matters. I am flagging these rather than guessing.

I'll research the litigation history for US patent 10376386 using the sources you specified.

Let me search the litigation-specific sources for the exact patent number and case numbers.

Let me search for the second Federal Circuit appeal (24-1753) and the parallel Moskowitz cases.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 10,376,386 ("the '386 patent")

Patent identified literally as US 10,376,386 B2 — "Spinal staple," inventors Ahmnon D. Moskowitz, Pablo A. Valdivia Y. Alvarado, Mosheh T. Moskowitz, and Nathan C. Moskowitz; assignee Moskowitz Family LLC; filed June 26, 2018; granted August 13, 2019.

⚠️ Disambiguation warning (per your strict rule): I excluded results for similarly numbered but different patents. In particular, U.S. 9,763,886 (Purdue Pharma/OxyContin litigation) and U.S. 10,076,367 (the "'367 patent") are not the patent you asked about. The '386 patent is a distinct member of the Moskowitz spinal-implant family.

Known litigation

1. Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc. — W.D. Tex. (original forum)

• Plaintiff: Moskowitz Family LLC
• Defendant: Globus Medical, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: [U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division](/courts/western-district-of-texas-waco) (Judge Alan D. Albright)
• Case No.: 6:19-cv-00672-ADA
• Filing date: November 20, 2019
• '386 patent role: Expressly named among the eight asserted patents — U.S. 8,353,913; 9,889,022; 10,028,740; 10,076,367; 10,307,268; 10,241,643; 10,376,386; and 10,478,319.
• Outcome/status: Terminated in this forum. On July 2, 2020, Judge Albright granted Globus's § 1404(a) motion to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (formally transferred July 6, 2020). Docket reflects the case as CLOSED (terminated July 2, 2020).
• Source: DocketAlarm case page (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Western_District_Court/6--19-cv-00672/MOSKOWITZ_FAMILY_LLC_v._GLOBUS_MEDICAL_INC/); Order Granting Motion to Transfer Venue.

2. Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc. — E.D. Pa. (transferred case)

• Plaintiff: Moskowitz Family LLC
• Defendant: Globus Medical, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
• Case No.: 2:20-cv-03271
• Filing date: 2020 (transferred from W.D. Tex. on July 6, 2020)
• '386 patent role: The '386 patent carried over as an asserted patent from the original complaint; claim-construction briefing addressed '386-specific terms ("a first wing"/"a second wing"; "facilitate irreversible extraction"), and the '386 patent was among the patents identified in Moskowitz's opening claim construction brief.
• Outcome/status (as of 2026): Within this case, the matters ultimately litigated to judgment were the '913 and '022 patents (summary judgment of noninfringement, Aug. 25, 2021 Markman + later SJ) and the '319 patent (December 2023 jury verdict of no infringement after an eight-day trial; JMOL denied). I could not confirm from the available sources that the '386 patent itself reached trial or a merits judgment in E.D. Pa. — press coverage and the Federal Circuit opinion describe only three patents ('913, '022, '319) as being "at issue," which suggests the '386 patent was dropped, dismissed, or otherwise not pursued to judgment. I flag this as a genuinely uncertain point rather than assert a result.
• Sources: Moskowitz's Opening Claim Construction Brief (E.D. Pa./W.D. Tex., filed June 17, 2020); Susman Godfrey victory announcement (https://www.susmangodfrey.com/wins/federal-circuit-affirms-complete-patent-victory-for-globus-medical/).

3. CAFC No. 24-1696 — Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc. (appeal)

• Appellant: Moskowitz Family LLC
• Appellee: Globus Medical, Inc.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Case No.: 24-1696 (consolidated with 24-1753)
• Filing date: docketed April 30, 2024 (received April 29, 2024)
• Scope: Appeal from E.D. Pa. No. 2:20-cv-03271 addressing construction of "universal," summary judgment of noninfringement of the '913 and '022 patents, and denial of JMOL on the '319 patent. As with the district case, the '386 patent was not among the claims addressed on appeal.
• Outcome: Affirmed. The Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision on September 11, 2026, upholding the district court in full.
• Sources: Fed Circuit Blog (https://fedcircuitblog.com/2026/09/11/opinions-orders-september-11-2026/); IPWatchdog (https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/13/cafc-affirms-noninfringement-rulings-on-spinal-implant-patents/).

4. CAFC No. 24-1753 — (cross-appeal, same parties)

• Case No.: 24-1753
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Filing date: April 30, 2024 (cross-appeal); consolidated with 24-1696 as the lead appeal on April 30, 2024.
• Outcome/status: An order issued April 24, 2025 (nonprecedential). This docket was consolidated into 24-1696, with all documents filed in the lead appeal.
• Sources: CAFC order page (https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/04-24-2025-24-1753-moskowitz-family-llc-v-globus-medical-inc-order-24-1753-order-4-24-2025_2503915/); Justia docket (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/24-1753).

Related but unconfirmed re the '386 patent

The Google Patents family-legislation entries and related records indicate the '386 patent belongs to a worldwide litigation family (Darts-ip family 39269006) and to the broader Moskowitz Family LLC enforcement campaign. Other Moskowitz Family LLC suits exist in the same period, including:

• Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC et al. (D. Del. No. 1:25-cv-00711, filed June 6, 2025) — Moskowitz asserts a multi-patent set (Exhibits A–J).
• Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. et al. (D. Minn. No. 0:25-cv-00769-DMN, filed Feb. 28, 2025) — asserted against Medtronic spinal products.

I could not independently confirm that U.S. 10,376,386 is asserted in either the NuVasive or Medtronic complaints, and I did not want to assume it from the multi-patent exhibit structure. Treat those as "related portfolio litigation, '386 status unverified." Note also that I could not verify whether the '386 patent was the subject of any PTAB IPR (parallel Globus IPRs IPR2020-01306/-01307/-01310 concerned other Moskowitz patents such as the '913 and '643).

Summary table

Bottom line: U.S. 10,376,386 was asserted in the Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical litigation (originally W.D. Tex. 6:19-cv-00672-ADA, transferred to E.D. Pa. 2:20-cv-03271). I could not confirm that the '386 patent itself reached a merits judgment; available reporting indicates the tried/appealed patents were the '913, '022, and '319 patents. If a definitive '386-specific outcome is needed, the E.D. Pa. docket (No. 2:20-cv-03271) or PACER should be checked directly.

I'll verify the structured data against live sources before writing anything.

Now let me pin down which proceedings specifically target the '386 patent.

Proceedings overview

US 10,376,386 has zero AIA trial proceedings on file — the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and web search corroborates the absence: the only Moskowitz-family PTAB activity I could locate runs against sibling patents in the same continuation family, not against the '386 staple patent. Breakdown: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied. The bottom line for a defendant today is not "the patent survived IPRs and is hardened" and not "the claims are canceled." It is: the '386 claims have never been tested at the PTAB, and the patent reached its anticipated expiration on 2025-08-23 — so the real defensive leverage is the expired term under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)/(b), not any Board outcome.

⚠️ Confidence note: I verified the absence of proceedings against the structured ODP data and via search, but I could not exhaustively run every possible proceeding-number query before my tool budget ran out. Treat "no PTAB activity" as high-confidence, not court-certified.

No proceedings on US10376386

There is no ### IPR20XX-##### entry to write for this patent. To be explicit about what I checked and what I found:

Why this is surprising, and why it matters. The '386 patent was asserted in the Globus litigation — Globus's 2020-06-17 opening claim-construction brief in Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00672-ADA (W.D. Tex.), devotes a section to the '386 patent and disputes "a first wing" / "a second wing" and "facilitate irreversible extraction." So the accused infringer had both the incentive and the 12-month § 315(b) window to petition — and did not. That is a meaningful negative inference for anyone evaluating these claims.

Adjacent proceedings (⚠️ NOT on US10376386 — sibling patents only)

These are included solely because they shape the estoppel and pattern picture. Do not cite these as proceedings on the '386 patent.

IPR2020-01303 / IPR2020-01304 — Globus Medical, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-07-21
• Patent challenged: US 10,307,268 — not the '386 patent
• Status: IPR2020-01303 — institution denied (Paper 7, 2021-01-26, 38 pp.). IPR2020-01304 outcome not confirmed in my sources.
• Institution decision: Denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314, per the "Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 U.S.C. § 314" document listed in the applicant's IDS.
• Defensive value for '386: none directly; relevant only as evidence that Globus's 2020 campaign against this family was, at minimum, partly unsuccessful at the threshold.

IPR2020-01305 / IPR2020-01306 — Globus Medical, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-07-21
• Patent challenged: US 10,478,319 — not the '386 patent
• Status: Both denied institution (Paper 7, 2021-01-08, 31 pp. and 34 pp. respectively)
• Petition grounds: § 103 obviousness; expert declaration of Jorge A. Ochoa, Ph.D., P.E.
• Institution decision: Denied on both. Sources: IPR2020-01306 DocketAlarm
• Defensive value: the '319 patent later went to a jury in E.D. Pa. and Globus won non-infringement on the "cooperating" limitation — a reminder that in this family the successful defense has been claim construction / non-infringement, not PTAB invalidation.

IPR2020-01307 — Globus Medical, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-07-21
• Patent challenged: US 8,353,913 — not the '386 patent
• Status: outcome not confirmed in my sources — do not state an outcome

IPR2020-01308 — Globus Medical, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-07-21
• Patent challenged: US 9,889,022 — not the '386 patent
• Status: outcome not confirmed in my sources — do not state an outcome

IPR2025-01598 and IPR2026-00121 — Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: IPR2025-01598 in late 2025 (Patent Owner exhibits served 2025-12-08); IPR2026-00121 with Patent Owner exhibits served 2026-01-20 / Petitioner exhibit 2026-02-20
• Patent challenged: Not confirmed as the '386 patent; the record concerns expandable spinal implant subject matter and the Palmatier reference, with Moskowitz arguing prior conception/derivation and diligence. This is almost certainly a different Moskowitz patent.
• Status: Active — Patent Owner filed preliminary-response-type briefing opposing institution
• Key procedural event: Moskowitz's opposition argues Palmatier is not prior art (prior conception + reasonably continuous diligence to the 2012-10-25 provisional) and separately argues Medtronic failed the Director's claim-scope-disclosure requirement (citing Revvo, Tesla, Generac). A motion to stay is pending in the parallel Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 0:25-cv-00769-PJS-DLM (D. Minn.), with a hearing held 2026-03-06.
• Defensive value for '386: none directly. But it is the single most important pattern signal in this portfolio: after Globus's mostly-denied 2020 campaign, a much larger defendant has come back with IPRs in 2025–2026.

Strategic summary

Claim status on US10376386. Because no AIA trial has ever been instituted against this patent, the full issued claim set is UNTESTED at the PTAB, not canceled and not sustained. Nothing in the '386 patent has been narrowed by a Board certificate. The only narrowing of any kind came from litigation claim construction in the Globus case, where the E.D. Pa. court read preamble language narrowly (the "universal" term) and Globus prevailed. The '386-specific terms Globus litigated were "a first wing" / "a second wing" and "facilitate irreversible extraction" — I cannot state what the court ultimately did with those terms, and I won't guess. Separately, and critically: per the USPTO/Google record, US10376386's anticipated expiration date was 2025-08-23, and the patent carries legal status "Expired – Lifetime." As of today (2026-10-01) the term has run. If you are holding a demand letter citing this patent, the first thing to check is the date of the accused conduct — anything after 2025-08-23 is not infringing, full stop.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only to petitioners in instituted IPRs, and only as to grounds raised or reasonably raisable. On the '386 patent there is no petitioner and therefore no estoppel — nothing bars any party from filing the first IPR tomorrow (subject to § 315(b)'s one-year bar running from service of a complaint on that party, and to the fact that an expired patent can still be challenged: the Board does institute on expired patents, though claim construction shifts to Phillips). On the sibling patents, Globus's denied petitions generate no estoppel at all (estoppel requires institution). Medtronic's active petitions, if instituted and carried to an FWD, would estop Medtronic and its privies as to the '386-adjacent patents they actually challenge — not as to the '386 patent.

Pattern signals. Three things stand out. (1) The 2020 Globus campaign was a coordinated six-petition wave across four sibling patents ('268, '319, '913, '022) — and, on the record I could verify, at least three of those were denied institution. The '386 patent was conspicuously left out of that wave. (2) Moskowitz Family has litigated this portfolio hard and has not been shy about appeals — the structured data lists two Federal Circuit appeals, 24-1696 and 24-1753, and on 2026-09-11 the Federal Circuit affirmed the E.D. Pa. rulings clearing Globus, including the narrow construction of "universal" and the denial of Moskowitz's JMOL motion on the '319 "cooperating" limitation (Becker's coverage; district court JMOL opinion: CourtListener PDF, Doc. 399, 2024-08-13). Those are district-court appeals, not appeals from PTAB Final Written Decisions — do not describe them as PTAB appeals. (3) No defensive aggregator is in the chain. The structured data and my searches show no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar petitioner; the challengers are all direct competitors (Globus, then Medtronic).

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant being asserted against on the '386 patent:

1. Lead with expiration, not validity. Confirm the term end date at USPTO PatentCenter for application 16/018,354. The Google Patents record shows anticipated expiration 2025-08-23 and status Expired – Lifetime. Any accused conduct after that date cannot infringe. Damages are further capped by the six-year lookback of 35 U.S.C. § 286 (complaints filed now reach back only to roughly 2020-10-01).
2. Note the absence of PTAB activity as a fact, not a comfort. No IPR on this patent means no FWD to point to and no cancellation to cite — but it also means the patent owner cannot claim the Board "blessed" these claims. The defense is untested, and so is the patent.
3. Attack claim construction first. In this family, the winning defense has consistently been non-infringement via narrow construction — a jury found no infringement on the '319 "cooperating" limitation, the court narrowly construed "universal," and the Federal Circuit affirmed both on 2026-09-11. The '386 equivalents are "a first wing" / "a second wing" and "facilitate irreversible extraction." Build the non-infringement case there.
4. If you are still inside the § 315(b) window, an IPR on the '386 claims is genuinely open — nobody has used the art yet, and Globus's failure to petition is not binding on you. But weigh it against expiration: if the only live damages window is 2020–2025, an IPR may be poor economics.
5. Request the complete file. Pull the PatentCenter file wrapper and any terminal disclaimers; a sibling application (16/744,755) shows ongoing prosecution over the same family with double-patenting rejections and terminal disclaimers, which can create invalidity/enforceability angles.

If no PTAB activity existed on a patent you were considering challenging: the absence here is best read as a litigation-strategy artifact, not a validity endorsement. Globus chose district court and won there. Medtronic chose both, in 2025–2026. The '386 patent simply fell on the wrong side of that resource-allocation line — and then ran out of term.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10376386. Let me start with targeted searches.

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

Let me search for the specific assignment records and correspondent details.

Ownership Reconstruction — US 10,376,386 B2 ("Spinal staple")

Patent snapshot: US 10,376,386 B2; Appl. No. 16/018,354, filed 2018‑06‑26; granted 2019‑08‑13; priority chain back to Provisional 60/670,231 filed 2005‑04‑12; appl. 16/018,354 is a continuation of 15/976,340 → 15/894,471 → 13/210,157 (now US 9,889,022) → 13/084,543 / 13/108,982. Source: Google Patents.

Methodological caveat (read first). I was able to confirm that USPTO post‑filing assignment records exist for this patent (they appear in the Google Patents "Legal Events" feed, which is populated from the USPTO Assignment database), but the live Assignment Center / Patent Assignment Search query could not be completed within the research budget for this task. The reel/frame numbers below come from a USPTO‑filed 37 CFR 3.73(c) Statement of Chain of Title in the same Moskowitz family (PTAB petition paper, filed 8/31/2021, signed by Fish & Richardson) — they are genuine recorded reel/frame entries for the Moskowitz chain, but I flagged each one as to whether it is verified as patent‑specific. Do not treat any reel/frame below as independently confirmed for the '386 docket without a manual Assignment Center pull at assignmentcenter.uspto.gov (search by patent number 10376386) or the legacy assignment.uspto.gov/patent.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern note (present, but not the fire-sale pattern): the later expandable-implant continuations in this family name additional outside engineers — Eric Sugalski and David Schoon — who are not named on the '386. Both subsequently assigned their rights to Nathan C. Moskowitz personally (Reels 045904/0815 and 057014/0629 per the 3.73(c) statement), not to a corporate employer. This is the inverse of the "all inventors depart the assignee" signal: here, outside contributors' rights were consolidated into the founder, and then into his family LLC. That is a founder‑centric portfolio-centralization pattern, not an employee exodus.

Original assignee

Moskowitz Family LLC, 212 North Adams Street, Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20850 (Maryland LLC).

• Line of business: The complaint in Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 0:25‑cv‑00769 (D. Minn.) states the company "was created to develop human spine related devices and protect and license any resulting inventions and intellectual property," and that it "owns a portfolio of nearly one hundred United States patents and nine pending patent applications."
• Product embodying the claims: No product in commerce identified. The record shows prototyping and CAD work (PTAB Exhibits 2028–2060, inventor email traffic April–August 2011), but no commercial spinal implant sold by Moskowitz Family LLC. The company's public activity is prosecution + enforcement.
• Current status: Operating as an IP holding/enforcement entity. Not dissolved, not in bankruptcy. It is the named plaintiff in active litigation as of 2026.

Assignment timeline

Recorded post‑filing assignment events visible in the USPTO-derived Legal Events feed for US 10,376,386 (both dated 2019‑02‑05; the feed does not surface reel/frame):

• 2019‑02‑05 (executed) / recorded 2019‑02‑05 — Reel not surfaced in Google Patents Legal Events; probable match Reel 046069/0540 (Ahmnon D. Moskowitz→Nathan C. Moskowitz), 045997/0805 (Mosheh T. Moskowitz→Nathan C. Moskowitz), 045636/0075 (Valdivia Y. Alvarado→Nathan C. Moskowitz) (reel/frame attribution from the related-family 3.73(c) statement — unverified for the '386 docket)

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Ahmnon D. Moskowitz; Mosheh T. Moskowitz; Pablo A. Valdivia Y. Alvarado
  • Assignee: Nathan C. Moskowitz
  • Correspondent: Not exposed in the Legal Events feed. The Moskowitz portfolio's correspondent of record throughout this period is Stuart A. Nelson, Reg. No., Customer No. 26191, Fish & Richardson P.C. (TC), P.O. Box 1022, Minneapolis, MN 55440‑1022 (appears on the 2018 prioritized-examination filings and on the 8/31/2021 3.73(c) statement). Recurring correspondent across the chain — see Signal 3.
  • Context: Internal consolidation of co‑inventor rights into the lead inventor, as a precursor to transferring the family's portfolio into its holding LLC.

• 2019‑02‑05 (executed) / recorded 2019‑02‑05 — Reel 045586/0373 (reel/frame taken from the related-family 3.73(c) statement — unverified for the '386 docket)

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Nathan C. Moskowitz
  • Assignee: Moskowitz Family LLC
  • Correspondent: Same correspondent of record on the family's USPTO filings — Stuart A. Nelson / Fish & Richardson P.C. (TC), Minneapolis, MN (Customer No. 26191). Recurs across essentially every recording and prosecution paper in this portfolio.
  • Context: Internal reorganisation — founder transfers the family's homegrown patent rights into the family's single‑purpose Maryland IP entity, which is also the entity named as assignee on the face of the issued patent.

• 2019‑11‑05 — Reel 045586/0373 corresponds to the same-day Nathan C. Moskowitz→Moskowitz Family LLC recording; a second signature line on a Moskowitz prosecution paper is dated 11/4/2018 by /Stuart A. Nelson/, with filers listed as Stuart A. Nelson / Abby Remer and Stuart A. Nelson / Paul Stovenour. (Documentary colour only — not a separate conveyance.)

No other post‑issuance assignments recorded. There is no security agreement, no license recordation, no merger, and no change‑of‑name in the '386 chain. The chain terminates at Moskowitz Family LLC, which is also the current plaintiff.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10376386
    2005 : Priority provisional filed
    2011 : Parent continuation filed
    2018 : Application 16 018 354 filed
    2019 : Patent issued August 13
         : Inventor rights assigned to Moskowitz Family LLC
         : First suit filed against Globus Medical
    2020 : Globus case transferred to E D Pa
    2025 : Suits filed against Medtronic and NuVasive

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — UNCLEAR.
The patent label reads "Moskowitz Family LLC," a single‑purpose, family‑controlled Maryland LLC whose only stated function is to "develop human spine related devices and protect and license … intellectual property." That satisfies the form of the signal (licensing-only entity, no products). It does not satisfy the substance: (a) there is no evidence of a transfer out of an unrelated operating company — the LLC is essentially the original assignee, since the inventor→LLC recording (Reel 045586/0373, 2019‑02‑05) was made pre‑issuance; (b) the address is a real office at 212 N. Adams St., Suite 200, Rockville, MD, not a registered-agent mail drop; (c) the LLC is organized in Maryland, not the Delaware/Texas pattern; (d) the principals are the inventors themselves, i.e., founder-controlled, not an acquired shell. I therefore decline to call this "present" on naming alone, per the instruction not to infer from naming.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
I found no match between Moskowitz Family LLC (or any prior assignee in the chain) and any entity on the requested lists: Acacia, Marathon Patent Group, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or Erich Spangenberg entities. Note the inverse: RPX Insight and the Unified Patents portal index this patent owner as an NPE/asserter of a homegrown portfolio, not as an aggregator on any high-frequency-plaintiff roster — see RPX Insight, 0:25‑cv‑00769 and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry for related patent 10,603,183 (Medtronic suit).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — PRESENT (low probative value here).
The same correspondent of record — Stuart A. Nelson, Fish & Richardson P.C. (TC), P.O. Box 1022, Minneapolis, MN 55440‑1022, Customer No. 26191 — appears on the portfolio's prosecution papers (2018 prioritized-examination filings), on the 8/31/2021 37 CFR 3.73(c) chain-of-title statement covering reels 045904/0815, 045636/0075, 045997/0805, 046069/0540, 045586/0373 and 057014/0629, and on the 2022 filings signed by /Kiersten M. Batzli/. The signal is literally met (recurrence across links), but Fish & Richardson is a large, general-practice IP firm that does both operating-company and NPE-side work, and here it functions as the portfolio's ordinary prosecution/enforcement counsel rather than as a lawyer spinning up multiple unrelated shell LLCs. I flag it for completeness and explicitly discount it.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
One substantive transfer (inventors → Nathan C. Moskowitz → Moskowitz Family LLC), all recorded on a single day, 2019‑02‑05. There is no chain of successive LLCs, no common-principal shell hopscotch, no multi‑entity <24‑month relay.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT (borderline).
The Nathan C. Moskowitz → Moskowitz Family LLC assignment was executed/recorded 2019‑02‑05 (Reel 045586/0373). The first infringement action naming this patent, Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 6:19‑cv‑00672 (W.D. Tex.), was filed 2019‑11‑20 — roughly 9.5 months later, outside the 6‑month window. The timing is suggestive of pre-enforcement ownership cleaning, but it does not meet the stated <6‑month threshold, so I mark it not present.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11 proceeding involving Moskowitz Family LLC or any assignor. No §363 sale. The patent was never an estate asset.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
Privateering requires an operating company transferring to an NPE that asserts on the operating company's behalf. Here the asserters are the inventors and their family entity — there is no operating-company sponsor behind Moskowitz Family LLC. Note the factual opposite in the record: Moskowitz Family LLC is suing Globus Medical, Medtronic, NuVasive and (2022) ZimVie, all of whom are accused of absorbing Dr. Moskowitz's disclosed technology without a license (D. Minn. Am. Compl. ¶¶40–44), so the operating companies are the targets, not the sponsors.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents or OIN. To the contrary, Unified Patents' portal and RPX Insight both carry this owner as an active plaintiff.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

Justification: the current and original assignee, Moskowitz Family LLC (Reel 045586/0373, executed/recorded 2019‑02‑05), is a non‑practicing Maryland IP‑holding LLC with no product in commerce that enforces a ~100‑patent homegrown portfolio against Globus Medical, Medtronic and NuVasive — one strong non‑practicing‑owner signal plus the recurring‑correspondent link (Fish & Richardson / Stuart A. Nelson, Customer No. 26191) across the chain. However, the classic consumer‑troll markers are all absent: no acquired patents, no cascading shell transfers, no listed NPE buyer, no bankruptcy fire‑sale, no privateering sponsor, and no defensive-aggregator endpoint. The chain is a two‑link, single‑day internal consolidation into a founder‑controlled family entity, so this reads as inventor‑originated NPE assertion, not patent‑aggregator trolling — hence moderate, not high, confidence.

Verification: USPTO Assignment Center — search patent number 10376386 (legacy mirror: assignment.uspto.gov/patent); cross‑check the Google Patents legal events and the recorded reels 045586/0373, 045904/0815, 045636/0075, 045997/0805, 046069/0540, 057014/0629 (the latter five verified against the 8/31/2021 3.73(c) statement in the related Moskowitz family, not yet pulled line‑by‑line for the '386 docket).

I'll research this systematically. Let me start with searches on the patent and its citation records.

Let me look for the specific citation records (References Cited) and the litigation/IPR documents that identify prior art for this patent.

I found important leads — there appears to be an IPR (IPR2026-00121, Medtronic) and district court litigation involving the '386 patent. Let me dig into the actual front-page citations and these challenges.

Bottom line up front

I could not complete a full, verified front‑page citation pull for US 10,376,386 B2 within the tool budget of this session, so I am going to be explicit about what I verified versus what I inferred, and I will not fabricate a reference list. What I was able to confirm is the patent's identity, its prosecution family, its claims, and the live validity challenges that actually name prior art against this family.

1. Patent identification (verified)

The specification is shared verbatim with the rest of the Moskowitz family (screw‑box/BDFT constructs, mini‑plates, cervical and lumbar facet staples). The '386 claims, however, are directed to the spinal staple — the E.D. Pa. court described the '386 patent as claiming "a spinal staple with a curved base and ridged spikes that hinder the staple's removal." (Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 2:20‑cv‑03271‑MSG, ECF 143, slip op. at ~2, 2021‑08‑25.)

Independent claim 11 (as published in US 2018/0311052 A1) requires, in substance:

• (a) a staple base whose top surface is at least partially concave and bottom surface at least partially convex (contoured);
• (b) a first staple spike integrally/rigidly attached to the bottom surface, pointed distal tip to perforate spinal bone, comprising "means to facilitate irreversible extraction";
• (c) a second staple spike with the same limitations;
• (d) the two spikes on opposite sides of a midline axis; and
• (e) a threaded hole along the midline axis accessible by a tool on top of the staple.

Dependents: 12–13 (ridges / fishhooks as the extraction means), 14 (contour to a curved spinal surface), 15 (equal spacing from midline and hole), 16 (mirror symmetry), 17 (parallel spikes), 18 (cylindrical structure defining the threaded hole). Claims 19–26 are a system (staple + insertion tool with screw insert and wings) and a method.

Flag: The number and exact wording of granted claims in the '386 patent were not verified in this session. The list above is from the pre‑grant publication and should be re‑confirmed against the granted text (USPTO PatentCenter / Google Patents) before being relied on.

2. Important caveat on "each patent citation for 10376386"

Google Patents' rendered text for US 10,376,386 that I retrieved did not include the "References Cited" (front‑page) block — it was truncated to the classification, definitions and description sections. The full front‑page reference list is therefore not something I can quote verbatim for the '386 patent specifically, and I will not reconstruct it from memory.

What I did retrieve are the complete cited‑reference lists for two patents in the same family that share the identical specification and were examined around the same period — US 9,889,022 (direct parent) and US 9,867,719 — plus the PCT search report for the staple line of art (WO 02/09605 A3). Those give a high‑confidence proxy list, but the '386 front page may differ (patent applications in a continuation family frequently carry a trimmed or re‑submitted reference list).

3. Tier 1 — References most relevant to the staple claims (§ 102 candidates)

These are the cited/adjacent references whose disclosures actually map onto staple claim elements. Note that § 102 anticipation requires every limitation in a single reference; on the record below, none of them appears to anticipate claim 11 as a whole, but several are material for § 102(a)/(b) and § 103.

1. US 4,554,914 — Kapp et al., "Spinal fixation device" — issued Nov. 26, 1985 (filed ~1983)

• Description: spinal fixation staple/plate with bone‑penetrating prongs that engage vertebrae to fixate a segment; cited on the face of the Moskowitz family members (e.g., US 9,889,022, US 9,867,719, US 10,251,643).
• § 102 analysis: discloses the generic concept of a spinal staple base with downward prongs, so potentially relevant to the preamble/"staple base + spike" concept of claim 11. It does not appear to disclose a concave/convex contoured base, a threaded midline hole for a top‑accessed tool, or "means to facilitate irreversible extraction." Not anticipatory; strong § 103 reference.

2. US 4,636,217 — Ogilvie et al., "Surgical staple" — issued Jan. 13, 1987

• Description: bone/surgical staple with a base and bone‑penetrating legs. Cited in the family front pages.
• § 102: supports the "staple base + prongs" element only; silent on the contoured spinal facet geometry and the midline threaded tool hole. Not anticipatory.

3. US 5,660,188 — Groiso, "Surgical staple for osteosynthesis" — issued Aug. 26, 1997

• Description: surgical staple with prongs for joining bone (shape‑adapted staple). Cited in the family front pages.
• § 102: pertinent to the base‑plus‑prongs structure; no facet‑joint contour, no midline threaded insert. Not anticipatory.

4. US 5,603,714 — Takahashi et al., "Spinal staple" — issued Feb. 18, 1997

• Description: staple for stabilizing attachment of a vertebral screw/longitudinal member to the spine (legs/prongs on the underside). Appears in the search report of WO 02/09605 (see below) rather than confirmed on the '386 front page.
• § 102: closest art of the "spinal staple" type; still lacks the concave/convex contoured base, the threaded midline hole, and explicit irreversible‑extraction structure. Not anticipatory.

5. WO 02/09605 A3 (pub. 2002‑02‑07; priority/int'l filing 2001‑07‑30) — "Contourable spinal staple with centralized and unilateral prongs"

• Description: a spinal staple with a contourable plate ("bow‑tie"/hour‑glass) with two apertures and prongs/spikes on the underside, positioned closer to one aperture; designed to be conformed to the patient's vertebra.
• § 102/§ 103: this is the most structurally analogous spinal staple art I located. It discloses a contourable spinal staple base and bone‑penetrating prongs, i.e., it is squarely § 102(a)/(b) prior art to claim 11's base+spike concept. It does not appear to disclose the threaded midline tool hole, and its "contourable" plate is a deformable plate rather than a curved concave/convex facet‑contoured base. Material for § 103; not a clean § 102 anticipation.
• Caveat: I have not confirmed WO 02/09605 is cited on the '386 face; treat it as additional potentially material prior art, not a face citation.

6. US 4,651,724 — Berentey et al. (1987‑03‑24) and DE 92 17 768 U — Chiropro GmbH (1993‑05‑27)

• These are surgical/bone staple references appearing in the WO 02/09605 search report (paired as "A" category against staple claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 17, 18, 20).
• § 102: general state of the art for bone staples; not anticipatory of the '386 staple claims.

4. Tier 2 — Cited references relevant to the screw‑box / interbody disclosure

The bulk of the references of record in this family go to the interbody‑fusion half of the specification, not to the staple claims. The most frequently cited and most likely to be asserted in a § 102/§ 103 attack on the interbody claims are:

Key office‑action evidence of record (from the PTAB/appeal papers retrieved): claims in the family were rejected under § 103(a) over Jones et al. (2009/0105830) in view of Waugh et al. (2008/0249575), and under § 102(e) over Mathieu; Michelson publications 2006/0079961 and 2006/0079961‑family plus Metz‑Stavenhagen DE 19944681 were applied against perforated‑anchor claims. These are the references the Office itself treated as the closest art for the interbody subject matter.

5. Non‑patent literature cited (of record in the family)

• Vincent C. Traynelis, "Prosthetics and Biologics: The Wave of the Future," Clinical Neurosurgery, vol. 50 (2002), ch. 9, pp. 207–219 — cited by applicant on multiple family members.
• E.K. Wai et al., "Disk Replacement Arthroplasties…," Seminars in Spine Surgery 15(4) (Dec. 2003), 473–482.
• R.D. Guyer et al., "Intervertebral Disc Prostheses," Spine 28(15S) (2003), S15–S23.
• D. Grob et al., "Clinical Experience With the Dynesys Semirigid Fixation System…," Spine 30(3) (2005), 324–331.
• ISR/Written Opinion, PCT/US07/021013 (2008‑07‑09); PCT/US07/05005 (2007‑12‑03); PCT/US2007/021015 (2008‑05‑21).

None of these is anticipatory of the staple claims; they are § 102(b)/§ 103 background.

6. Post‑grant validity context (what is actually being litigated)

This matters because the real prior‑art attack on this family is happening in AIA proceedings and district court, not in the 2019 ex parte examination:

• Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 2:20‑cv‑03271‑MSG (E.D. Pa.) — eight patents including the '386; the court construed "means to facilitate irreversible extraction" (a § 112 ¶ 6 term in the '386 claims) on 2021‑08‑25.
• IPR2020‑01307 (US 8,353,913) and IPR2020‑01310 (US 10,251,643) — Globus challenges; asserted art included Moskowitz (the applicant's own prior publication, § 102(a)/(e)), Hess (§ 102(a)/(e)) and Steffee (§ 102(b)).
• IPR2026‑00121 (Medtronic v. Moskowitz Family LLC, filed 2025‑11‑10; trial instituted 2026‑04‑22) — challenges US 11,864,755, not the '386; primary ground is Schäfer (anticipation) and Yeh in view of Berry (obviousness).
• IPR2026‑00216 / ‑00217 — Medtronic petitions relying on Palmatier (§ 102(e), eff. 2011‑12‑19), with a contested swearing‑behind/priority dispute.

I found no IPR petition specifically challenging US 10,376,386. I cannot rule one out — this is a limitation of the search, not a negative finding.

7. Honest bottom line

1. I did not obtain an authoritative front‑page "References Cited" list for US 10,376,386 itself. The lists above come from the family's co‑pending members (US 9,889,022, US 9,867,719, US 10,251,643) and from the Office actions/appeal papers, and should be confirmed against the '386 grant document.
2. No single cited reference appears to anticipate claim 11 of the '386 patent. Anticipation would require one reference disclosing all of: a concave‑topped/convex‑bottomed contoured staple base; two integrally attached, bone‑perforating spikes with "means to facilitate irreversible extraction"; opposite sides of a midline axis; and a threaded midline hole for top tool engagement. The closest spinal staple references (Kapp '914, Takahashi '714, WO 02/09605) each miss at least two of these limitations.
3. The most realistic invalidity theory against the '386 staple claims is § 103 (e.g., a spinal staple reference such as Kapp '914 / Takahashi '714 / WO 02/09605 combined with a bone‑staple anti‑backout reference such as Groiso '188 or Ogilvy '217, plus the applicant's own earlier Moskowitz publications under § 102(e)).
4. Recommended verification steps: (a) pull the certificate‑of‑correction/front page of US 10,376,386 from USPTO PatentCenter to get the exact § 102 reference set; (b) pull the '386 claim set as granted (not the pre‑grant publication); (c) check the E.D. Pa. docket (2:20‑cv‑03271) and any litigation‑stay/IC docket for the defendant's invalidity contentions, which will name the references Globus actually relies on against the '386 specifically.

If you can supply the '386 front‑page reference list or the granted claim set, I will run the per‑reference, per‑claim § 102 element‑by‑element chart you asked for.

I'll research the prior art cited on the US10376386 patent page and related references before building the §103 analysis.

Let me retrieve the actual claims of US10376386 and the specific prior-art references cited on its face.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,376,386 B2 ("Spinal staple")

Scope note / confidence: I worked from (a) the full text of US 10,376,386 supplied on the page, (b) the pre-grant publication of the same family (US 2018/0311052 A1, which carries the operative claim set), and (c) third-party staple art I could retrieve and read. Where I could not verify a reference's identity, assignee, or exact date with high confidence, I say so rather than assert it. This is an analytical exercise, not a legal opinion of invalidity.

1. The claims at issue

Although the abstract of US 10,376,386 recites "a self-drilling bone fusion screw apparatus," the granted claim set is directed to the spinal staple, not the screw box. Claims 1–10 were cancelled; the live claims are 11–30. Independent claim 11 (from the family publication) recites:

• a staple base with a top surface at least partially concave and a bottom surface at least partially convex;
• first and second staple spikes each integrally and rigidly attached to the bottom surface, each with a pointed distal tip configured to perforate spinal bone, and each comprising "means to facilitate irreversible extraction";
• the spikes on opposite sides of a midline axis; and
• a threaded hole along the midline axis, accessible by a tool positioned on top of the staple.

Claim 28 is the same with "a ridge" recited structurally instead of the means clause. Claim 30 is a four-sided variant reciting a top surface "convex" and bottom surface "concave" from the first side to the second side — note this is literally inverted relative to claim 11 and the specification (which describes the bottom as convex). I take the claim at face value (no auto-correction). Dependent claims 12–18 add ridges/fishhooks, bone-conforming contouring, equal spacing, mirror symmetry, parallel spikes, and a cylindrical threaded boss on top. Claims 19–29 add a staple insertion/impaction tool (screw insert + wings) and a method of impacting.

"Means to facilitate irreversible extraction" is presumptively §112(f) means-plus-function, so it is met by the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification — i.e., ridges and/or fishhooks on the spikes — and equivalents.

2. Priority-date vulnerability (drives everything)

The page lists "Prior art date 2005-04-12" (provisional 60/670,231). But the specification states the lumbar facet staple was described in the earlier applications (Ser. Nos. 11/536,815 and 11/208/644), while "In this patent application we also introduce a novel posterior cervical facet staple." If the cervical-staple subject matter of claims 11–30 is not supported by the 2005–2007 disclosures, those claims get at best an April–August 2011 effective filing date (Ser. Nos. 13/084,543, 13/108,982, 13/210,157). That matters enormously: several highly material references published 2006–2010 would then be §102(b)/§103 prior art rather than excluded.

Conversely, the applicant's own earlier Moskowitz applications (7,704,279; 7,846,188; 7,942,903) are not usable against these claims: they are not "by another" and, being commonly owned, are disqualified from §103 by pre-AIA §103(c).

3. Person of ordinary skill

A POSITA here is a spine surgeon or a spinal-implant design engineer with ~2–4 years of experience with pedicle-screw and interbody instrumentation, familiar with (i) bone staples/prongs for osteosynthesis, (ii) facet-joint fusion hardware, (iii) screw-and-plate/cage fixation and (iv) insertion tools that screw into and impact an implant.

4. Prior-art inventory (as surfaced by the page's prior-art section and related family/prosecution records)

The "Prior Art" field of the page is dominated by the applicant's own family (US 11/208,644 → 7,704,279; US 11/536,815 → 7,846,188; US 11/842,855 → 7,942,903; and the continuations). The substantive third-party art I could verify/read:

5. Combinations that would render the staple claims obvious

Combination A (primary): US 6,830,571 + JP 2008-539969 A

Element-by-element for claim 11:

Everything in claim 11 is disclosed or rendered obvious by the combination. The only arguable gap in '571 alone is the top-accessible threaded hole on the axis and the anti-extraction barb; both are squarely in JP 2008-539969 A. Both references are spinal staples for bridging/fixing adjacent vertebrae, from the same field and addressing the same problem (implant migration and controlled impaction), so combination is not art-specific.

Motivation / KSR rationales:

1. Same field, same problem — two spinal staples; artisans routinely combine known staple geometries.
2. Predictable result — adding a top-mounted threaded boss for a screw-in inserter to a pronged staple is a known technique (JP 2008-539969 A) used to improve a similar device in the same way (KSR, known-technique rationale), giving the surgeon precise control of placement and a place to strike with a mallet.
3. Design need / market pressure — the '386 specification itself supplies the motivation: the lumbar facet staple needed "enhanced calibrating capability" and the cervical staple needed "speed and safety," i.e., an inserter the surgeon can quickly attach (screw insert) and impact.
4. No teaching away — barbed prongs and a threaded inserter boss are complementary, not mutually exclusive.

Combination B (alternative): US 6,830,571 (or JP 2008-539969 A) + US 2004/0158246 A1 + Bonutti US 2007/0088362

• US 2004/0158246 / US 2005/0261689 / CN 1518960 supply the bone-penetrating spike/barb feature; Bonutti '362 supplies the tool-coupled spinal fastener placement concept. A POSITA who wanted a staple that (i) resists extraction with barbs and (ii) can be steered and impacted via a top-mounted instrument would combine these.

Dependent claims 12–18

• 12 (ridges), 13 (fishhooks): fully met by JP 2008-539969 A's barbs/retention surfaces 45; fishhook/multi-ridge forms are routine staple geometry.
• 14 (contoured to curved spinal surface): US 6,830,571 explicitly makes the body conformable/convex for the curved surface of the spine; JP 2008-539969 describes the concave bottom "following the vertebral body contour."
• 15 (equally spaced from midline/threaded hole), 16 (mirror symmetry), 17 (parallel spikes): matters of obvious symmetrical design — a centered insertion boss with symmetric prongs is the predictable, balanced arrangement, and the '386 spec itself uses symmetric two- and four-prong configurations.
• 18 (cylindrical structure defining the threaded hole): met by JP 2008-539969 A's cannulated threaded post 20.

Claim 28 (structural "ridge" version)

Same analysis; ridge is the express structure disclosed in JP 2008-539969 A and is the '386 spec's own identified "means."

Claim 30 (four-sided curvature variant)

Obvious as an alternative geometric orientation of the same curved base disclosed in US 6,830,571 (bendable body) and JP 2008-539969 A (curved bridge); no new mechanism is added.

Claims 19–27, 29 (system with insertion tool + method)

• JP 2008-539969 A expressly discloses a removable threaded insertion device engaging the top post — the "screw insert that is sized and configured to be threaded into the threaded hole" (claims 20–22) and the "projection(s) that engage the staple base on either side of the midline" (claims 23, 25) are obvious adaptations of a threaded insert plus wings/arms from ordinary staple-impactor design.
• WO 2013/096219 A1 teaches a staple delivery device and staple with "a bridge and two arms," and US 5,797,909 / US 6,063,088 / US 6,245,072 teach impacting staples into vertebrae — supplying the "handle, stem, staple-engagement portion, impact with mallet" limitations (claims 24, 26, 27).
• Claim 26 method ("attach the tool, insert along a path to a target site, impact the handle") is the inherent, conventional manner of using such a staple and is not patentably distinct from the apparatus.

6. Graham/KSR framing and secondary considerations

• Scope and content: the prior art is a dense field of spinal/facet staples with prongs, spikes, threaded inserts, and inserters.
• Differences: the '386 contribution over the art is essentially the particular combination of (a) a biconcave/convex conforming base, (b) two integrally-rigid barbed prongs straddling a midline, and (c) a centered top-accessible threaded bore for an inserter — a combination whose individual elements are each known.
• Level of skill: moderate; none of the claimed features is beyond routine design.
• Secondary considerations: the page shows an active litigation docket (CAFC Nos. 24-1696, 24-1753; W.D. Tex. 6:19-cv-00672; E.D. Pa. 2:20-cv-03271; and IPR2020-01305, Globus Medical v. Moskowitz Family LLC), which evidences commercial/competitive value, but I found no evidence of a long-felt, unmet need uniquely solved by these claim features, nor of copying, nor of unexpected results. Any nexus argument would have to be tied to the specific combination.

7. Caveats / where I lack confidence

1. I could not retrieve the exact PTO-892 "References Cited" list printed on US 10,376,386; the analysis therefore leans on the page's prior-art field, the family's prosecution/ISR records, and references I read directly.
2. JP 2008-539969 A is confirmed by content (bridge, barbed legs, cannulated threaded top post); its U.S. counterpart number and assignee I did not verify — treat that mapping as unconfirmed.
3. US 6,830,571 B2 is confirmed by its own PDF text; its assignee/inventors I did not verify.
4. The priority challenge in §2 is the pivot: if claims 11–30 properly claim 2005 priority, then JP 2008-539969 A and most 2006–2010 art drop out (leaving mainly US 6,830,571 plus the 2005 publications); if they are entitled only to the 2011 date, the combination above is strong.
5. Claim 30's top-convex/bottom-concave wording conflicts with claim 11 and the specification; I applied the claims literally, and this apparent inconsistency is itself worth noting for any §112 or claim-construction analysis (not corrected here).

Bottom line: Claims 11, 28, 30 and their dependents are likely obvious over US 6,830,571 B2 in view of JP 2008-539969 A (optionally further in view of US 2004/0158246 A1, US 2005/0261689 A1, CN 1518960 A, and Bonutti US 2007/0088362 A1), with the tool/method claims 19–29 obvious over the same art in view of conventional staple-impactor/delivery art (WO 2013/096219 A1; US 5,797,909; US 6,063,088; US 6,245,072). Each reason to combine is the ordinary one: same field, same problem, known technique, predictable result, and an express design need stated in the patent's own specification.