US 12251321

I'll search for the specific patent number and any related 2026 litigation.

Let me check for any 2026 litigation or Federal Circuit activity involving this patent.

US 12,251,321 B2 — Verified Summary

Source of record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12251321/en (fetched 2026‑09‑24). All bibliographic items below are taken from that authoritative text; where I could not corroborate something from a second source, I say so.

Because the 2013 priority application predates the AIA first‑inventor‑to‑file date, pre‑AIA §§ 102/103 govern, and the term runs from the earliest 2013 filing (subject to any terminal disclaimer). The 2033‑03‑09 figure above is as listed by the source; I cannot independently verify how it was computed, so treat the exact expiry as uncertain.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A joint spacer for therapeutically maintains separation of bones of a joint. A frame defines a longitudinal axis extending between distal and proximal ends. A carriage is slideably retained within the frame and has at least one ramped surface and a threaded portion. An actuator screw is threadably engaged with the threaded portion, and bears against said frame to cause the carriage to slideably move within the frame when the actuator screw is rotated. A first endplate engages a bone of the joint, and has at least one ramped surface that is mateable with the ramped surface of the carriage."

Plain‑language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 (apparatus — "joint spacer")

• Frame: has first/second lateral sides plus distal and proximal ends; the ends define a longitudinal axis, and the two sides define a frame width.
• Carriage: sits inside and slides within the frame; carries at least one ramped surface and a threaded portion; the carriage's own lateral sides define a carriage width that is approximately equal to the frame width (i.e., the carriage fills — or nearly fills — the frame laterally).
• Actuator screw: threads into the carriage's threaded portion and bears against the frame, so turning the screw drives the carriage to slide within the frame.
• Upper (first) endplate: engages a first bone and has at least one ramped surface mating with a carriage ramp.
• Lower (second) endplate: engages a second bone, and — critically — the carriage must have at least one additional ramped surface that mates with a ramp on the second endplate too.
• Operation: rotating the screw slides the carriage; the second endplate's ramp rides on the additional carriage ramp, driving the second endplate transversely (i.e., to increase spacer height).
• Closing limitation: both the first and the second endplate must be capable of moving with respect to the frame.

In plain terms: a two‑endplate, in‑situ height‑adjustable interbody spacer in which a single screw‑driven carriage that is about as wide as its frame has ramps acting on both endplates, and both endplates are movably (not rigidly) attached to the frame.

Claim 15 (apparatus — "joint spacer," alternative framing)

• Same architecture, but expressed in terms of a central longitudinal axis: the frame's ends define it.
• The carriage's threaded bore extends along that central longitudinal axis, and the actuator screw likewise extends along the central axis to engage it and bear on the frame.
• The first endplate mates with the carriage ramp via a channel having a ramped surface (rather than a bare ramp), and rotation of the screw in a first direction moves the first endplate transversely to increase height.
• The second endplate engages a second bone.
• Closing limitation: again, both endplates are capable of moving with respect to the frame.

Claim 19 is the only other notable independent‑adjacent claim (it depends on 15): the frame and first endplate include mating dovetailed portions that maintain their relative orientation when brought together.

Note the deliberate narrowing across the family: the '321 independent claims both require both endplates to be movable relative to the frame, whereas the specification expressly contemplates an alternative where one endplate is fixed to the frame ("ramps 168A, 170A may not be provided, and endplate 112 may be attached to frame 152"). The other narrowing hook in claim 1 is the "carriage width ≈ frame width" requirement.

2026 CAFC / USPTO check — no docket found for this patent

I searched for the literal number 12251321 and for "12251321" OR "12,251,321" against 2026 Federal Circuit materials. I found no litigation, IPR, or CAFC appeal naming US 12,251,321. I want to be explicit that this is a negative search result, not proof of non‑assertion — a number‑specific Docket Navigator/PACER query would be needed to confirm.

Two adjacent matters that are not this patent, listed so they are not mistaken for it:

• Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 24‑1696 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2026) (precedential): Globus was the appellee/defendant, but the patents were U.S. 8,353,913; 9,889,022; and 10,478,319 — different numbers, different owners. The court affirmed noninfringement, holding (among other things) that "universal" in the '913/'022 preambles is limiting. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01696/pdf/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01696-0.pdf · https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/13/cafc-affirms-noninfringement-rulings-on-spinal-implant-patents/ · https://natlawreview.com/article/preamble-backbone-universal-limits-spinal-implant-claims
• Globus Medical, Inc. v. SpineLogik, Inc., IPR2025‑00225 on U.S. 9,730,805 (oral argument requested March 10, 2026) — unrelated patent and unrelated posture (Globus as petitioner).

To retrieve the prosecuted file history for 12,251,321 with confidence, the authoritative routes are USPTO PatentCenter (application 18/173,964) and the Global Dossier/Espacenet links listed on the Google Patents page; I did not have those primary documents in this session, so I flag that the prosecution‑level details (e.g., the specific prior‑art rejections overcome) are unverified.

Uncertainty ledger (explicit)

• Issue date and grant: corroborated by the Google Patents record (2025‑03‑18) and third‑party patent indexes (PatentLeaderboard lists 2025‑03‑18 for 12251321 with the same inventor set) — high confidence.
• Expiry date 2033‑03‑09: single‑source; mathematically non‑obvious from a 2013‑02‑25 priority chain, so treat as unverified.
• Any 2026 enforcement/PTAB activity on this number: not found; absence of evidence only.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 12,251,321.

Let me search more specifically, including the Unified Patents litigation portal and Globus Medical's enforcement activity.

Let me check Docket Alarm and the Unified Patents litigation portal directly, plus related family patents.

Litigation Search Results for U.S. Patent No. 12,251,321

Bottom line: I found no litigation — district court, Federal Circuit, ITC, or PTAB — in which U.S. Patent No. 12,251,321 is identified as an asserted or challenged patent.

I want to be explicit about what I searched and the limits of that search, so you can calibrate your reliance on this answer.

What I searched

• Google/web searches on the exact string "12251321" and the formatted "12,251,321"
• Searches pairing the number with its assignee (Globus Medical, Inc.) and its title ("Expandable intervertebral implant")
• The Unified Patents litigation portal URL pattern and Docket Alarm results
• Searches on the patent's continuation-family members and on Globus Medical's known spine-implant enforcement campaigns

None of these returned a docket, complaint, ITC filing, or PTAB proceeding naming 12,251,321 itself.

Why this is unsurprising

Per the patent document you supplied, US 12,251,321:

• Issued March 18, 2025 (from application US 18/173,964, filed Feb. 24, 2023)
• Claimed priority to Feb 25, 2013 (via continuations of US 13/775,731 → 16/144,243 → 17/009,955)
• Assignee: Globus Medical, Inc. (Audubon, PA)
• Inventors: Davenport, Glerum, Weiman, Sibson, Iott

A patent that issued in March 2025 and whose public-file history shows only prosecution and a continuation (US 19/081,032, published as US 2025/0213370 A1) has had very little time to accumulate enforcement activity. The absence of hits is therefore consistent with the patent simply being new rather than with a search failure on my part — but I cannot distinguish those two possibilities with confidence.

Related litigation that is NOT about this patent (do not conflate)

My searches surfaced several cases involving Globus Medical or the same technical field, none of which assert 12,251,321:

1. Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc. — W.D. Tex. No. 6:19-cv-672, filed Nov. 20, 2019; transferred July 2020 to E.D. Pa. as No. 2:20-cv-03271. Asserted Moskowitz-owned patents (8,353,913; 10,307,268; 10,478,319; 9,889,022; 10,028,740; 10,251,643; 10,076,367; 10,376,386). Globus won summary judgment of noninfringement on two patents and a jury found non-infringement on another; the Federal Circuit affirmed on Sept. 11 (per Becker's Spine Review). Owner is Moskowitz, not Globus; this patent is not at issue.

2. Globus Medical, Inc. v. Life Spine, Inc. — D. Del. No. 1:21-cv-01445-JPM. Globus asserted 8,845,731; 8,845,732; 9,402,739; 9,956,087; 10,137,001; 10,925,752; 10,973,649; and 11,065,128 against Life Spine's PROLIFT products. 12,251,321 is not among the asserted patents. (Life Spine separately filed IPRs against Globus patents, e.g., IPR2022-01600 on U.S. 10,973,649.)

3. Flexuspine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc. — E.D. Tex. (2016, No. 6:15-cv-201). Involved Globus's Caliber/Altera products. Different patents.

Caveats you should factor in

• I could not complete a final round of targeted Docket Alarm / Westlaw / Lexis / PACER queries (the tool run hit its step limit), so this is a negative result from the searches actually executed, not a certified clearance.
• A patent can be asserted in a complaint without the number appearing in indexed public web text, and very recent complaints may not yet be indexed.
• Related-family enforcement is worth watching: the same Globus family includes 10,117,754; 10,786,364; 11,612,495 and the pending US 2025/0213370 A1. I did not find litigation asserting those either, but I would verify each in a paid docket system before relying on it.

Recommended verification steps

To close this out with authority, I suggest running:

1. A PACER/Docket Alarm party search for Globus Medical as plaintiff across D. Del., E.D. Pa., and W.D. Tex. (2023–present), then reviewing each complaint's asserted-patent list.
2. A USPTO PTAB search (PTAB E2E / Unified Patents PTAB caselist) for the patent number to confirm no IPR/PGR.
3. An ITC EDIS search for Section 337 investigations involving Globus spinal implants.

If you want, I can draft the specific search strings for each of those systems, or note what an "asserted in a future complaint" watch would look like given the Feb. 25, 2013 priority date and the 2033 adjusted expiration flagged in the patent record.

I'll start by checking the structured data and then searching for any PTAB activity on this patent and its family.

Let me search specifically for PTAB proceedings against this patent's family members and check the patent's PTAB record directly.

Let me search directly for PTAB proceedings referencing this patent and its direct family members.

PTAB Proceedings Analysis — US 12,251,321 B2 ("Expandable intervertebral implant," Globus Medical, Inc.)

Sources consulted: The structured PTAB proceedings on file block (USPTO Open Data Portal ingestion) supplied with this task; Google Patents full text for US12251321; PTAB E2E / PTAB public petition documents surfaced via web search; CourtListener and Justia for the related Federal Circuit docket. Live search conducted 2026-10-01.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 12,251,321: zero. The ODP-sourced structured block states that the USPTO API "returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest," and my independent web searches did not surface any IPR, PGR, or CBM naming US 12,251,321 (nor any docket entry, mandatory-notice listing, or PTAB E2E record tying a proceeding number to that patent). The breakdown is therefore: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied.

Bottom-line defensive posture: The patent is untested, not hardened. Every claim (1–19) is live, and — critically — because no IPR has reached a Final Written Decision, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel has attached to any petitioner or privy. Any defendant can raise any prior-art ground, including patents and printed publications that would have been available to an earlier challenger, without an estoppel trap. The counterweight is that this is not a naïve patent owner: Globus Medical's sibling expandable-implant portfolio has been IPR-tested repeatedly (see "Adjacent proceedings" below), so the art in this space is well-mapped and Globus knows the playbook. The absence of IPRs to date most likely reflects the patent's youth (issued 2025-03-18) and the fact that it is a late-filed continuation rather than a fresh product of independent R&D.

Caveat on confidence: I found no evidence that US 12,251,321 has been asserted in any litigation. If you have a demand letter or complaint citing it, that complaint itself would start the § 315(b) one-year clock for the served party — verify before relying on the "no activity" framing.

Proceedings on US 12,251,321

None. There is no proceeding to report. I will not generate a proceeding number, panel, or disposition that does not exist.

To be explicit about what I checked and did not find:

Why the search is nonetheless not dispositive: PTAB petition papers are often indexed only as scanned PDFs on ptacts.uspto.gov, and E2E is the authoritative docket. Before you finalize any invalidity strategy, confirm against PTAB E2E directly: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/ and the Board's decisions library at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions.

Adjacent proceedings — same patent owner, same technology, different patents

These are not proceedings on US 12,251,321. I list them because they are the only PTAB activity in the relevant competitive and technical neighborhood, and they matter enormously for how you should read the '321 patent. Do not cite them as if they were a ruling on this patent.

IPR2022-01434, -01435, -01599, -01600, -01601, -01602, -01603 and IPR2023-00041 — Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (eight petitions across seven asserted patents)
• Filed: 2022 (the '-1434/-1435/-1599/-1600/-1601/-1602/-1603 family) and 2023 (IPR2023-00041)
• Patents challenged: US 8,845,731; US 8,845,732; US 10,137,001; US 10,973,649; US 10,925,752; US 9,956,087; US 9,402,739; U.S. 11,065,128 — all Globus expandable-implant patents asserted in Globus Medical, Inc. v. Life Spine, Inc., No. 21-cv-1445 (D. Del.)
• Judge panels (illustrative): IPR2022-01600 — APJs Devon Zastrow Newman, Cynthia M. Hardman, Michael A. Valek (oral hearing held 2024-03-13)
• Institution: IPR2022-01434 instituted 2023-03-24 on all claims of the '731 patent; several others instituted; IPR2023-00041 addressed the Board's discretion to deny where a petitioner files concurrent parallel petitions against the same claims (the Board declined to institute on the parallel '732 petition).
• Termination / resolution: Per Globus's 2024-07-19 letter to the district court (D. Del. 21-cv-1445, Doc. 130), "all IPRs relevant to this matter have now been resolved or terminated by the PTAB, as of June 13, 2024," leaving US 9,402,739, 8,845,731, 10,925,752 and 11,065,128 still at issue in the litigation.
• Appeal: Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 24-2167 (Fed. Cir.), decided 2026-06-04 — appeal of the Board's construction of "complementary with one another" in the '731 patent. The Federal Circuit reversed the Board's narrow construction (which had required the ramped portions to "complete one another") and held the term encompasses ramps whose angles mirror each other. Links: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[10870025](/patent/10870025)/life-spine-inc-v-globus-medical-inc/ and https://law.justia.com/cases/federal-appellate-courts/cafc/24-2167/24-2167-2026-06-04.html
• Defensive value for the '321 patent: Low as precedent, high as reconnaissance. These proceedings confirm (a) Globus will defend its expandable-implant portfolio aggressively at the PTAB and on appeal, and (b) the '321 family is a different family from the one Life Spine attacked. The Life Spine patents-in-suit trace to the September 2010 priority chain (applications such as 12/875,637, 13/530,691, 13/531,844, 13/531,700, 13/531,943, 13/793,481, 13/793,668, 13/961,603, etc.). The '321 patent traces to Ser. No. 13/775,731, filed 2013-02-25. That distinction is the whole ballgame: the Life Spine art and estoppel do not automatically transfer to the '321 patent.

Litigation context

• Globus Medical, Inc. v. Life Spine, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-01445 (D. Del.) — filed 2021-10-13 by Globus asserting seven expandable-implant patents; the case continued into 2025 with cross-motions for summary judgment and motions to strike (D. Del. ECF Nos. 221–240).
• The name Globus Medical also appears as a petitioner in IPR2020-01303 through -01308 against Moskowitz Family LLC (US 10,307,268; 10,478,319; 8,353,913; 9,889,022). Globus is a sophisticated, two-directional PTAB participant.

No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, Unified Innovations, RPX, etc.) appears anywhere in the chain for this patent. Every opposition this technology has seen has come from a commercial competitor with a litigation stake.

Strategic summary

Claim status — CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. For US 12,251,321, the answer is unambiguous: all 19 claims are UNTESTED. No independent claim (1, 15) has been canceled, no dependent claim has been canceled, and no claim has been confirmed in a Final Written Decision. There is no narrowing to report because the patent has never been through an AIA trial. Compare this to the sibling Globus patents, several of which were narrowed or had claims canceled through the Life Spine IPRs — the '321 patent simply has not been put to that test. The claims as they stand: independent claim 1 (frame + carriage with width approximating the frame's width + actuator screw + first endplate with ramped surface + second endplate, with the requirement that both endplates are capable of moving with respect to the frame); independent claim 15 (central longitudinal axis, threaded bore extending along that axis); and dependents 2–14 and 16–19. The claim-1 "width of the carriage is approximate [sic] the width of the frame" limitation and the claim-14 "width is greater than the length" limitation are unusual structural recitations worth scrutinizing for § 112 written-description and indefiniteness exposure given that this is a continuation whose claims must find support in the 2013-02-25 parent.

Estoppel landscape. Because no proceeding has produced an FWD, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is a non-issue. There is no petitioner-side bar against you. Every ground — § 102 anticipation, § 103 obviousness, and every reference — remains available in district court and at the PTAB (subject only to your own § 315(b) one-year clock if you have already been served with a complaint alleging infringement of this patent). This is the single most favorable fact in this report for a defendant. If you have not been served, IPR remains fully open. Note the statutory boundary: IPR under § 311(b) reaches only patents and printed publications, so prior public use, on-sale, or systems art must be run in district court, not at the Board.

Pattern signals and timing. The patent issued 2025-03-18. The PGR window closed 2025-12-18 (9 months post-issue), so a PGR is no longer available to anyone. That leaves IPR as the only AIA vehicle. The '321 patent is the fourth member of a continuation chain — 13/775,731 (→ US 10,117,754) → 16/144,243 (→ US 10,786,364) → 17/009,955 (→ US 11,612,495) → 18/173,964 (→ US 12,251,321) — and a further continuation, Ser. No. 19/081,032 (US 2025/0213370 A1, filed 2025-03-17), is pending. That pending child matters: Globus is actively prosecuting this family and can pursue claims of different scope. An obviousness theory aimed at the '321 patent should be sized to also reach any claim that emerges in the '370 publication, or you risk fighting the same invention twice. Effective filing date is 2013-02-25, which predates the AIA first-inventor-to-file date of 2013-03-16, so pre-AIA § 102(a)/(b)/(e) and pre-AIA § 103(a) presumptively govern — confirm that the asserted claims actually obtain the 2013-02-25 date, because Globus's priority fights are often won or lost on § 112 support in the parent (see the Culbert declaration in IPR2022-01600 arguing the '649 priority date back to September 3, 2010).

Recommended next steps

1. Verify the "no activity" baseline on E2E, not on search. Before committing strategy, pull the PTAB E2E record for US 12,251,321 at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/ and cross-check the patent's Google Patents "Similar/Litigation" panel (https://patents.google.com/patent/US12251321/en). There is no FWD to link to and quote, because none exists — do not let anyone on your team cite the Life Spine IPRs as though they disposed of this patent.

2. Because nothing is estopped, file broadly and early. The absence of any FWD means no § 315(e)(2) bar constrains your IPR grounds. If you have already been served with a complaint asserting the '321 patent, calculate your § 315(b) deadline immediately — it is one year from service and it is the only clock that can kill your petition. If you have not been served, you still have full freedom, and a pre-emptive IPR gives you a stay argument.

3. Attack the priority chain, not just the merits. Four generations of the same specification with a 2013-02-25 root date is the classic set-up for a priority/written-description dispute. If the '321 claims are not entitled to the 2013-02-25 date for any limitation, intervening art opens up. This is exactly the battleground Globus litigated in IPR2022-01600 for the '649 patent.

4. Coordinate with the district court case, not separately from it. The Life Spine appeal (Life Spine v. Globus, No. 24-2167, Fed. Cir. 2026-06-04) shows that Globus will litigate claim construction on "complementary"/"mirror" ramps all the way to the Federal Circuit and that Life Spine ultimately won that construction point. Claim 1 of the '321 patent recites "mateable" ramped surfaces without the word "complementary" — a materially different limitation that may avoid the '731 dispute entirely, but the intrinsic-record arguments developed in that appeal transfer well and are worth mining.

5. Watch the pending child, Ser. No. 19/081,032 (US 2025/0213370 A1). If Globus files an amendment or a new continuation with claims reciting the production embodiments you actually sell, your invalidity work product on the '321 patent should be ported over rather than rebuilt.

6. If you need a nullity that is already on the books, use it. The '731 patent's claim-construction reversal at the Federal Circuit is the only concrete adjudicated weakness in this portfolio to date — and it is not a holding of invalidity, just a rejection of a narrow construction. It is useful leverage on Globus, not a silver bullet against the '321 patent.

I'll research the assignment record for US 12251321 before reconstructing the chain.

Let me dig deeper into the specific assignment record and Globus Medical's corporate status.

Let me try to locate the specific assignment record PDF and reel/frame for this patent.

I hit my search budget before I could pull the raw Assignment Center record, so I'll mark clearly what is verified versus what remains unretrieved. Here's the reconstructed chain.

Inventors

All five are career Globus Medical engineers/devices staff, not founders of a spun-out entity. Sources: PatentLeaderboard – Duncan Sibson, PatentLeaderboard – Andrew Iott, PatentLeaderboard – Mark Weiman.

Unusual patterns: None detected. There is no evidence of inventor departure-then-fire-sale. The inventors re-executed confirmatory assignments in 2023 (see below), which is the opposite of the "inventors walk away" pattern — it signals continued employment and clean internal chain-of-title hygiene.

Original assignee

Globus Medical, Inc. (GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC., Valley Forge Business Center, 2560 General Armistead Ave., Audubon, PA 19403).

• Primary line of business: Design, manufacture and sale of musculoskeletal implants and enabling technology — spine implants, expandable interbody cages, trauma, joint reconstruction, and the ExcelsiusGPS / ExcelsiusHub robotic-navigation platforms.
• Does it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. Globus is one of the two largest pure-play spine implant companies in the world. Its 10-K states that implant products are manufactured in Eagleville and Limerick, PA and West Carrollton, OH, and sold through a direct/distributor presence in the U.S. plus 65 countries (Globus 10-K excerpt). Expandable interbodies are a core Globus franchise, and this patent (expandable intervertebral implant with a threaded actuator screw driving ramped carriages) reads directly on that product line.
• Current status: Operating — NYSE: GMED. Globus completed its merger with NuVasive, Inc. on 2023-09-01 (Globus press release), creating a combined company with roughly $1.57B of 2023 revenue and, by 2025-26 estimates, a spine business of ~$2.5B — effectively tied with Medtronic for market leadership. No bankruptcy, no dissolution, no assignment to a holding company.

Assignment timeline

The Assignment Center/PEDS record for this patent contains one recorded conveyance: a confirmatory assignment of inventors' rights to the original assignee. No post-issuance transfer to any third party is recorded; the patent remains with the original assignee.

• 2023-02-24 (executed) / recorded 2023-02-24 — Reel/Frame not retrieved (see verification note below)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Daniel Davenport; Chad Glerum; Mark Weiman; Duncan Sibson; Andrew Iott (all individually)
  • Assignee: Globus Medical, Inc. (Audubon, PA)
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved for this specific reel/frame. The recurring correspondent on Globus's contemporaneous self-filed recordings is Susan Kytle, Globus Medical, Inc., Valley Forge Business Center, 2560 General Armistead Ave., Audubon, PA 19403 — skyttle@globusmedical.com, phone 610-930-1800 (appears as "NAME OF SUBMITTER: SUSAN KYTALE" on Globus reel 053482/0523, an exemplar of the same in-house filing pattern — source PDF). Flag: this is an in-house corporate IP-docketing correspondent, not an outside NPE-adjacent filer. If Kytle (or any Globus in-house docketing name) appears on this patent's reel/frame, it confirms in-house handling; it is not an NPE signal.
  • Context: Internal/confirmatory — inventors assigned to their employer contemporaneously with the filing of the continuation application US 18/173,964 on the same date. This is a routine chain-of-title recording, not an acquisition.

What this timeline is not: there is no second link. No "IP Holdings," no licensing LLC, no security agreement, no merger-related reassignment of this asset. The chain terminates at the operating company.

Verification note (be honest about the gap): The Assignment Center UI is a JS application that I could not query directly within this session, and the raw reel/frame for US 18/173,964's assignment did not surface in the indexed search results. The 2023-02-24 date, the five assignors, and the Globus Medical assignee are verifiable from the Google Patents legal-events block ("2023-02-24 — Assigned to GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC. — ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST... Assignors: DAVENPORT, DANIEL, GLERUM, CHAD, IOTT, ANDREW, WEIMAN, MARK, SIBSON, Duncan"). Treat the reel/frame and correspondent as unconfirmed until pulled from https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ by patent number.

Cross-reference flag (unverified, low weight): This patent number appears, dated 26/09/2023, inside a large batch of numbers published in the London Gazette (issue 829559) — Gazette data. The batch date falls ~3 weeks after the Globus/NuVasive merger closed (2023-09-01) and appears to be a bulk register publication rather than a per-asset transfer. I could not confirm what registry or proceeding this listing belongs to, and it does not show up as a US Assignment Center conveyance. I am flagging it as an open item rather than treating it as a recorded assignment.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12251321
    2013 : Priority app filed by Globus inventors
    2013 : Inventors assign rights to Globus Medical
    2023 : Continuation filed and assignment recorded
    2023 : Globus completes NuVasive merger
    2025 : Patent issues as US 12251321

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No assignee with an IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures suffix appears anywhere in the chain. The sole assignee is Globus Medical, Inc., a NYSE-listed operating company whose own 10-K lists manufacturing plants and a 66-country sales footprint. No single-purpose Delaware/Texas LLC, no registered-agent service address (Globus's address is its operating HQ).

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Globus Medical does not appear on any RPX, Unified Patents, or Patent Progress high-frequency-plaintiff list. Conversely, Globus itself is a target of NPE-style activity in the spine space and is itself a defendant in third-party IPRs (e.g., Life Spine v. Globus, IPR2022-01602, where Life Spine challenged a Globus patent — docket exhibit). That is the inverse of an NPE profile.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present / unclear. There is only one link in the chain to test, so recurrence cannot be established. The expected correspondent (Globus in-house docketing, e.g., Susan Kytle, Globus reel 053482/0523) is an operating-company in-house paralegal, which is a neutral-to-negative indicator, not an NPE tell. A single appearance is expressly not a finding under the stated rule.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Zero consecutive transfers, let alone chained LLCs inside 24 months. The chain is one hop, executed and recorded the same day (2023-02-24) as the continuation filing.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. There is no recorded transfer at all after issuance (2025-03-18), so no transfer can be timed to a suit. I found no infringement action in which US 12,251,321 is asserted.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Globus Medical is not in bankruptcy and has never filed. Its only transformative event is the acquisition of NuVasive — Globus is the acquirer, not a distressed seller.

7. Privateering — not present. Globus has not transferred the asset to any assertion vehicle; it retains title and practices the invention in its own expandable-interbody products.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN. (Note: "not present" here means the patent has not been neutralized through a defensive aggregator — it stays with the operating owner.)

Net: 0 of 8 NPE signals present; 1 signal (repeat correspondent) is simply untestable with a one-link chain.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: the only recorded conveyance is the 2023-02-24 inventors-to-GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC. assignment covering US 18/173,964 (per Google Patents legal events), and the chain never leaves the original assignee — there is no second link, no holding LLC, and no security or merger reassignment. Globus Medical is a $2.5B-revenue NYSE operating company that manufactures and sells expandable interbody implants (10-K manufacturing and sales disclosures) and litigates its patent estate against direct competitors, so this is the archetypal operating-company ownership profile rather than an NPE chain. Caveat: because the record contains only the original assignment, a strict application of the taxonomy would also support "Insufficient data"; I chose the operating-company label because the assignee's product practice and competitor-litigation posture are independently documented, while the reel/frame and correspondent for this specific record remain unretrieved.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — search by patent number 12251321 (or application 18/173,964) to confirm the reel/frame and correspondent, which are the two fields I could not pull in this session.

I'll research the prior art citations for US 12251321. Let me start with searches.

Let me dig deeper into the specific citation list and litigation/PTAB history for this patent.

Let me confirm details on the key candidate references (Olmos, Varela, Krueger, Oglaza, Badalamenti, etc.).

Important scope and methodology notes (please read first)

I need to be upfront about three limitations before giving the analysis:

1. I could not retrieve the complete 255-entry citation list. The authoritative patent text you supplied contains a "Citations (255)" section, but it is truncated mid-list (the last entry I can read is US20050171607A1). Google Patents' citation table is not fully returned by my search tool, and I hit the tool-call step limit trying to page through it. I therefore can give you (a) the verified citations visible in the record, and (b) the strongest field-relevant candidates — each explicitly labelled as to whether it is verified against the record or merely a candidate requiring confirmation.
2. A citation ≠ anticipation. A reference listed under "Citations" is cited prior art; most of it is background/§103 material, not §102 anticipation art. I have labelled each entry accordingly rather than over-claiming §102.
3. The same-family continuations are NOT prior art. US 10,117,754 B2, US 10,786,364 B2, US 11,612,495 B2, US 2023/0218406 A1 and US 2025/0213370 A1 share the same 2013-02-25 priority and the same specification — they are the parent/sibling filings of US 12,251,321, not prior art against it.

1. The patent at a glance (verified from the record)

Key limitation added in this continuation (narrows the field of anticipating art): claim 1 now recites (i) a carriage whose width is approximate the width of the frame, (ii) both endplates mateable with separate ramped surfaces of the carriage and both capable of moving with respect to the frame, and claim 14 recites a width greater than the length. Claim 15 adds a threaded bore extending along the central longitudinal axis and channels with ramped surfaces.

2. Verified citations from the US 12,251,321 record (the portion readable in the file)

These are transcribed directly from the patent's own citation list (format: publication no. | priority date | publication date | assignee | title). The "★" marks an examiner-cited reference (Google's * marker).

Remaining ~150 entries in the truncated portion are general spinal-implant art (e.g., US 4,349,921 Kuntz; US 4,863,476 Shepperd; US 5,397,364 Kozak; US 5,458,641 Ramirez Jimenez; US 5,529,899 Michelson; US 6,231,610 Geiser; US 6,432,106 Fraser; US 6,457,085; US 6,554,823; DE 4012622 C1; DE 4327054 C1; FR 2727003; FR 2794968; WO 95/25485; WO 97/023175; WO 99/042062; WO 99/063914; WO 99/066867; SU 1424826; KR 200290058Y1), plus disc-prosthesis art (US 2005/0021145; US 5,676,701; US 6,540,785).

3. Tier 1 — Strongest §102 anticipation candidates (single reference, all elements)

Important caveat: I have verified these are cited in the record or are the leading field art, but I have not verified claim-chart-level element-by-element disclosure of every limitation of claim 1 (particularly "width of the carriage is approximate the width of the frame" and "first and second endplates capable of moving with respect to the frame"). §102 anticipation requires every element in one reference; the specific new limitations in this continuation make §103 the more likely outcome for most of these.

A. US 6,641,614 B1 § — "Multi-variable-height fusion device"

• Assignee: Spinal Concepts, Inc.; priority 1997-05-01; granted 2003-11-04; examiner-cited (the strongest signal that the Examiner treated it as material).
• Description: a fusion device with bone-engaging upper/lower members whose separation is varied by a threaded actuator, permitting incremental height change. This is the reference most structurally analogous to the claimed "frame + screw-driven height variation + two endplates."
• Potentially anticipates: claim 1 (frame; threaded actuator; first and second bone-engaging endplates; endplates movable relative to a frame/body) and claim 15 (actuator screw along a longitudinal axis threaded to a driven member that bears on a frame). Verify whether it discloses a discrete carriage with ramped surfaces on both a first and second endplate, and whether both endplates move relative to a frame — if not, it is §103 art against claims 1/15 in view of a ramp-cage reference.

B. US 6,562,074 B2 — "Adjustable bone fusion implant and method"

• Assignee: MedicineLodge, Inc.; priority 2001-10-17; granted 2003-05-13.
• Description: a height-adjustable interbody fusion implant in which a threaded member drives wedges/ramps to separate two bone-contacting plates. Directly on point for the "actuator screw + ramped surface + transverse endplate movement" concept of claims 1 and 15.
• Potentially anticipates: claims 1 and 15. The likely gap is the claimed carriage geometry (carriage width ≈ frame width) and the claim-15 "threaded bore extending along the central longitudinal axis" — so anticipate a §103 combination here rather than pure §102.

C. US 2005/0113916 A1 — "Expandable spinal implant" (Branch et al., SDGI Holdings)

• Priority 2003-11-21; published 2005-05-26.
• Description: expandable spinal implant with a body and an actuation mechanism expanding an upper/lower implant portion.
• Potentially anticipates: claim 1. Verify the ramp/carriage structure and whether both endplates are frame-movable.

D. US 6,045,579 A — "Adjustable height fusion device" (Spinal Concepts; priority 1997-05-01; granted 2000-04-04) — the parent of the US 6,641,614 line; relevant to the height-adjustment concept of claims 1/15 but weak on the ramped-carriage limitation. §103 material.

4. Tier 2 — Highly relevant expandable-implant art (mostly §103, possible §102 on broad claims)

These disclose the general concept of a screw- or wedge-driven, height-adjustable interbody spacer with two bone-engaging plates. They are the classic §103 combination bases for the "expand an implant in situ by ramps driven by a threaded actuator" concept, but each lacks at least the specific carriage-width and dual-movable-endplate limitations of claims 1/15.

5. Tier 3 — Field-relevant art that I could NOT confirm is in US 12,251,321's own citation list

The following references are the strongest known prior art against Globus's closely related expandable-implant patents (they were used by Life Spine in IPR2022-01600 against Globus's US 10,973,649 and in the related filings on US 8,845,731). If they also appear in US 12,251,321's 255-entry list — which I could not verify — they would be the primary §102/§103 attack:

• US 2008/0140207 A1 (Olmos, K2M) — filed 2007-12-07; published 2008-06-12; "Expandable intervertebral implant." Central ramp + driving ramp + actuator shaft; rotation of the actuator shaft moves the wedge members toward each other and forces the endplates apart. This is the most rigorous single-reference disclosure of the claimed architecture (a driven wedge/ramp carriage separating two endplates) and is a strong §102 candidate for claims 1, 15 and for dependents 2, 12, 13.
• US 2011/0172774 A1 (Varela, DePuy Synthes) — published 2011-07-14; "Expandable fusion device." Screw (22) with head, threaded portion and connecting portion; ramps/endplates. §102/§103 for claims 1, 15.
• US 2012/0226357 A1 (Varela) — published 2012-09-06; "Expandable fusion device." §102/§103 — claims 1, 15.
• WO 2010/103344 A1 (Oglaza, Synthes) — published 2010-09-16; "Expandable intervertebral implant." §102/§103 — claims 1, 15.
• US 8,308,804 B2 (Krueger, Synthes) — published 2012-11-13; "Expandable intervertebral implant." §102/§103.
• US 2011/0094742 A1 (Badalamenti et al.) — published 2011-04-28 — cited as Y-art in PCT searches for expandable spacers; relevant to claims 1, 15.
• US 2009/0151925 A1 (Richards et al.) — published 2009-06-18 — cited as X-art (claims 1–2) in PCT searches for expandable spacers.
• WO 2004/052245 (Gutlin) / US 7,691,147 — expandable intervertebral implant with threaded spindle driving upper/lower implant parts apart. §102 for claim 15 (screw + bore + transverse separation), less so for the carriage geometry of claim 1.
• US 7,828,849 (Lim) and US 6,595,998 (Johnson) — relied on in IPR2015-01830 against Flexuspine's US 8,123,810.

All items in §5 must be checked against the actual 255-entry list before being reported as citations of US 12,251,321. They are, however, where a validity challenge would start.

6. Bottom line — claim-by-claim §102 exposure

Net assessment: US 12,251,321's independent claims are narrow continuations of the 2013 family and are likely valid over the bulk of the 255 cited references, most of which are §103/background art. The genuine §102 risk sits with a small set of screw-driven ramped-cage references — US 6,641,614 (examiner-cited), US 6,562,074, US 2005/0113916, and (if they are in the list) Olmos US 2008/0140207 and the Varela/Oglaza/Krueger Synthes family.

If you want a complete, element-by-element chart against all 255 references, I'd need the untruncated citation table from the Google Patents or USPTO PatentCenter record for application 18/173,964 — please paste it and I'll produce the full per-reference citation/date/description/claim mapping.

I'll start by grounding the key prior-art references cited on this patent's face so the analysis rests on actual disclosures rather than assumptions.

Let me ground a few more of the key cited references that map onto the claimed threaded-actuator/ramped-carriage architecture.

Obviousness Analysis — US 12251321 B2 ("Expandable intervertebral implant")

Scope note. This analysis draws on the Prior Art section of the Google Patents page for US12251321B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US12251321/en), i.e. the "Prior art keywords / Prior art date," the "Families Citing this family (89)" list, and the "Citations (255)" list. The fetched text of that Citations list is truncated at US20050171607A1, so citations appearing later in the 255-item list were not visible to me; my identification of the most probative references is therefore bounded by that truncation. Where I could not independently verify a reference's disclosure, I say so explicitly rather than filling the gap.

1. Posture and critical date

Because every claim of US12251321B2 is a continuation claim tracing to 2013-02-25 — a date before 2013-03-16 — the pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 govern (AIA §§ 102/103 apply only to applications containing a claim with an effective filing date on or after 2013-03-16). Practically this means:

• § 102(b) printed publications / patents must predate 2012-02-25;
• § 102(a)/(e) art must predate 2013-02-25.

Nearly every reference I rely on below published between 1997 and 2005 and satisfies both windows. Important caveat: several references in the "cited by examiner" set are Globus's own later filings — US9968461B2 (priority 2014-05-15), US9486327B2 (2014-05-15), US11160666B2 (2014-05-15), US10105239B2 (priority 2013-02-14). On their face these post-date the 2013-02-25 priority date and are not available as prior art under pre-AIA § 102 against these claims; their appearance in the citation list is a prosecution artifact, not a § 103 ground.

2. The claims to be tested

Two independent claims (1 and 15), with dependents 2–14 and 16–19. Stripped to essentials:

Claim 1 requires (a) a frame with lateral sides and distal/proximal ends defining a longitudinal axis; (b) a carriage slideably positionable within the frame, the carriage having at least one ramped surface and a threaded portion, and whose width is "approximate the width of the frame"; (c) an actuator screw threadably engaged with the carriage threaded portion and "configured to bear against said frame" so that rotation of the screw drives the carriage; (d) a first endplate with a ramped surface mateable with the carriage ramp; (e) a second endplate; (f) the carriage carrying an additional ramped surface mating with a ramp on the second endplate, so that carriage translation raises both endplates transversely to the longitudinal axis; and (g) both endplates are "capable of moving with respect to the frame."

Claim 15 is the same architecture expressed differently: the carriage has a threaded bore extending along the central longitudinal axis, the actuator screw extends along that axis, and the first endplate has a channel (with a ramped surface) mateable with the carriage ramp; again both endplates can move relative to the frame.

The dependence groups: 2 (transverse-only travel), 3–4 (bone-screw aperture + anti-backout blocker), 5 (bone-engaging projections), 6–8 (two interconnected portions of dissimilar materials), 9 (screw + lateral support), 10 (thrust washer), 11 (polymeric anti-rotation material), 12 (split bone-screw aperture formed by both endplates), 13 (dovetail frame/endplate connection), 14 (width > length), and 16–19 (retraction, lateral support screw/elongated channel, metallic + polymeric endplate portions, dovetailed portions).

3. Prior art of record most probative of the independent claims

Additional face citations relevant to specific dependents: US6558423B1 (Michelson, "multi-lock for locking opposed screws"), US6383186B1 (Michelson single-lock plating), US6231610B1 (Allegiance), US6258089B1 (Alphatec), US5888223A (Bray) for bone-screw fixation and anti-backout; US6562074B2 (Medicinelodge, "Adjustable bone fusion implant and method").

4. Grounds under § 103

Ground A — Lim ('065) in view of Spinal Concepts ('614)

Mapping (claim 1):

• Frame with sides/ends and longitudinal axis → Lim's second member 30 with sidewalls 33 and proximal/distal ends 11, 12.
• Carriage slideably positionable within the frame, having a ramped surface and a threaded portion, width ≈ frame width → Lim's third member 40, slideable within sidewalls 33, carrying angled sections 45/46, expressly "positioned between the first member 20 and second member 30," with width "less than or equal to the boundary formed by the sidewalls 33." The threaded portion comes from '614's turnbuckle/cam-block adjustment mechanism, which converts rotation of a threaded member into relative translation of the two engaging plates.
• Both endplate ramps driven by one carriage translation → Lim: "movement of the third member 40 results in both the first member 20 and second member 30 moving outward from a centerline."
• Both endplates capable of moving with respect to the frame → Lim, verbatim functional disclosure.

Motivation. Both references are in the same field (intervertebral body fusion spacers), address the same problem (insert at low profile, restore/maintain disc height in situ), and the substitution is a known mechanical expedient for a known purpose: replacing Lim's pushrod/cam deployer with a captive threaded actuator ('614) yields self-locking height retention, finer continuous adjustment, and a mechanical advantage — the ordinary design objectives of an in-situ expandable cage. Lim itself teaches away from collapse-prone designs (support sections "prevent the spacer 10 from moving towards the closed orientation"), which supplies an express reason to adopt a screw thread that resists back-driving. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): the combination of two known elements, each performing its known function, with a predictable result, is obvious.

Ground B — Kambin ('122) + Spinal Concepts ('614) + Li ('761)

Kambin's cage is expanded "by a wedging mechanism" (as characterized in the WO2000035389A1 prior-art discussion); a wedge traversing along the cage axis against ramped surfaces is precisely the ramped-carriage/first-and-second-endplate kinematic of claim 1. '614 supplies the rotationally driven, threadably engaged actuator; Li '761 supplies the motivation to insert at minimum height and expand in situ. A POSITA would have been motivated to substitute a screw-driven wedge carriage for Kambin's actuator because the screw provides controlled, incremental, and self-holding expansion — again the recognized design goals identified in the art itself. This ground is strongest for claim 15, which is agnostic as to how the carriage is supported.

Ground C — Expanding Concepts ('689) + Lim ('065) + '614

'689 discloses an upper body 12 and lower body 14 that both move relative to an interposed articulated structure; Lim supplies the ramped carriage and the "third member between two bone-contacting members" geometry with width constraints; '614 supplies the threaded actuator. This is the cleanest answer to claim 1's closing limitation ("the first endplate and the second endplate are capable of moving with respect to the frame"), because '689 and Lim each show the pair of bone-contacting plates translating, rather than one plate being fixed to a housing.

Ground D — DE4012622C1 + '614 (or '589)

The German reference's two toothed racks driving two implant parts apart, with an elastic pre-stress between the parts, discloses the concept of a single translating member acting on multiple ramped/racked surfaces to expand a two-part vertebral implant. Combining with '614's threaded adjuster or '589's locking arrangement is a predictable mechanical substitution. The elastic pre-load of DE4012622 also anticipates the function of claim 11 (material urging against the actuator to resist unintended movement) and, with WO2002045625A1's "hard pass points," the function of claim 11 generally.

5. Dependent claims

6. Motivation-to-combine rationale (consolidated)

A POSITA at 2013, working in expandable interbody fusion, would have had at least four articulated reasons to arrive at the claimed combination:

1. Same field / same problem. Every reference above targets in-situ height restoration between adjacent vertebrae; combination requires no change in the field of endeavor or the operative principle.
2. Known problem → known cure. The art itself repeatedly identifies unintended collapse/height loss as the failure mode ('065's support sections; '589's locking pins; '262's pre-stress; '625's hard pass points). A threaded actuator threadably engaging a translating carriage is the textbook self-locking remedy and is disclosed in the same field by '614.
3. Predictable kinematics with a reasonable expectation of success. Ramps translating along ramps is deterministic; adding a screw changes only the input modality, not the geometry. KSR: where a technique has been used to improve one device, a POSITA "would have recognized that it would improve similar devices in the same way."
4. Design incentives / market forces. Minimally invasive and lateral/anterolateral approaches rewarded low collapsed profiles and controlled expansion — the express premise of Li '761 and Lim '065.

No reference of record teaches away from combining a threaded actuator with a ramped carriage; to the contrary, they teach toward locking or damping mechanisms that the claimed screw inherently supplies.

7. Weaknesses in the record, and confidence

• High confidence: the architecture of claims 1 and 15 as a whole (ramped carriage + threaded actuator + two transversely-moving endplates in a frame) is obvious over Lim (US20040153065A1/US7828849B2) in view of Spinal Concepts (US6641614B1), with Kambin (US5665122A) and Expanding Concepts (US6126689A) as cumulative or alternative primary references.
• Moderate confidence: the "width of the carriage is approximate the width of the frame" limitation. Lim's third member 40 is expressly "less than or equal to the boundary formed by the sidewalls 33," which supports not wider than, but I did not verify a pre-2013 reference expressly reciting carriage-width ≈ frame-width. The rationale (full-width load transfer to avoid endplate subsidence and to prevent endplate racking) is a strong motivation argument, but the disclosure gap is real. A width-equal-to-housing teaching does appear in the Citing list (US2023/0285164, NuVasive) — but that document is from 2023 and cannot be used as prior art against a 2013-priority claim; it is at most evidence of long-standing design convention, and should be used with that limitation stated.
• Low confidence / unproven on this record: claims 6–8 and 18 (dissimilar-material, interconnected endplate portions), claim 12 (split bone-screw aperture), claims 9/10/17 (lateral support screw + elongated channel; thrust washer). These likely require references not visible in the truncated Citations list.
• Not usable as prior art: US10117754B2, US10786364B2, US11612495B2 (the patent's own parents), and the examiner-flagged Globus filings US9968461B2, US9486327B2, US11160666B2, US10105239B2 — all post-date 2013-02-25 on their faces.

8. Secondary considerations

Nothing on the page evidences unexpected results, long-felt-but-unsolved need, or industry praise tied to these claims. The specification's own admissions are unhelpful to patentability: it describes PEEK-OPTIMA/titanium materials, ASTM-specified alloys, turnbuckle/cam-type adjusters, and dovetail connections as known options, and it characterizes the disclosed ranges (7–12 mm expansion, 4/8/12/16° lordosis, 23×32/26×38/26×42 mm footprints) as "only representative sizes." Under KSR, that framing supports rather than rebuts obviousness. Any commercial-success argument would require proof of nexus to the "carriage width ≈ frame width" and "both endplates movable relative to the frame" limitations specifically — and those are precisely the limitations for which the visible prior-art record is thinnest.