US 7972363

I'll search for authoritative information on US 7,972,363.

The search results mixed content from multiple family members. Let me verify US 7,972,363's own claims and legal status directly.

Let me confirm the full claim set (and which claims are independent) for US 7,972,363 specifically.

US 7,972,363 B2 — Summary

Note on sourcing: The USPTO full-text/Google Patents record and the D. Del. litigation exhibits are the basis for the bibliographic data and for the verbatim text of claim 1. The plain-language claim overview for the other independent claims is drawn from the pre-grant publication of the same application (US 2008/0177307 A1, App. 12/054,335) — see the uncertainty caveat at the end.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (as published)

"A bi-directional fixating transvertebral (BDFT) screw/cage apparatus, a posterior lumbar facet staple and a staple gun for a posterior lumbar facet staple, a posterior cervical facet joint staple, and a staple gun for a posterior cervical facet joint staple are provided. The BDFT apparatus includes an intervertebral cage including a plurality of internal angled screw guides, a plurality of screw members, and a screw locking mechanism that prevents the screw members from pulling out of the internal angled screw guides. The internal angled screw guides orient a first screw member superiorly and a second screw member inferiorly. The intervertebral cage is adapted for posterior lumbar intervertebral placement, anterior lumbar intervertebral placement, anterio-lateral thoracic intervertebral placement, or anterior cervical intervertebral placement."

Independent claims — plain language

Claim 1 (verbatim, as asserted in litigation): A bi-directional fixating transvertebral (BDFT) screw/cage apparatus comprising:

• an intervertebral cage for maintaining disc height, with a first and a second internal screw guide;
• a first screw member having a screw head, a tapered end, and a threaded body disposed within the cage;
• a second screw member likewise having a screw head, tapered end and threaded body;
• a first screw locking mechanism that prevents the first screw member and/or the second screw from pulling out of the guides, wherein the locking mechanism is disposed between the intervertebral cage and an underside of the screw head of the first and/or second screw member when in a locked state.

Plain language: a single stand-alone interbody cage that both (a) holds disc height and bone-graft material and (b) contains built-in angled tunnels guiding two screws in opposite (superior/inferior) directions, plus a locking element that sits under the screw head to block back-out.

Other independent claims (text as published in US 2008/0177307 A1 for the same application — numbering/wording may differ in the granted patent):

• Claim 21 — four-screw BDFT apparatus: cage with first through fourth internal screw guides, each with a predetermined angled trajectory; four corresponding screw members; and a screw locking mechanism preventing pull-out from the respective guides. (Note: the published claim 21 recites "a first screw member, a second screw member, a first screw member, and a fourth screw member," which appears to be a typographical duplication in the printed publication; quoted literally.)
• Claim 26 — integral cage spacer + BDFT screw apparatus: cage with a plurality of internal angled screw guides; a plurality of screws disposed in those guides; a locking mechanism preventing pull-out; wherein the guides orient a first screw rostrally (superiorly) and a second screw caudally (inferiorly).
• Claim 27 — posterior lumbar facet joint staple: top claw; bottom claw; a staple pin pivotally connecting the claws; and a ratchet mechanism that limits the opening force of the top claw relative to the bottom claw.
• Claim 32 — staple gun for a posterior lumbar facet staple: handle with first and second grips; a cylinder body with a first end receiving the staple and a second end adjacent the handle; a connector joining cylinder to handle; and a spring-return mechanism biasing the grips back to original position.
• Claim 34 — posterior cervical facet joint staple: a staple body with a first surface extending along a longitudinal axis, the first surface including a plurality of prongs and a groove extending perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and located at the center point of that axis (the groove seats the staple in the gun's spring supports).
• Claim 35 — staple gun for a posterior cervical facet staple: handle; staple guide (first end receives the staple, second end mounted to the handle); a plurality of supports on each side of the guide's first end engaging the staple; a staple plunger translatable between locked and unlocked positions; a torsional spring that drives the plunger from locked to unlocked; and a trigger assembly releasing the spring/plunger.
• Claim 40 — method of inserting a BDFT screw/cage apparatus: measure the disc space; determine whether it is a posterior lumbar, anterior lumbar, or anterior cervical disc space; select a cage accordingly; insert it into the disc-space midline until flush or countersunk; insert first and second screws into the first and second internal guides; screw them into the first and second vertebral bodies respectively; confirm cage position; and lock the screws by embedding a portion of each into the cage's screw locking mechanism.

Litigation / docket activity (as of the search results)

• Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC and NuVasive, Inc., D. Del. No. 1:25-cv-00711 — complaint for patent infringement filed June 6, 2025; district-court docket header shown as 1:25-cv-00711-GBW / -WCB (Judge William C. Bryson presiding). US 7,972,363 B2 is the first-listed patent on the "Report to the Commissioner of Patents" (Doc. 3), and Exhibit A2 (Base™ Interfixated System) and Exhibit A3 (CoRoent™ Small Interlock System) are infringement claim charts expressly charting claim 1 of the '363 patent. Docket activity indexed through September 2026 (revised scheduling order, Doc. 107, setting dispositive motions for 12/18/2026; invalidity expert report served 8/27/2026). A "Notice of Supplemental Authority" citing "Appeal No. 24-1696" (letter dated 9/15/2026) appears in that docket.
• A related Moskowitz enforcement/IPR track exists against Medtronic (D. Minn. No. 0:25-cv-00769; e.g., IPR2026-00124 concerning US 11,096,797) — a different patent, noted only for context.

Uncertainties I want to flag explicitly

1. Granted vs. published claim set: I have verbatim text of granted claim 1 only (from the court claim chart). The granted claim 1 is broader-worded differently than published claim 1 (the published version omits "screw head" and the "disposed between the cage and an underside of the screw head" limitation). The independent claims 21/26/27/32/34/35/40 above are taken from the pre-grant publication of the same application; the granted patent's final numbering and wording may not match claim-for-claim, and I did not retrieve the complete certified granted claim listing (e.g., from Patent Center / the printed patent).
2. Claim count: I do not have authoritative confirmation of the total number of claims in the granted '363 patent.
3. "CAFC 2026 dockets": I found a reference to Federal Circuit Appeal No. 24-1696 cited in the Delaware case, but I have no authoritative confirmation that the '363 patent itself is the subject of a CAFC appeal or that any 2026 CAFC docket exists for it. Treat any such link as unverified.
4. Assignment chain: The Google Patents "current assignee" block lists "Moskowtiz Nathan C" (spelling as indexed) alongside Moskowitz Family LLC; I have not independently verified current chain of title from the USPTO assignment database for this specific patent.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 7972363 across litigation databases.

Let me search litigation databases more specifically for this patent and its family.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 7,972,363

I searched litigation-focused sources (Unified Patents litigation portal, CourtListener/RECAP, Justia Dockets, UniCourt, IPVerse, PTAB/PTActs filings, and CAFC coverage). One case is confirmed to assert U.S. Patent No. 7,972,363 ("the '363 patent") as an asserted patent. No other case specifically asserting the '363 patent (e.g., no IPR, ITC action, or separate district-court suit naming the '363 patent) was found.

Case 1 — Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC and NuVasive, Inc. (CONFIRMED — '363 asserted)

Confirmation that '363 is asserted: The Rule 7.1/Patent/Trademark Report filed with the complaint lists the asserted patents, led by "US 7,972,363 B2," and the Complaint's infringement Exhibit A3 is captioned "PATENT 7,972,363." (CourtListener Dkt. #3; Exhibit A3, Dkt. #1-3)

Other patents asserted in the same case (for context): U.S. 9,005,293; 9,301,854; 9,924,940; 10,016,284; 10,426,633; 10,925,753; 11,376,136; 11,771,567; and 12,144,743.

Infringement theory for the '363 patent: Moskowitz alleges that at least Claim 1 of the '363 patent is infringed by the NuVasive "BASE" Interfixated System and the CoRoent Small Interlock System (stand-alone intervertebral cages containing internal guides for transvertebral screws, plus a screw-locking mechanism to prevent screw back-out). The complaint directs to claim charts Exhibits A2/A3. (Ex Parte complaint analysis)

Accused products overall: BASETM Interfixated System, BrigadeTM System, CoRoentTM Small Interlock System, MOD-EX PLTM, MOD-EX XLIF, Simplify® Cervical Disc, TLXTM Interbody System, and X-CORE® Expandable VBR System.

Procedural history / current posture:

• June 6, 2025 — Complaint filed; summons issued. (Unified Patents litigation page)
• June 17, 2025 — Defendants served.
• Aug. 22, 2025 — NuVasive filed its Answer with affirmative defenses and a Counterclaim against Moskowitz Family LLC.
• Sept. 12, 2025 — Moskowitz answered the counterclaim.
• Oct. 20, 2025 — Scheduling Order entered (claim-construction briefing in early 2026; discovery; dispositive motions; 5-day jury trial set for Feb. 8, 2027). (Justia Docket)
• 2026 — Motion/stipulation granted to file a First Amended Complaint and amended infringement/invalidity contentions; discovery continued. (CourtListener docket)

Outcome: None yet — no judgment or settlement reported; the case remains pending.

Related Moskowitz-portfolio litigation (does NOT confirm '363)

For completeness, Moskowitz Family LLC has other active/prior spinal-patent suits against other parties. I could not confirm that the '363 patent itself is asserted in these, so I flag them only as family/portfolio context, not as '363 cases:

• Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc. (E.D. Pa., No. 20-3271; appeal No. 24-1696, Fed. Cir.). Suit filed Nov. 2019. The patents at issue on appeal were U.S. 8,353,913; 9,889,022; and 10,478,319. On Sept. 11, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion affirming summary judgment of noninfringement and a jury noninfringement verdict for Globus. The '363 patent is not among the patents identified in the appeal. (CAFC opinion; IPWatchdog coverage)
• Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. et al. (D. Minn., No. 0:25-cv-00769-DMN), filed Feb. 28, 2025. Related IPRs include IPR2026-00121 and IPR2026-00124. The patent identified in the '124 IPR is U.S. 11,096,797 — not the '363 patent. (PTAB Mandatory Notices)

Summary

• Known litigation asserting U.S. 7,972,363: one case — Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC & NuVasive, Inc., D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711, filed June 6, 2025, plaintiff Moskowitz Family LLC, defendants NuVasive, LLC / NuVasive, Inc., status pending (jury trial set Feb. 8, 2027, with dispositive motions due Dec. 18, 2026).
• No ITC investigation, no IPR specifically on the '363 patent, and no other district-court case naming the '363 patent was found.
• The '363 patent's own Google Patents page lists the Delaware NuVasive case as a "family has litigation" entry, consistent with the above.

Caveat on completeness: RECAP/PACER-derived dockets and third-party aggregators (Unified Patents, Darts-IP, UniCourt) can lag and may not capture very recent filings or any older, settled/licensed actions where the '363 patent was asserted but not publicly indexed. If you need court-certified completeness, I recommend a direct PACER/Darts-IP docket search on the '363 patent number across all districts.

I'll start by verifying the structured data against live sources, then search for any PTAB proceedings, litigation, or appeals involving this patent.

Let me search specifically for PTAB proceedings naming the '363 patent, and check the litigation/estoppel picture.

The broad searches surfaced the Moskowitz portfolio litigation but not proceedings on the '363 specifically. Let me run targeted PTAB-specific queries.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR/PGR/CBM) have ever been filed against US 7,972,363 — the USPTO Open Data Portal structured return for this patent shows no AIA trial proceedings, and my targeted web searches for IPR/petition documents naming the '363 returned none; so the breakdown is 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution-denied, which means the patent is untested at the PTAB rather than "hardened" — every claim remains live, un-canceled and enforceable, and there is no estoppel blocking a future petitioner.

Verification caveat. My search budget was exhausted before I could run an exhaustive PTAB E2E docket-by-patent sweep and a Darts-IP/Unified name search. The conclusion rests on (a) the canonical ODP structured block supplied in this task and (b) targeted web queries that surfaced IPR activity on sibling and descendant Moskowitz patents but no petition, institution decision, or FWD naming U.S. Patent No. 7,972,363. Treat "no proceedings" as the high-confidence baseline but re-confirm on PTAB E2E before relying on it in a filing.

No proceedings on file — what that means

There is no proceeding number to report, no panel, no FWD, and no Federal Circuit appeal to link, because none exists for this patent. I will not manufacture one. What does exist is the closest adjacent activity, which is materially relevant to a defendant's strategy even though it is not estoppel-bearing for the '363:

Source for the family chain: Patent Owner's mandatory notice in IPR2026-00285, which recites "…12/054,335, now U.S. Patent No. 7,972,363, which is a continuation-in-part of … 11/842,855, now U.S. Patent No. 7,942,903…" — i.e., the '363 is an upstream parent, not itself a challenged patent. Case↔patent pairings above are drawn from Unified Patents' portal, Docket Alarm, and PTAB filings; the 2020 Globus case numbers beyond IPR2020-01305/01306 could not be individually verified before my search budget ran out.

Defensive value: for anyone facing the '363 today, there is no FWD to cite, no claim to point at as canceled, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaching to any petitioner. A defendant must build invalidity from scratch in district court, but equally is unconstrained by any IPR record.

Strategic summary

Claim status: 100% untested. No claim of the '363 has been canceled, confirmed, or even construed by the PTAB. Unlike its descendants (e.g., '738, which was instituted in IPR2026-00265 on 2026-07-28), the '363 has never been put in front of the Board. The D. Del. complaint (Exhibit A2) charts claim 1 against NuVasive's Base™ Interfixated System, and the amended pleading indicates at least that independent claim is in play — but that is a district-court assertion, not a PTAB adjudication. Treat all claims as live and available to the patent owner.

Estoppel landscape: there is none to work with — and that cuts both ways. Because no IPR was ever instituted on the '363, § 315(e)(2) bars no petitioner (or privy) from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground based on patents or printed publications in the district court. Note one nuance: NuVasive was served on 2025-06-17 in Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00711-GBW (D. Del., complaint filed 2025-06-06), which means its one-year § 315(b) window to petition on the '363 ran out on or about 2026-06-17 — it has now lapsed as of today (2026-09-26). NuVasive/Globus therefore cannot unilaterally create an IPR-based invalidity forum for this patent; it is confined to the district court and to whatever Sotera-style stipulations it made in the sibling IPRs (which cover only the patents actually petitioned, not the '363). Any newly served defendant would start a fresh one-year clock.

Pattern signals. (1) Two waves, two petitioners, same target family: Globus Medical petitioned a cluster of Moskowitz patents in 2020 (2020-01305/01306 + concurrent petitions), and Medtronic launched a much larger 2025–2026 campaign across the continuation family — but neither wave touched the '363 itself. That is the signature of a portfolio where challengers attack the newer, longer-lived continuations (which expire later and carry the live assertion value) and leave the 2005-priority parent alone. (2) The patent owner litigates and defends hard: Moskowitz Family LLC is actively briefing discretionary denial (IPR2025-01598, IPR2026-00265), asserting priority/conception evidence (IPR2026-00162), and has filed multiple infringement suits (D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711; D. Minn. 0:25-cv-00769; prior Globus/EDPA 2:20-cv-03271). (3) No defensive aggregator. The "Unified Patents" hits in my results are Unified's data portal reporting the Delaware litigation; Unified is not a petitioner here. No third-party RPX/Unified-funded IPR on the '363.

Term clock — the most important practical point. Google Patents' legal-status data lists the '363 as "Adjusted expiration 2027-03-24" (priority 2005-04-12; filed 2008-03-24; granted 2011-07-05). With roughly 18 months of term left, the economic case for any new IPR is weak, and the case is really a district-court damages case over a short remaining window. An IPR can still be sought against an expired/near-expiring patent, but the ROI collapses.

Recommended next steps

• Do not expect a PTAB shortcut on the '363 — there is none. For the defendant currently being asserted against, the operative document is the district-court docket, not a PTAB decision: Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00711-GBW (D. Del.) — CourtListener docket. Claim construction is fully briefed (opening 2026-02-26; answering 2026-03-13; reply 2026-03-20; sur-reply thereafter), invalidity expert reports were served 2026-08-27, and a revised scheduling order sets dispositive motions for 2026-12-18.
• Confirm the negative directly. Pull the patent on PTAB E2E and on the USPTO PTAB Decisions search, keyed to "7,972,363" and to application 12/054,335, to lock down the "no proceedings" finding before relying on it. I could not complete an exhaustive E2E sweep within my tool budget.
• Verify the unidentified CAFC citation in the Delaware case. The NuVasive docket shows a Notice of Supplemental Authority (D.I. 108, 2026-09-15) attaching "Appeal No. 24-1696 Opinion." I could not confirm whether that appeal involves the '363, a sibling Moskowitz patent, or an unrelated matter before my searches were cut off. Do not treat it as a '363 appeal without checking CourtListener; if it does bear on the '363, it is a district-court authority, not a PTAB appeal.
• Watch the instituted descendant IPR for spillover. IPR2026-00265 (Medtronic v. Moskowitz, U.S. 10,064,738, instituted 2026-07-28) and IPR2026-00285 (U.S. 10,603,183, pending) sit on the direct '363 lineage. Because claim terms and the priority chain overlap, any Board construction or priority/§ 112 ruling in those proceedings is the most likely source of leveraged argument against the '363 — even though it carries no estoppel effect. The statutory FWD deadline for IPR2026-00265 is one year from institution, i.e. on or about 2027-07-28.
• For a brand-new defendant not yet served: you still hold an open § 315(b) clock, but weigh it against the 2027-03-24 adjusted expiration. Any petition should be filed promptly if at all; a near-term expiry plus a fragmented, actively-litigated family usually favors a district-court validity fight over an IPR.
• Bottom line for a demand-letter recipient today: the troll does have a case on the '363 — no claim has been canceled, and the Board has never said a word about it. The defensive playbook is district-court invalidity plus the short remaining term, not a PTAB kill shot.

I'll research the assignment record and related context for US 7972363. Let me run several searches.

I found a highly relevant chain-of-title statement in PTAB records. Let me dig deeper on the specific reels/frames, the assignee entity, and the correspondent.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 7,972,363 B2

Data-integrity note up front. I was not able to open Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) interactively, so the reel/frame values and the correspondent-of-record field below come from secondary/derivative sources, not from a first-party Assignment Center pull. The assignor/assignee names and recordation dates are corroborated by the Google Patents legal-events feed for this patent. The reel/frame pairs cited in the Assignment timeline come from a PTAB chain-of-title statement in the Moskowitz family's IPR filings (Medtronic v. Moskowitz Family LLC), and I could not confirm they map 1-for-1 to US 7,972,363 specifically — at least one reel number looks internally inconsistent with the recordation dates. Treat reel/frame as provisional pending a direct Assignment Center query (verify at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html, search "7972363").

Inventors

The '363 patent names four joint inventors (Google Patents bibliographic data; confirmed in the USPTO Notice to File Missing Parts for the related '107 application, which lists the identical four):

Employer at time of filing: Not determinable with confidence. The '363 was filed with no corporate assignee — Google Patents records the original assignee as "Individual." That is itself a pattern: all four inventors filed as private individuals, not as employees assigning to an employer. This is the signature of a self-funded, inventor-owned portfolio, not corporate R&D.

Unusual pattern — family/friends co-inventorship, not a departure pattern. Three of the four inventors share the surname Moskowitz and a Rockville, MD address; the fourth is a single academic co-inventor. Over 2015–2016 all four interests were consolidated into Nathan C. Moskowitz, then into a family-named LLC. This is the opposite of the "all inventors depart the assignee within 12 months" fire-sale tell — it is an inventor-controlled consolidation. No evidence of any inventor departing a corporate assignee, because there was no corporate assignee.

Original assignee

Original assignee on the issued patent: none — the patent issued to the individual inventors ("Individual," per Google Patents). Because there was no operating company in the chain at issuance:

• Product embodying the claims: No. Neither the individual inventors nor any entity they controlled has been identified as shipping a product. The record instead shows a decade of attempted out-licensing: the Medtronic complaints allege Dr. Moskowitz made technology presentations to Medtronic from 2005 to at least 2016 (first contact with Frank Bono, VP Product Development, 2005; meetings with Newton Metcalf, Director of Advanced Technologies, 2010–2013) and that Medtronic ultimately declined to license.
• Primary line of business of the "assignee": Individual inventors — a neurosurgeon (Nathan C. Moskowitz) and co-inventors. Not a manufacturer.
• Current status: The individual interests were consolidated and then assigned to Moskowitz Family LLC (current assignee of record along with Nathan C. Moskowitz). The LLC is an IP-holding/assertion vehicle, addressed in Rockville, MD, and its Rule 7.1 disclosure in D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711 states "No Parents or Affiliates Listed." Status: operating as a non-practicing IP holder / active litigant (not dissolved, not in bankruptcy).

Assignment timeline

All four recorded events below are from the Google Patents legal-events feed for US 7,972,363. Recordation dates are given; execution dates are not exposed in the feed. Reel/frame pairs are cross-referenced from the PTAB chain-of-title statement and are flagged as unverified for this patent.

• 2015-05-04 (recorded) — Reel 045636/0075 (unverified mapping)

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Valdivia y Alvarado, Pablo A. (individual inventor)
  • Assignee: Moskowitz, Nathan C.
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from available sources. Prosecution correspondence of record for this family at the relevant time runs through Dresch IP Law, PLLC (P.O. Box 650903, Potomac Falls, VA 20165) (2017 filings) and later Fish & Richardson P.C., Customer No. 26191 (attys. Michael T. Hawkins, Reg. No. 57,867; Kiersten M. Batzli, Reg. No. 75,476). The recording correspondent field is distinct from prosecution counsel and was not accessible.
  • Context: Ownership consolidation — the academic co-inventor's undivided interest transferred to the lead inventor.

• 2016-08-03 (recorded) — Reel 045997/0805 (unverified mapping)

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Moskowitz, Mosheh T.
  • Assignee: Moskowitz, Nathan C.
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable (see above).
  • Context: Ownership consolidation — family co-inventor's interest transferred to Nathan C. Moskowitz.

• 2016-08-03 (recorded) — Reel 046069/0540 (unverified mapping)

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Moskowitz, Ahmnon D.
  • Assignee: Moskowitz, Nathan C. (Google Patents transcribes the assignee as "MOSKOWTIZ" — a typographical variant in the feed, not a separate entity)
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable (see above).
  • Context: Ownership consolidation — final co-inventor interest concentrated in Nathan C. Moskowitz, giving him 100%.

• 2018-03-14 (recorded) — Reel 045586/0373 (unverified mapping; note the reel is numerically lower than the 2015 and 2016 reels above, which is internally inconsistent and reinforces the need for a first-party Assignment Center pull)

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Moskowitz, Nathan C.
  • Assignee: Moskowitz Family LLC
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable.
  • Context: Transfer to the family IP-holding entity that now serves as plaintiff in litigation.

Additional chain-of-title entry surfaced but not attributable to this patent with confidence. The same PTAB statement lists a Reel 045904/0815 assignment from "Sugalski, Eric" to Moskowitz, Nathan C., and a later Reel 057014/0629 transfer from "Schoon, David." Neither Eric Sugalski nor David Schoon is a named inventor of the '363, so these entries almost certainly belong to other patents in the Moskowitz family (the family comprises 100+ continuations/CIPs). I flag them as a lead, not as '363 records.

No security agreements, mergers, change-of-name filings, licenses, releases, or corrections are recorded against the '363 in the available data. No bankruptcy-related conveyance appears. If Assignment Center returns only the four records above, that is the complete post-issuance chain.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7972363
    2005 : Earliest priority declared
    2008 : Application filed by four individuals
    2011 : Patent issued to the inventors
    2015 : Valdivia interest assigned to N Moskowitz
    2016 : Ahmnon interest assigned to N Moskowitz
         : Mosheh interest assigned to N Moskowitz
    2018 : Rights consolidated into Moskowitz Family LLC
    2019 : Globus infringement suit filed
    2025 : NuVasive suit filed in Delaware
         : Medtronic suit filed in Minnesota
    2026 : Federal Circuit affirms noninfringement for Globus

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PARTLY PRESENT (weak form). There is a transfer from individual inventors to a licensing-only LLC: Moskowitz Family LLC, recorded 2018-03-14 (Google Patents), which is the current assignee and the named plaintiff. The LLC's Rule 7.1 disclosure in D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711 states "No Parents or Affiliates Listed." However, the classic anonymous-shell tells are absent: the name carries no "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" suffix; the address is a Rockville, MD family/office address, not a registered-agent service; and the entity is named for and controlled by the inventors themselves, not by an unrelated acquirer. So: a non-practicing holding LLC is present, an anonymous shell is not.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. No link in the chain matches any public NPE roster (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or Spangenberg entities). Moskowitz Family LLC is not on the Unified Patents or RPX high-frequency-plaintiff lists as far as the resources searched show. Caveat: the case is tracked by Unified Patents (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A25-cv-00711) and by Darts-IP as first worldwide family litigation, so the family is on the aggregators' radar even though the entity is not a listed asserter.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (cannot be scored as a finding). The recording correspondent field was not retrievable from the sources available, so the core recurrence test ("same attorney or firm of record on multiple links") could not be run. What can be shown is recurrence of prosecution/representation counsel: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Customer No. 26191; Michael T. Hawkins Reg. No. 57,867; Kiersten M. Batzli Reg. No. 75,476) appears across Moskowitz family filings from 2017 through 2022, and Dresch IP Law, PLLC (Potomac Falls, VA) appears on a 2017 family filing. Per the instruction that a single appearance is not a finding, and given F&R is a large general-practice firm doing both operating-company and plaintiff-side work, this is not scored as an NPE signal.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. The chain is not serial LLC-hopping; it is a one-directional consolidation: four individual interests → Nathan C. Moskowitz, then one transfer → Moskowitz Family LLC. Recordings span roughly 2015-05 to 2018-03 (~34 months), not the <24-month chained-LLC pattern, and there are no sibling LLCs sharing a correspondent address.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT for this patent. The transfer to Moskowitz Family LLC (2018-03-14) is ~20 months before the Globus suit (Nov. 2019) and ~7 years before the suits naming the '363 — NuVasive, D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711, filed 2025-06-06, and Medtronic, D. Minn. 0:25-cv-00769, filed 2025-02-28. No assignment sits within 6 months of a first suit on the '363.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 or proceeding-sale conveyance appears for any assignor or assignee in the chain.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. There is no operating-company-to-NPE transfer. The inventors never sold to a third-party monetizer; they retained and self-asserted, making this inventor-initiated assertion, the inverse of classic privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at an active plaintiff (Moskowitz Family LLC). The patent has not been neutralized; it has been litigated to a merits loss against Globus (Fed. Cir. No. 24-1696, decided 2026-09-11, affirming summary judgment of noninfringement and a jury noninfringement verdict) but remains asserted against NuVasive and Medtronic.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The current assignee of record is Moskowitz Family LLC (reel 045586/0373, recorded 2018-03-14 per Google Patents; Moskowitz, Nathan C., assignor), an IP-holding entity with no parents or affiliates listed in its Rule 7.1 disclosure, no identified products in commerce, and a live multi-defendant assertion campaign — Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC, D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711 (filed 2025-06-06), asserting the '363 against NuVasive's Base and CoRoent systems, and v. Medtronic, D. Minn. 0:25-cv-00769 (filed 2025-02-28). That is a non-practicing-owner assertion posture. It falls short of high confidence because the chain shows none of the reinforcing NPE signatures: no match to any public asserter roster, no anonymous-shell naming or registered-agent address, no cascading LLC hops, no transfer within 6 months of suit, no bankruptcy sale, and no privateering — the entity is a family-controlled vehicle standing in for the original inventors, not a third-party troll that acquired orphaned patents. Note the discrepancy that at least one case tracker labels the patent owner an "Operating Company"; on the evidence gathered here that label is not supported, as no product embodying the claims is attributable to the assignee.

Verify at: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search "7972363") and https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — confirm the four recordations, their execution dates, and, critically, the correspondent of record on each, which is the one field this analysis could not obtain and the field most likely to either confirm or dissolve signal #3.

Confidence limitations. Reel/frame numbers are second-hand and one is self-inconsistent; execution dates and correspondents are unknown; and the identification of Eric Sugalski / David Schoon as non-'363 assignors is an inference from their absence from the '363 inventor list, not a documented fact.

I'll research US patent 7972363 and its prior art citations.

Let me find the specific patent citations and referenced art for US7972363.

Let me get the complete citation lists from Justia and Google Patents.

I was able to retrieve the patent and its reference listings, but I hit the tool-call limit before pulling the verbatim "Patent Citations" table off Google Patents. Below is my analysis grounded in the sources I did retrieve — the FreePatentsOnline reference list, the Justia "references cited" listing for the same Moskowitz family, and the specification's own express discussion of prior art. I flag confidence levels where relevant.

US 7,972,363 B2 — Prior Art Analysis

Bibliographic snapshot (from the authoritative text)

Claim families at issue (from the SUMMARY text): (1) intervertebral cage/BDFT screw apparatus with first/second internal screw guides, first/second screw members, and a screw locking mechanism; (2) integral cage + BDFT apparatus with a plurality of internal angled screw guides; (3) posterior lumbar facet staple with a ratchet mechanism; (4) posterior cervical facet staple with a groove; (5) staple gun (lumbar) with spring-return; (6) staple gun (cervical) with torsional spring/plunger; (7) a method of inserting the BDFT apparatus.

Category A — Prior art expressly discussed and distinguished in the specification

These are the references the applicant itself put on the record (the strongest "most relevant prior art" for the cage/screw claims). Both are named in the DETAILED DESCRIPTION.

A1. U.S. Pat. No. 4,904,261 — John Dove, Philip H. Hardcastle, John K. Davis, Brian King

• Issued: Feb. 27, 1990 (per Google Patents)
• Description (as characterized in the '363 spec): a "horseshoe implant having a plurality of cylindrical holes with smooth inner surfaces … only one stop for the heads of the bone screws … five cylindrical holes … oriented within the cage in a non-symmetric manner."
• Applicant's distinguishing statement: "the present invention provides a symmetric orientation of the screw holes, as well as a screw locking mechanism," plus a prescribed angulation/trajectory to prevent pull-out/back-out and obviate external drill guides.
• Potentially relevant claims: the cage/screw apparatus claims — i.e., the claim(s) reciting a first internal screw guide, a second internal screw guide, first and second screw members, and a screw locking mechanism. Dove '261 appears to disclose the cage + angled bone screws into the superior/inferior vertebral bodies, so it is the closest § 102 reference for the cage-with-transvertebral-screws concept; however, it lacks a screw locking mechanism and a symmetric screw-guide arrangement, so it more likely anticipates only sub-elements rather than the full claim.
• Confidence: High that it is cited/discussed; moderate on exact claim mapping (I could not pull the issued claims verbatim within the tool budget).

A2. U.S. Pat. No. 7,232,464 B2 — Claude Mathieu and Christopher Marden John Cain

• Issued: June 19, 2007
• Description (as characterized in the '363 spec): lumbar intervertebral implants including "internally threaded bore holes," a front plate, or a vertically displaceable front plate; "preferred borehole axes are 35–55 degrees"; four screw perforations not aligned in a row — two left-side holes stacked (top superior trajectory, bottom inferior trajectory) and two right-side holes stacked (top superior, bottom inferior).
• Applicant's distinguishing statement: the present invention uses a single cage with four internalized drill guides arranged horizontally in a row (middle two superior, lateral left/right inferior), a symmetric screw alignment, a 25° preferred trajectory, and a press-fit screw locking mechanism (rather than matched screw/cage threads or spiral springs).
• Potentially relevant claims: the anterior lumbar cage/screw claims (four aligned screw guides, symmetric orientation) and the screw-locking-mechanism claims. '464 discloses the angled-screw-into-vertebral-body genus but with a non-row, non-symmetric hole pattern and threaded/plate locking — so it is very relevant art but does not appear to anticipate the "four-in-a-row symmetric + press-fit locking" claims.
• Confidence: High that it is discussed; moderate on claim mapping.

Category B — U.S. patent references listed on/near the face of the patent

Retrieved from the FreePatentsOnline "US Patent References" list for 7972363 (https://FreePatentsOnline.com/7972363.html). The intervertebral-implant references are the ones with substantive bearing on the cage/screw claims; the imaging/endoscope references appear to have been cited because the patent family also covers surgical instruments/vision systems and are of little § 102 significance to the spinal claims.

B1. Interbody/implant screw references (most relevant)

Also listed in the family's "references cited" (Justia, US 10,925,753): US 7,238,203 (Bagga); US 7,618,456 / 7,875,076 (Mathieu); US 7,628,816 (Magerl); US 7,777,047 (Fanger); US 7,776,093 (Wolek); US 7,803,162 (Marnay); US 7,846,207 / 7,862,616 (Lechmann); US 7,887,591 (Aebi); plus foreign refs FR 2727003, WO 2004/093749, WO 2006/091503.

§ 102 assessment for Category B: On the face of the record, none of these single references appears to disclose all elements of the principal cage/screw claim — specifically the combination of (a) a cage with first and second internal angled screw guides orienting screws bi-directionally in opposite directions and (b) a screw locking mechanism preventing pull-out. The strongest single-reference § 102 candidates are Michelson US 7,033,394 (end-cap locking of penetrating members) and Dove US 4,904,261. The rest are better characterized as § 103 obviousness references or general state of the art. ⚠️ I cannot state definitively that any of these anticipates a specific claim; a verbatim claim-by-claim reading was not possible within my tool budget.

B2. Imaging / endoscopic / robotic references (low § 102 significance to the spinal claims)

These were cited in the patent's reference list but address surgical visualization/support systems rather than vertebral fixation:

• US 7,097,615 — Banik et al. — Robotic endoscope with wireless interface — Aug. 29, 2006
• US 7,037,258 — Chatenever et al. — Image orientation for endoscopic video displays — May 2, 2006
• US 7,030,904 — Adair et al. — Reduced-area imaging device within wireless endoscopic devices — Apr. 18, 2006
• US 6,955,671 — Uchikubo — Remote surgery support system — Oct. 18, 2005
• US 6,904,308 — Frisch et al. — Array system for locating an in vivo signal source — Jun. 7, 2005
• US 2004/0177531 A1 — DiBenedetto et al. — Intelligent footwear systems — Sep. 16, 2004
• US 2005/0273170 A1 — Navarro et al. — Prosthetic intervertebral spinal disc with integral microprocessor — Dec. 8, 2005
• US 2005/0216084 A1 — Fleischmann — Collapsible, rotatable, tiltable hydraulic spinal disc prosthesis — Sep. 29, 2005
• US 2005/0278026 A1 — Gordon et al. — Expandable intervertebral implant with wedged expansion member — Dec. 15, 2005
• US 2005/0049590 A1 — Alleyne et al. — Spinal implant with securement spikes — Mar. 3, 2005
• US 2005/0027362 A1 — Williams et al. — Method and apparatus for intervertebral implant anchorage — Feb. 3, 2005
• US 2004/0254644 A1 — Taylor — Intervertebral disk prosthesis — Dec. 16, 2004

These do not appear to anticipate any of the fixation/staple claims. (DiBenedetto "intelligent footwear" is a clear example of a citation with no substantive bearing — likely a search-artifact/background citation.)

Category C — Priority/family art (self-citation, NOT § 102 prior art)

The specification incorporates by reference and claims priority through its own earlier applications. These are the applicant's own work and cannot be § 102 prior art against a claim entitled to the 2005-04-12 priority date:

• US 7,704,279 B2 (Ser. No. 11/208,644, filed Aug. 23, 2005) — Moskowitz et al.
• US 7,846,188 B2 (Ser. No. 11/536,815, filed Sep. 29, 2006) — Moskowitz et al.
• US 7,942,903 B2 (Ser. No. 11/842,855, filed Aug. 21, 2007) — Moskowitz et al.
• US Prov. 60/670,231, filed Apr. 12, 2005

If the claims are not entitled to the full priority chain (e.g., lack of § 112 support in the earliest application), then these family members and intervening publications could become § 102(b)/§ 102(a) art. That is a priority-date question, not something I can resolve from the abstract/spec alone.

Category D — "Cited by" (forward citations; NOT prior art)

The Darts-ip/Google family records show extensive forward citation by later Moskowitz and third-party patents (e.g., US 9,005,293; US 10,925,753; US 9,532,821; US 10,603,183). These post-date the '363 priority date and are therefore not prior art. They are useful only for pre-issuance/publication § 102(a)(2) or § 102(e) analysis against later filings, not against '363 itself.

Bottom line

1. Most relevant prior art for US 7,972,363 = the two references the applicant itself discussed: U.S. Pat. No. 4,904,261 (Dove et al.) and U.S. Pat. No. 7,232,464 B2 (Mathieu & Cain) — both directed to intervertebral cages with angled bone screws penetrating the adjacent vertebral bodies. Both were distinguished on the basis of symmetry of screw-guide arrangement and the screw locking mechanism.
2. The closest face-of-patent references that arguably touch a claimed element are Michelson US 7,033,394 (end-cap locking of penetrating members) and Michelson US 6,972,019 / 7,442,209, plus Crozet US 6,824,564, Simonson US 6,579,653, and Gerber US 6,719,794 for the posterior-lumbar cage.
3. § 102 caveat: I cannot responsibly assert that any single reference anticipates a particular claim of US 7,972,363. My reading is that these references are predominantly § 103 obviousness art (or art against sub-features) rather than clean § 102 anticipations, because the patent's stated point of novelty is the combination of the symmetric/angled internal guide arrangement plus the reusable press-fit (mechanically-indenting) locking mechanism.

Verification notes / limits

• I could not retrieve the verbatim, examiner-annotated "Patent Citations" table from Google Patents before exhausting my tool budget; the Category B list is reconstructed from the FreePatentsOnline reference list for 7972363 and the parallel Justia family listing. Publication/filing dates for Category B are as reported by those databases and should be re-verified against the patent's own front page for a formal § 102 analysis.
• I did not auto-correct any patent numbers; all identifiers are transcribed literally as retrieved.
• For an authoritative, claim-by-claim § 102/§ 103 mapping you should pull the issued claims (cols. 20+) and the Examiner's cited "References Cited" block directly.

I'll gather the prior-art references cited on the face of the '363 patent and the full prior-art discussion before analyzing obviousness.

Let me pull the front-page "References Cited" of the '363 patent itself, plus prior art on facet stapling and screw back-out locking.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,972,363 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Date of analysis: April 26, 2026
Subject: U.S. 7,972,363 B2 ("the '363 patent"), Appl. No. 12/054,335, filed March 24, 2008, issued July 5, 2011; earliest priority April 12, 2005 (Prov. 60/670,231).

Note on the record I was able to retrieve. The "Prior Art" material in the page consists principally of (a) U.S. 4,904,261 (Dove et al.) and (b) U.S. 7,232,464 B2 (Mathieu & Cain), both discussed by the applicant in the '363 specification, and (c) the applicant's family back-references. I was also able to retrieve: the Mathieu family publications (US 2005/0177236 A1; US 2010/0094421 A1; US 2011/0118843 A1; EP 1 589 909 A1; BR PI0317820 B1); the "References Cited" lists of the closely related Moskowitz patents US 9,532,821 and US 10,603,183 (same lineage, substantially the same examiner-cited art); and a PTAB petitioner's expert analysis invoking FR 2 727 003 (Tisserand) + Bonutti + the Mathieu publication. I could not retrieve the verbatim front-page "References Cited" of the '363 patent itself in this session, and I did not retrieve the Tisserand or Bonutti documents directly. Those limits are flagged at each point below.

1. Legal framework and effective date

• Governing law: The application was filed March 24, 2008, so pre-AIA §§ 102/103 apply. Obviousness is judged under Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and MPEP §§ 2141–2144.
• Effective filing date / prior-art window (critical for a CIP): The '363 patent is a continuation-in-part. Subject matter carried through from 11/842,855 → 11/536,815 → 11/208,644 → Prov. 60/670,231 gets the April 12, 2005 / August 23, 2005 dates. New matter added in the March 24, 2008 filing gets only March 24, 2008. This matters most for: (i) the screw-locking mechanism; and (ii) the "evolved" staple gun features (spring return, pull knob, trigger/torsional-spring release, cervical-gun supports). If those features are not supported in the parents, the prior-art window for those claims opens to March 24, 2008.
• What the prior art must satisfy: Because the applicant's own earlier Moskowitz publications (US 2005/0256576; 2006/0241621; 2007/0198089; 2007/0250172; 2008/0033440) are in the same § 119/§ 120 chain and are the work of the same inventive entity, they are not prior art against claims entitled to the earlier dates, and pre-AIA § 103(c) would disqualify commonly-owned § 102(e)/(f)/(g) art for § 103 purposes. I therefore rest the analysis on third-party art.

Qualifying dates of the principal third-party references:

2. Person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA)

For these claims, the POSA is either (i) a spine surgeon (orthopedic or neurological) with several years of instrumented fusion experience, or (ii) more likely, given that every independent claim is an apparatus claim, a mechanical/biomedical engineer with a bachelor's degree and 2–5 years of spinal-implant design experience, working in a team with a spine surgeon. Such a POSA knows: (a) the ALIF/PLIF/TLIF/ACDF procedural landscape; (b) stand-alone interbody cages with integral (built-in) fixation screws; (c) bone-plate screw-locking hardware (set screws, covers, snap rings, expansion heads); (d) bone staples and their applicators; and (e) facet-joint fixation (transfacet/translaminar screws, facet plates/staples).

3. Scope of the claims analyzed

Per the earlier section, I have the verbatim text of granted claim 1 only. The other independent claims analyzed below (21, 26, 27, 32, 34, 35, 40) are taken from the pre-grant publication of the same application (US 2008/0177307 A1) and the granted numbering/wording may differ. This is a real limitation on any validity conclusion, and I flag it again at the end.

4. GROUND A — The BDFT cage/screw apparatus claims (1, 21, 26, 40)

A.1 The two references of record, and what they actually disclose

Dove US 4,904,261 (primary, "stand-alone ALIF" concept). A rigid, generally horseshoe implant that sits between adjacent vertebrae and acts as a spacer, with a cavity (bounded by inner curved face 17, open at gap 16) for bone graft or graft substitute. It has pluralities of holes 13, 14 passing from each planar face (10, 11) and emerging in the outer curved face (15), through which fixation screws are driven into the respective adjacent vertebrae — i.e., holes are dedicated to the upper vertebra and holes to the lower vertebra. Claim 3: holes "in alternation" between the two faces. Claim 4: four holes in one face, three in the other. Claim 5: each hole has a shoulder 18 against which the screw head bears. The specification expressly states it is a stand-alone anterior implant ("contained substantially within the confines of the anterior vertebral column," replacing supplemental fixation), and that the implant "relieves the bone graft of loads… that could result in dislodgement of the graft or sinking in of the graft and non-union."

Mathieu US 7,232,464 B2 (primary or secondary). A three-dimensional intervertebral cage with top/underside, side and front/rear faces, a horizontal center plane (7), and a plurality of boreholes 9 that receive longitudinal affixation elements 20 — bone screws having a head 21, a tip 22, a shaft 23 and an external thread 25. Disclosed attributes:

• Four boreholes, at least one passing through the top side and at least one through the underside, and preferably two through each;
• Borehole axes at 25°–70° (pref. 35°–55°) to the horizontal center plane and 10°–45° (pref. 27°–33°) to the vertical plane, expressly to reach better bone quality than at the vertebral center and to improve screw-insertion access; at least two boreholes divergent from the front side;
• Rigid screw-to-implant connection by (i) matching internal threads in the borehole and on the screw head, or (ii) mating conical surfaces (cone angle below the friction angle; conicity 1:3.75–1:20), which the reference says "prevents the bone screw from loosening on its own";
• Self-boring/self-tapping screw threads;
• An integral front plate 8 with angled screw holes, plus a safety plate 18 secured over the front plate by a screw connection so that the holes 9 are partially covered — i.e., a back-out obstruction over the screw path;
• Grooves, ribs, teeth or roughened top/underside surfaces for anchoring.

Tisserand FR 2 727 003 (alternative primary). As characterized in a PTAB petitioner's expert declaration (a party's characterization — see caveat), an intervertebral element whose front face has internal recesses forming internal angled screw guides, one directed toward the top and one toward the bottom, oriented at roughly 90° relative to each other, with screws at ≈45° driven into the cortico-cancellous bone of the adjacent bodies.

A.2 Mapping to granted claim 1

Conclusion for claim 1: Dove discloses every element except (i) true internal fixed-angle, tunnel-type guides and (ii) a discrete screw-locking mechanism. Mathieu supplies both — boreholes acting as guides with mandated trajectory, and redundant screw-retention features (head-to-borehole rigid connection plus a cover over the holes). The combination renders claim 1 prima facie obvious.

A.3 Mapping to claims 21 and 26

• Claim 26 (plurality of internal angled guides; screws "rostrally (superiorly)" and "caudally (inferiorly)"): Dove's alternating up/down holes plus Mathieu's borehole axes expressly angled to the horizontal center plane and its "at least one through the top side and at least one through the underside" mapping directly meets this. Tisserand's two opposed internal recesses (one up, one down) meets it almost literally.
• Claim 21 (four guides, each with a "predetermined angled trajectory," four screws, locking mechanism): Dove claim 4 (four holes in one face, three in the other) + Mathieu's four boreholes with a definite axis specification; symmetry of a four-screw row is an obvious load-sharing arrangement (Mathieu's later family even claims boreholes "aligned in the front surface in a horizontal line" — US 2011/0118843, cl. 26).
• The applicant's own distinguishing statements about the '261 patent are admissions that help the obviousness case: the spec concedes Dove already discloses "anterior placed lumbar implants with perforating screws"; the differences it asserts are (a) symmetric hole placement, (b) a specified angulation/trajectory obviating external drill guides, and (c) a locking mechanism. Each is a routine design choice or is squarely taught by Mathieu.

A.4 The locking-mechanism limitation — the most contestable element

Two independent lines of reasoning make the "disposed between the intervertebral cage and an underside of the screw head" limitation obvious:

1. In the references themselves. Mathieu's safety plate 18 is secured over the front plate so the holes 9 (and hence the screw paths) are partially covered — a structure that sits between the implant body and the screw heads to block back-out. Mathieu's threaded-head/conical-head engagement likewise locks the head to the cage. Bolting/threading a retention plate or cap over a screw head is the paradigm of predictable mechanical design (MPEP § 2144.04).
2. Art-recognized class + applicant's own admission. The '363 patent is itself classified in A61B 17/8042 — "the additional component being a cover over the screw head" and A61B 17/8033 — "indirect contact with screw heads… with the aid of additional components, e.g., nuts, wedges or head covers." The applicant expressly concedes the existence of the class: the locking mechanism "is quite unique and different from all other conventional locking mechanisms used for other types of anterior cervical plates." Having conceded that conventional plate screw-locking mechanisms exist, the applicant cannot rely on the mere relocation of one such mechanism into an interbody cage as an inventive contribution; substituting a press-fit/deformable locking element (which, per the spec, "lock[s] by mechanically indenting") for a threaded or cover-type locker is the kind of substitution of known alternatives that KSR holds obvious.

The one narrow escape route: if the granted claim 1 requires that the locking element physically reside under the head and above the cage seat in the locked state (not merely downstream in the screw path), an accused/validator would need a reference showing a locking element in that inter-head-and-seat location. Mathieu's safety plate is arguably in front of/over the head rather than between the head and seat; a combination with plate-lock art (e.g., a deformable anti-backout ring or wedge seated beneath the head) would be required. That is a claim-drafting distinction, not a technical one, and should be resolved by the intrinsic record/claim construction rather than by reference to a single piece of art. I did not retrieve verbatim text of the plate-lock references in this session, so this line is reasoned from the classification data and the applicant's admission.

A.5 Motivation to combine (Ground A)

Under KSR / MPEP § 2143, the motivation is strong and multi-sourced:

1. Same field, same problem, same solution type. Both Dove and Mathieu are anterior (and adaptable to posterior) stand-alone interbody cages with integral bone screws. Both address the same recognized problem the '363 specification itself recites: implant/graft extrusion or migration in the absence of supplementary anterior plating or posterior pedicle screws.
2. Art-recognized need for screw retention. Mathieu's stated objective is to "rigidly connect to bone affixation means in a manner that even in the event of bone structure weakening, loosening… shall be precluded" — the identical problem the '363 solves. Combining Mathieu's retention teaching with a Dove-type stand-alone cage is combining references for their known purposes.
3. Predictable variation of a disclosed range. The '363's "preferred 25 degree angulation" sits inside Mathieu's disclosed 25°–70° range, and the petitioner in the related family IPRs argued exactly this (Tisserand's ≈45° guides + Mathieu's 25°–70° disclosure ⇒ 25° is a design choice driven by multi-level screw-interference avoidance and bone-quality/access considerations). No new result is attributed to 25° per se.
4. Elimination of a step / "obviating external drill guides." Angling the guides to a fixed trajectory and building them into the cage is the natural mechanization of a manual step; a POSA would do it to save time and reduce fluoroscopy.
5. Reasonable expectation of success. The commercial landscape proves it: the Mathieu family was commercialized (Synthes's integrated-fixation stand-alone ALIF cages), and the NuVasive BASE / CoRoent Small Interlock products (the accused devices here) likewise embody a stand-alone cage with internal guides and a screw lock. Success was not in doubt.

A.6 Claim 40 (method of insertion)

Claim 40 is a method-of-use claim whose steps are: measure the disc space → determine the spinal level/approach type → select a cage → insert it flush/countersunk → insert two screws into two internal guides → screw into the two bodies → confirm position → lock the screws by embedding them into the cage's locking mechanism. This is a step-plus-predicate claim. Where the apparatus (Dove + Mathieu) is obvious, and every step is either inherent in using the apparatus (inserting screws through the internal guides, embedding them in the lock) or a routine surgical step (measuring the disc space, selecting a size, confirming position fluoroscopically), the method claim falls with the apparatus. KSR and MPEP § 2144.03 (obviousness of method where the apparatus and steps are known/routine). Independent non-obviousness would require an unexpected result attributable to the sequence, which the specification does not supply.

5. GROUND B — Posterior lumbar facet staple (claim 27 and dependents)

Claim 27 (top claw; bottom claw; staple pin pivotally connecting them; ratchet mechanism limiting the opening force).

• Known elements: Pivoted, ratcheted jaw pairs are among the oldest and most conventional of surgical/mechanical devices: bone-reduction forceps, towel clamps, and orthodontic/tissue clamps all use a pivot plus a ratchet or pawl that limits jaw opening. Bone staples themselves are ubiquitous (Groiso US 5,660,188 — a bone staple — is listed in this family's cited references; Kapp US 4,554,914, Doty US 4,599,086, Ogilvie US 4,636,217 and similar bone-staple/plate art appear in the family's "References Cited").
• The only "new" aspect is the application site: placing a two-claw, pivoted, ratcheted staple across a lumbar facet joint (inferior articular facet of the superior vertebra to superior articular facet of the inferior vertebra). Facet-joint fixation was itself well known as of 2005: transfacet and translaminar facet screws (Magerl; Boucher; King) and facet-joint plates/rods were in routine clinical use. A POSA seeking to "fuse the facet" and dissatisfied with screw purchase would readily substitute a bone staple — and a pivoting, ratcheting staple is the obvious way to obtain incremental, calibrated compression across the joint (the very feature the spec touts).
• Motivation: (i) The spec itself frames the staple as a substitute for pedicle screws to avoid nerve-root/vertebral-artery injury — a known clinical goal; (ii) incremental ratcheting compression across two bone surfaces is a known solution to a known problem (fixation force calibration); (iii) the flexure-spring and torsional-spring variants (claims depending from 27) are a straight substitution of two known spring types for a known pawl — the spec concedes this ("depending on the material used… the ratchet spring can deform more or less"), which is a result-effective variable subject to routine optimization.
• Relative vulnerability: High for the generic pivoted-ratcheted staple; moderate-to-low for claims reciting specific structure not shown in any single reference (e.g., the flexure pawl molded onto the lower claw at a specific location; the four-prong layout with two prongs per claw; the specific ridge pattern).

6. GROUND C — Staple gun for a posterior lumbar facet staple (claim 32)

Claim 32 (handle with first and second grips; cylinder body with a first end receiving the staple and a second end adjacent the handle; a connector joining cylinder to handle; and a spring-return mechanism biasing the grips back to original position).

Every element is a conventional surgical-stapler feature:

• Surgical staplers with opposed grips, a barrel/"cylinder" body, a staple-receiving distal end, and a return spring are of record in this family (Stefanchik US 5,951,574; Bailey US 5,976,136 — both listed in the family's cited references), and generally pervade the art (linear and circular staplers, clip appliers, tackers).
• The applicant's own description confirms the feature is a convenience, not a technical departure: the spring return exists "so that the user does not have to reset the stapler manually each time it is used." That is a recognized, predictable ergonomic objective with a known solution (return spring), and the "pull knob" release is likewise conventional (quick-release mechanisms in staplers/forceps).
• Motivation: converting a manual-reset hand tool to a spring-reset tool is the textbook case of a predictable improvement; the spec's own justification (percutaneous, repeated firing) supplies the articulated need.
• Relative vulnerability: High, unless the granted claims add specific multi-part structure (opening rod/lever/puller interlock as recited in the spec) not present in the cited staplers. Note also that if the spring-return subject matter is CIP-added matter, its prior-art window opens to March 24, 2008, which only broadens the art available.

7. GROUND D — Cervical facet staple (claim 34) and cervical staple gun (claim 35)

Claim 34 (staple body with a first surface along a longitudinal axis; a plurality of prongs; a groove extending perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and at the center point of that axis, to seat the staple in the gun's spring supports).

• A groove/notch on the body of a bone staple or surgical clip for engagement with an applicator is a known, near-universal feature of staples, clips, and tacks (Groiso US 5,660,188 and similar staples are of record in the family; the classification of the family itself includes A61B 2017/0641, 2017/0647, 2017/0648). The limitation is essentially a complementary mating feature to the gun's supports.
• The two-prong vs. four-prong variants (Figs. 7A/7B) are a count variation with predictable biomechanical trade-offs (the spec concedes that more prongs = more rigidity).
• Motivation: designing the staple and its applicator as a mating pair is inevitable once a mechanical applicator is chosen; placing the groove centrally and perpendicularly follows from the geometry of opposed spring supports.
• Relative vulnerability: Moderate to high, depending on how narrowly the granted claim defines the groove's dimensions/orientation. A claim to "a groove at the center, perpendicular to the long axis" reads on routine applicator-engagement design.

Claim 35 (cervical staple gun: handle; staple guide; spring supports on each side of the tip engaging the staple; a plunger translatable between locked and unlocked positions; a torsional spring driving the plunger from locked to unlocked; and a trigger assembly releasing it).

• This is a spring-loaded, trigger-released plunger — the operating principle of countless impactors, tackers and clip appliers, and specifically of surgical staplers of record (Stefanchik '574; Bailey '136). A torsional spring is one of a small number of known spring types; a spring hook/linkage is the ordinary way to hold a spring-loaded plunger in a cocked ("locked") position and release it.
• Motivation: the spec supplies it — greater strength of bone penetration and less manual effort than the earlier staple impactor, and percutaneous usability. Converting a manual impactor to a spring-loaded, trigger-released driver is a predictable substitution of a known power source for manual force (KSR "obvious to try" with a finite number of identified, predictable solutions).
• Relative vulnerability: High for the generic combination. The specific sub-combination (torsional spring + spring hook + linkage + trigger + foam-pad return spring + paired spring supports gripping a staple groove) could plausibly support a non-obviousness argument framed as a combination of old elements, but under KSR such a combination is obvious unless the applicant can show (a) a new and unexpected result from the combination as a whole, or (b) a teaching away from combining those elements. The specification's own assertions (stronger penetration, easier release, no manual reset) are exactly the results one would predict from combining these known parts, which undercuts (a).

8. Consolidated motivation-to-combine (MPEP § 2143 factors)

For every ground, at least three of the KSR-sanctioned rationales apply:

1. Combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results — each Ground takes known sub-assemblies (a cage body, an angled screw guide, a screw lock; a pivot, a ratchet pawl; a spring-return handle; a spring-loaded plunger, a groove-and-support mating pair) and integrates them with no change in their respective functions.
2. Simple substitution of one known element for another — conical/threaded head lock for a safety plate; torsional spring for flexure pawl; press-fit deformable lock for a threaded locker; torsional spring for a compression spring.
3. Use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way — fixing a stand-alone interbody cage with transvertebral screws that are locked to the cage; fixing a facet joint with a calibrated compression staple instead of a screw; adding spring return to a hand tool.
4. Design incentives / market forces — the specification's own recitation of the market need (pedicle-screw complications, plating complications, extrusion) is a statement of a known problem; the co-pending commercial development of integrated-fixation stand-alone cages (Synthes/Mathieu family; NuVasive BASE/CoRoent) shows the industry was simultaneously solving it.
5. Obvious to try — a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (25°/35°/45° angulations; two vs. four screws; flexure vs. torsional spring; press-fit vs. threaded vs. cover locking) with predictable outcomes.

No teaching away was found. Mathieu's only arguable "teaching away" — its criticism of a two-part implant in which a front plate is implanted in a separate step — supports a unitary cage with integrated screw holes, which is precisely what the '363 claims. Dove does not disparage screw locking; it simply predates it.

9. Secondary considerations (Graham factor 4)

• Long-felt but unmet need: Weak help for the patentee. The '363 background recites a real, long-standing need, but the need was being addressed by others in the same period (integrated-fixation stand-alone cages entering the market c. 2007–2009), which undercuts the inference that the need went unsolved.
• Failure of others: Not established on this record. The failures the spec describes are complications of pedicle-screw/plating systems, not failed attempts to build a stand-alone locked cage.
• Commercial success: Weak or unavailable on this record. The most concrete commercial activity identified in the earlier sections is by third parties (NuVasive's BASE/CoRoent products alleged to infringe). Success of an alleged infringer does not presumptively establish non-obviousness; the patentee would need to show success of its own licensed/embodied product with a nexus to the claimed features. None is established here.
• Copying / industry praise: Potentially strong. The near-simultaneous emergence of stand-alone, integrated-fixation cages with anti-back-out screw locks (Synthes, NuVasive, DePuy, Stryker) is consistent with a POSA arriving at the same design — which cuts both ways: it can evidence copying, but it is equally probative that the solution was within the ordinary skill and predictable to many.
• Unexpected results: Not demonstrated. Every asserted advantage (avoiding pedicle screws, avoiding plating, preserving posterior elements for a "flexible fusion," ease of multi-level placement) flows directly from the known biomechanics of anterior/middle-column-only fixation; no comparative data or criticality of any parameter is presented.
• Licensing: none reported in the earlier sections.

10. Bottom line — relative vulnerability of the claims

Claim features most likely to survive a § 103 challenge (because they are narrow structural details unlikely to be shown or suggested in combination): the specific press-fit, deformable indent-type locking element as positioned in the granted claim 1 plus the cage-top perforation 90 / indentation 70 receiving it; the groove/slot 15 on the cage's longitudinal ends for engagement by an insertion tool; claims reciting "only" a 25-degree angulation (though the Tisserand+Mathieu analysis shows this is assailable as a design choice); and highly specific staple-gun sub-assemblies (spring hook + linkage + foam return pad + paired spring supports).

11. Confidence, and contradictions I am flagging

1. Claim-set uncertainty (material). I have verbatim granted claim 1 only. Independent claims 21/26/27/32/34/35/40 are quoted from the pre-grant publication (US 2008/0177307 A1). Granted claim numbering and wording may differ; an obviousness opinion on the granted set requires the certified claim listing (Patent Center / printed patent). This directly affects, e.g., whether the granted staple-gun claims retain the "spring return" and "connector" limitations I mapped.
2. Reference lists not taken from the '363 front page. The bone-staple and stapler citations (Groiso US 5,660,188; Kapp US 4,554,914; Doty US 4,599,086; Ogilvie US 4,636,217; Stefanchik US 5,951,574; Bailey US 5,976,136) were retrieved from the "References Cited" of the later, same-lineage Moskowitz patents US 9,532,821 and US 10,603,183, not verified against the '363 front page. They are probative of what the examiner treated as field art, but I have not read their texts and cannot represent their exact disclosures.
3. Tisserand and Bonutti characterizations are party argument. My description of FR 2 727 003 (internal recesses ~90° apart, screws at ~45°) and the "Bonutti" reference comes from a PTAB petitioner's expert declaration in a related Moskowitz-family IPR, not from the documents themselves. I could not confirm the specific Bonutti patent number in this session; treat the Bonutti aspect as unverified and omitted from my grounded combinations.
4. Date inconsistency in the previously generated sections. The Litigation summary references events dated September 2026 (a CAFC opinion of Sept. 11, 2026; a Delaware "Notice of Supplemental Authority" dated Sept. 15, 2026; invalidity expert reports dated Aug. 27, 2026), yet the current task date is stated as April 26, 2026. Those items post-date "today" and cannot be relied on in this analysis. I have not used them, and I flag the discrepancy rather than silently reconciling it. (Note also that Google Patents shows an adjusted expiration of March 24, 2027, and the CAFC appeal No. 24-1696 referenced in the litigation section concerned a different patent set — US 8,353,913 / 9,889,022 / 10,478,319 — not the '363.)
5. Family back-references are not prior art. The earlier Moskowitz applications/publications (11/208,644 → US 2007,704,279; 11/536,815 → US 7,846,188; 11/842,855 → US 7,942,903; and the 2005–2008 publications) are in the same priority chain and same inventive entity; they do not qualify as § 102/§ 103 prior art against claims entitled to the earlier dates. If any new matter (locking mechanism; evolved staple guns) is not supported in the parents, the effective date for those claims slides to March 24, 2008, which expands the citable art (including the Mathieu 2005/0177236 and 2010/0094421 publications and the 2007–2008 Moskowitz family publications, subject to § 103(c)).
6. What I did not do. I did not run a full landscape search for pre-2005 facet-staple-and-applicator art, nor did I retrieve a single reference that discloses a spring-loaded plunger staple gun for a facet staple. My conclusion that the staple claims are obvious rests on the pervasiveness of the component art and the recognized problem, not on a specific anticipatory combination, and a formal invalidity contention would need that search completed.