US 8734516

I'll search for authoritative information on US 8,734,516, including any litigation references.

Let me check for litigation and any appellate docket activity.

Let me try to pull the actual claim set and confirm the litigation/docket picture for this specific patent.

US Patent 8,734,516 — Analyst Summary

Scope note up front: I could not run a direct PACER/CAFC docket query in this session; findings below come from web-search retrieval of USPTO/PTAB records, court documents, and the patent text you supplied. I found no Federal Circuit 2026 docket entry naming US 8,734,516. Where I am reconstructing rather than quoting, I say so explicitly.

---

1. Bibliographic data (as recorded)

Assignment chain of record: 2015-05-04 assignment to MOSKOWITZ, NATHAN C. (assignor Alvarado); 2016-08-03 assignments from Ahmnon D. Moskowitz and Mosheh T. Moskowitz; 2018-03-14 assignment to MOSKOWITZ FAMILY LLC.

Priority chain per the patent's own text: CIP of 12/054,335 (filed 2008-03-24, now US 7,972,363) → CIP of 11/842,855 (2007-08-21, now 7,942,903) → CIP of 11/536,815 (2006-09-29, now 7,846,188) → CIP of 11/208,644 (2005-08-23, now 7,704,279); plus §119(e) benefit of provisional 60/670,231 (2005-04-12). Note: Google Patents' "Priority claimed from" list shows only 11/208,644, 11/536,815, and 11/842,855 as external priorities; the 12/054,335 CIP link appears in the specification text, and later family members (e.g., US 9,622,875 = divisional of 12/471,340) confirm it. It is related to a same-day application, 12/471,345 (US 8,257,370), on facet staples/stapling guns.

Abstract (verbatim): "A bi-directional fixating transvertebral (BDFT) screw/cage apparatus including an intervertebral cage for maintaining disc height, and a method of inserting the same is provided. The intervertebral cage includes a first internal screw guide and a second internal screw guide, a first screw member and a second screw member, and a central screw locking lever coupled to the intervertebral cage, wherein the central screw locking lever prevents the first screw member and the second screw from pulling-out of the first internal screw guide and the second internal screw guide. The central screw locking lever includes a rotatable handle and stem portion, or a screw locking horizontal bracket. A pliers device for inserting and removing the bi-directional fixating transvertebral (BDFT) screw/cage apparatus, a posterior cervical and lumbar facet joint staple, and a staple gun for a posterior cervical and lumbar facet joint staple also are provided."

---

2. What the patent is about (plain language)

A stand-alone spinal fusion implant: a hollow intervertebral "cage" that holds bone-graft material and carries two angled internal tunnels guiding bone screws — one screw angled up into the vertebra above, one angled down into the vertebra below. Because the screw guide tunnels are built into the cage, only one screw trajectory is possible, so external drill guides and (per the patent) routine fluoroscopic guidance are unnecessary. The '516 adds screw-locking mechanisms — a rotatable central T-lever, or a snap-on horizontal bracket with hooks that latch into cage slots — to prevent screw back-out/pull-out, plus a pliers for applying/removing the bracket, facet joint staples, and staple guns (lumbar and cervical) to supplement or replace pedicle screw fixation.

---

3. Independent claims — plain-language overview

⚠️ Confidence caveat: the full claim set of US 8,734,516 was not retrievable from the sources I could reach — the fetched Google Patents text ends mid-description with no claims section, and the claim text I did locate online (claims 2–21 with "horizontal protrusion," "secondary screw lock," etc.) belongs to a later family member (US 2022/0133489 → US 12,232,973), not to the '516. The summaries below are therefore reconstructed from the '516 specification's own "aspect of the invention"/SUMMARY paragraphs, which in this document's drafting style repeatedly mirror the claim language almost verbatim. Treat them as high-confidence in substance, not as verbatim claim quotes.

A. Apparatus claim — BDFT screw/cage with central locking lever. An intervertebral cage (maintaining disc height) having first and second internal screw guides; a first and second screw member (tapered end + threaded body) disposed in the cage; the guides are angled to orient the two screws bi-directionally in opposite directions and are aligned along the cage's longitudinal axis; and a central screw locking lever coupled to the cage that prevents both screws from pulling out of their guides. Dependent claims add: rotatable coupling; handle portion + stem portion substantially perpendicular to the handle underside, rotatable about the stem axis; rotation between an unlocked position (handle transverse to the longitudinal axis, screws exposed) and a locked position (handle along the longitudinal axis, covering and locking both screws); T-shape; an opening in the top face of the cage, formed between the two guides; threaded engagement of lever and opening; press-fit; titanium.

B. Apparatus claim — screw locking horizontal bracket. The central screw locking lever implemented as a screw locking horizontal bracket press-fit on the cage top that covers and locks both screws; cover portion running along the longitudinal axis substantially parallel to the top face; side tabs at each end extending perpendicularly along the cage sides; bracket hooks extending from the side tabs toward the cage sides and longitudinally into prefabricated hook insertion slots; the tabs constituting bracket flexion grips; the bracket deformable under pressure on the grips; hooks flexible. (This is the "snap-on bracket" concept; the bracket holds all four screws simultaneously in the anterior-lumbar four-screw variant.)

C. Pliers device claim. A pliers for inserting/removing the BDFT construct: first arm rotatably coupled to a second arm, each with a handle portion at one end; upper plier tip and lower plier tip that engage the bracket flexion grips; each tip having a stop configured to engage the grips; and a leaf spring between the arms biasing the handles apart. Related claims add a limiter and limiting screw to prevent over-closing/over-pressing the locking bracket.

D. Staple gun claim (lumbar facet joint). A staple gun with a handle having upper and lower bars; a hollow cylinder body with one end receiving the lumbar facet staple; a connector coupling cylinder to handle, with the bar ends pivotably coupled to the connector; a puller running through the cylinder and coupled to the handle; and a puller tip at the puller's first end. Key limitation: in the closed handle position the puller end and part of the puller tip sit inside the cylinder (locking the tip shut); in the open position they extend outside, permitting the tip to open and the staple to be loaded/released. Dependent claims: puller tip openable/closeable only when handles are open; first and second loop parts that grasp the staple sides and move transversely relative to the puller axis; a spring return biasing the handle open; a linkage coupling the puller to both bars.

E. Method claim (core surgical method). Inserting the cage into the midline of a disc space until flush or countersunk relative to both vertebral bodies; inserting first and second screw members into the cage's first and second internal screw guides; screwing them into the first and second vertebral bodies respectively; and locking both screws in the cage via the central screw locking lever so they cannot pull out. Dependent method claims cover unlocking by rotating the lever from locked to unlocked position, the horizontal-bracket variant, and unlocking by squeezing the bracket flexion grips to deform/open the hooks and release them from the hook insertion slots.

F. Method claim (selection variant). A broader method reciting: measuring a disc-space dimension; determining whether the space is posterior lumbar, anterior lumbar, or anterior cervical; selecting a cage based on that measurement and determination; inserting it into the disc-space midline flush/countersunk; inserting both screws; screwing them into the vertebral bodies; confirming cage position/placement; and locking the screws in final position by embedding a portion of each screw into the cage's screw-locking mechanism.

(The abstract also recites a posterior cervical and lumbar facet joint staple and a staple gun for a posterior cervical facet joint staple — suggesting at least one staple and one cervical staple-gun claim may also be independent, but I could not verify that from the claim set.)

---

4. Litigation / CAFC 2026 docket findings

Direct answer: I found no CAFC 2026 docket activity for US 8,734,516 specifically.

• Google Patents flags this family as having litigation ("Family has litigation — First worldwide family litigation filed," with a Darts-ip family link, family=39642026). That flag attaches to the family, not proof that the '516 itself was asserted.
• *The one 2026 Federal Circuit decision in this family is Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 2024-1696 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2026) (precedential; Prost, Schall, Stoll, JJ.)* — affirming E.D. Pa. (No. 2:20-cv-03271, Judge Goldberg) summary judgment of noninfringement, the construction of "universal," and denial of JMOL. The patents at issue were US 8,353,913, US 9,889,022, and US 10,478,319 — not the '516. Holdings: the "universal" preambles are limiting (they supply antecedent basis for "the intervertebral cage" and "the screw guide," and universality is a fundamental characteristic per the shared specification), and "universal" means a spacer designed for any spinal region (cervical/thoracic/lumbar) via any approach (posterior/anterior/lateral). Substantial evidence supported the jury's noninfringement finding on the '319 "cooperating" limitation. Coverage: IPWatchdog (2026-09-13), National Law Review (2026-09-24), VitalLaw (2026-09-15), Law360 (2026-09-11), Becker's Spine Review.
• Active 2026-adjacent district court matter: Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. et al., No. 25-cv-00769-PJS-DLM (D. Minn., filed Feb. 2025), asserting 12 related patents (e.g., 9,005,293; 10,238,505; 10,064,738; 11,096,797; 12,011,367; 12,491,088 …) against Elevate, Divergence, Sovereign, Catalyst, Endoskeleton, and T2 Stratosphere products. Medtronic moved to stay pending IPRs (brief dated March 6, 2026). The '516 is not on that asserted-patent list.
• Where the '516 does appear in the record: as a family/priority reference in PTAB filings — e.g., IPR petition papers (PTActs IDs 1558745, 1558965) list US 8,734,516 in the priority chain ("…14/257,650 … PAT 9,622,875 which is a DIV of 12/471,340 … PAT 8,734,516 which is a CIP of 12/054,335 …"), and it is cited as prior art/background against other Moskowitz-family and third-party patents (e.g., a petition citing "Moskowitz" screw-box straight-guide disclosure).

Bottom line on litigation: the '516 appears to be a parent/ancestor in a heavily litigated family, but I found no evidence it was itself asserted in the Globus appeal or the Medtronic case, and no 2026 CAFC docket entry bearing its number.

---

5. Explicit uncertainties

1. Verbatim claims for US 8,734,516 were not retrieved. Section 3 is a reconstruction from the specification's summary paragraphs. Do not rely on it as claim language for an infringement or validity opinion.
2. Independent-claim count is unverified. I can identify at least six independent-type claims from the summary (apparatus ×2, pliers, staple gun, method ×2), but the patent may contain more (e.g., staple claims) and the actual number/ordering is unknown.
3. Assignee field is internally inconsistent in the record ("Moskowtiz" vs. "Moskowitz" vs. "MOSKOWITZ FAMILY LLC"); I have quoted the record literally rather than correcting it.
4. No PACER/CAFC direct query was performed. Any assertion that the '516 has never been litigated nationwide would exceed what I can support; I can only say I found none in the sources reached, and Google Patents carries a family-level litigation flag.
5. The "adjusted expiration 2027-01-25" is Google Patents' terminal-disclaimer/PTA-adjusted figure and is not a legal conclusion.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 8734516 across litigation-tracking and court sources.

Let me search more specifically for litigation involving this patent and its owner.

Let me search specifically for whether the '516 patent itself has been asserted in any case.

Summary: No litigation specifically asserting US 8,734,516 located

Based on my searches of litigation-tracking sources (Unified Patents, CourtListener/RECAP, Docket Alarm, PTAB records, law-firm and trade press coverage), I could not identify any lawsuit in which US Patent No. 8,734,516 ("the '516 patent") is itself asserted as a patent-in-suit. I want to be explicit about that limit: litigation-tracking databases index cases by asserted patent, and my searches surfaced only cases asserting other Moskowitz Family LLC patents. I did not find a docket, complaint, or claim chart matching the '516 number.

What the searches do establish is that the '516 patent's owner, Moskowitz Family LLC (formed by Dr. Nathan C. Moskowitz; assignees of record include Nathan C. Moskowitz and Moskowitz Family LLC), is a prolific patent plaintiff litigating a large portfolio of spinal-fusion patents—of which the '516 patent is one member. Google Patents itself flags the '516 family as "Family has litigation," but that flag is family-level, not a statement that the '516 patent specifically was asserted.

Known Moskowitz Family LLC litigation (portfolio-level — none confirmed to assert the '516 patent)

Related PTAB proceedings (inter partes review — not district-court litigation)

• IPR2025-01598, Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC — challenges U.S. 9,005,293 ('293).
• IPR2026-00121, Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC — challenges a 2024-issued Moskowitz patent ('367 family).

Neither IPR targets the '516 patent.

Important caveats and how to verify

1. Do not conflate the '516 patent with its relatives. The litigated Moskowitz patents I found are different patent numbers — e.g., 8,353,913; 9,889,022; 10,478,319; 7,972,363; 9,005,293; 11,xxx ('753/'136/'743/'797); and 12,491,088. Per your instruction to interpret identifiers literally, none of these equals 8,734,516.
2. The '516 patent is in the same corporate family/portfolio and shares the "bi-directional fixating transvertebral screw/cage" subject matter, which is why it appears in portfolio narratives — but appearance in a portfolio description is not evidence it was asserted.
3. "Family has litigation" on Google Patents reflects that the patent family (which includes continuations and continuations-in-part) has been litigated; it is not a per-patent assertion of the '516 patent.
4. If your goal is a definitive litigation check, the authoritative sources to pull directly are the dockets I could not fully enumerate here: PACER for D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711, D. Minn. 0:25-cv-00769, D. Del. 22-cv-1632, and E.D. Pa. 20-cv-3271, plus Unified Patents' litigation caselist filtered on patent number 8734516. On the evidence available to me, that filter does not return a match specifically for the '516 patent.

Bottom line: The '516 patent's owner is actively litigating a broad spinal-fusion portfolio, but I found no identified case asserting US 8,734,516 specifically; the cases I located assert other Moskowitz patents. I could not verify this with 100% confidence from the sources retrieved, so I flag it as "none found" rather than a definitive negative.

I'll start by verifying the structured data against live sources, since the ODP block reports no AIA trials.

The search surfaced a large Medtronic v. Moskowitz family of IPRs on related patents. I need to determine whether any of those — or the earlier Globus IPRs — target the '516 patent itself. Let me drill down.

The picture is becoming clear: the Globus IPRs (2020) and Medtronic IPRs (2025–26) target other family members, not the '516. Let me run final confirmation checks specific to the '516 itself, plus the litigation posture.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file for US 8,734,516. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM involving this patent, and my independent web search surfaced no petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal naming the '516 patent as the challenged patent. There is therefore no status breakdown to give (no active / invalidated / sustained / settled / denied proceedings), and no claim of the '516 has been canceled or upheld at the PTAB.

The defensive posture is "untested patent, but a heavily-attacked family with a short fuse" — not "hardened by surviving IPRs" and not "claims canceled." Nothing at the PTAB has narrowed the '516, so its claims are presumptively valid and fully available to a plaintiff; but the same patent family has drawn eight Globus IPRs (2020, all denied) and a rolling Medtronic IPR campaign (2025–2026), so if the '516 is ever asserted, a petition is the expected response. Two facts should anchor any defense strategy: (1) the '516's adjusted expiration is 2027-01-25, leaving roughly four months of remaining term as of today (2026-09-28); and (2) the Federal Circuit's 2026-09-11 decision in Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 2024-1696, affirmed noninfringement of three sibling patents on a narrowing construction of shared specification language — useful ammunition even though it does not address the '516.

---

Proceedings on US 8,734,516

None. No proceeding number can be listed because none exists. Per the operating rules and the structured ODP block, the correct answer is "no PTAB activity on file," and I will not manufacture a docket.

Caveats and diligence performed:

• The ODP ingest could be stale for a petition filed in the last few weeks. I searched the PTAB E2E/docket aggregation sources and Google for "8,734,516" / IPR / PTAB and found nothing keyed to the '516. Flagged as: no proceedings found, low residual risk of a very recent unindexed filing.
• The structured data for this patent does carry a litigation flag ("Family has litigation — first worldwide family litigation filed"), but that is a court flag, not a PTAB flag.

---

Family context (NOT proceedings on the '516 — included so the "zero" is not mistaken for "no litigation history")

The '516 (application 12/471,340) is the parent of U.S. 9,622,875 (via division) and, through it, of U.S. 10,064,738 and U.S. 10,603,183. Every IPR in this family has targeted the children/relatives, never the '516 itself.

IPR2020-01303 through IPR2020-01308 (and two more) — Globus Medical, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (eight petitions)
• Filed: 2020-07-21
• Status: All eight denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) — no claim ever canceled.
• Patents challenged: U.S. 8,353,913 ('913); U.S. 9,889,022 ('022); U.S. 10,028,740 ('740); U.S. 10,251,643 ('643); U.S. 10,307,268 ('268); U.S. 10,478,319 ('319). The '516 was not among them.
• Institution decisions: IPR2020-01307 ('913) denied 2020-12-21; IPR2020-01305 & -01306 ('319) denied 2021-01-08; IPR2020-01308 ('022) denied 2021-01-25; IPR2020-01303 & -01304 ('268) denied 2021-01-26 and 2021-01-27; the final petition ('740) denied 2021-02-05.
• Judge panel (representative, IPR2020-01306): Administrative Patent Judges Meredith C. Petravick, Neil T. Powell, and James J. Mayberry (Mayberry authored). Panel: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2020-01306/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._10478319/docs/01-08-2021-Board/Institution_Decision-7-Denying_Institution_of_Inter_Partes_Review.pdf
• Reasoning (plain English): the Board was not persuaded of a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the § 103 obviousness grounds (e.g., Tisserand/Bonutti-based combinations on the '022), and denied.
• Appeal: none — institution denials are not appealable.
• Defensive value for the '516: None directly. Denial of institution triggers no § 315(e) estoppel, and these petitions did not involve the '516's claims. They are useful only as evidence of what the prior art does not teach.

The 2025–2026 Medtronic campaign — Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (a rolling set, litigated alongside Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. et al., 0:25-cv-00769 (D. Minn.), filed 2025-02-28, and Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC et al., 1:25-cv-00711 (D. Del.), filed 2025-06-06).
• Representative proceedings found (none on the '516):
  • IPR2025-01598 — U.S. 9,005,293 ('293); filed 2025-09-29; under discretionary-denial briefing; referred for merits review 2026-01-27.
  • IPR2026-00121 — U.S. 9,907,674-sibling / '755 line; § 314(a) discretionary-denial dispute.
  • IPR2026-00216 — U.S. 10,016,284 ('284).
  • IPR2026-00265 — U.S. 10,064,738 ('738, a child of the '516); filed 2026-02-20; challenged claims 1-7, 9, 11-12, 22, 24-25, 28, 32-33 on § 103 (Moskowitz 2008/0033440 in view of Waugh, and further in view of Michelson '019).
  • IPR2026-00285 — U.S. 10,603,183 ('183, a grandchild of the '516); filed 2026-03-02.
• Status: mostly pre-institution / discretionary-denial stage as of the most recent filings; no FWD identified, and no claim canceled.
• Petitioner's own framing: Medtronic told the district court it had "filed IPR petitions as to eight of the asserted patents," with the first referred for merits review on 2026-01-27 and a stay sought. The Board docket reflects a mix of "Refer" actions and pending institution decisions.
• Defensive value for the '516: indirect but real. The Medtronic petitions show the art that a challenger considers closest to this family — Moskowitz's own 2008/0033440 publication, Waugh (2008/0249569), Michelson '019 — and those are precisely the references a defendant asserting against the '516 would likely reach for. Note, however, that Moskowitz's own publication and Waugh are both family-adjacent art, which raises § 102(a)/(b)/§ 103 date questions you'd need to clear before relying on them.

Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 2024-1696 (Fed. Cir. 2026-09-11)

• Not a PTAB proceeding, but it is the most consequential recent event for this family. The panel (Prost, Schall, Stoll) affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement of the '913 and '022 patents, the construction of "universal," and the denial of JMOL on '319 claim 1. Precedential.
• Opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01696/pdf/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01696-0.pdf
• Why it matters to the '516: the '516 and the '913/'022 patents share a specification. The court held that preamble terms providing antecedent basis for the body are limiting and read "universal" against a shared-specification disclosure spanning cervical/thoracic/lumbar and anterior/lateral/posterior approaches. The '516's independent claims as reproduced in the patent use "intervertebral cage," "first internal screw guide," and "central screw locking lever," not "universal" — so the Globus construction is not automatically binding on the '516, but the specification-based methodology and the family's shared disclosure are directly citable. The district court also had a pending § 285 fees motion seeking $321,508 in fees and $68,724.15 in costs, and Moskowitz's appeal is the reason costs were not taxed — enforcement posture on this family is aggressive and has already drawn an exceptional-case attack.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status on the '516. Every claim is UNTESTED at the PTAB. Zero claims are canceled; zero are confirmed. That cuts both ways: there is no IPR record to attack the patent owner with, and there is also no PTAB precedent validating the claims. A defendant cannot tell a court "the PTAB already killed claim 1" because it did not. Conversely, Moskowitz cannot say "these claims survived IPR" — the '516 has never been through one.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR was instituted on the '516, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to the '516 from any of the Globus or Medtronic petitions. Globus's denials and Medtronic's pending petitions do not bar a future petitioner (or those petitioners) from raising any ground against the '516's claims in district court or in a fresh IPR. The relevant practical constraints are instead: (a) the one-year § 315(b) time bar for a defendant served with a complaint on the '516 (nothing in the record shows the '516 has been asserted, so the clock likely has not started for anyone); (b) § 325(d) discretion if a challenger recycles art already before the examiner; and (c) for anyone in privity with Medtronic/Globus, the Medtronic IPRs' eventual FWDs would estop only as to the patents they actually cover — not the '516. Bottom line: the prior-art runway against the '516 is wide open.

Pattern signals. The same family has been hit twice, by two different large manufacturers, with twelve-plus petitions total across the portfolio — but with a near-perfect non-institution record to date and no FWD against any Moskowitz patent I could locate. Globus was denied across the board in 2020–2021; Medtronic's 2025–2026 petitions are still mostly at the discretionary-denial stage. There is no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) visible in the chain — the challengers are direct competitors (Globus, Medtronic, NuVasive), which means a defendant cannot expect to free-ride on a third party's IPR. The patent owner litigates hard: it sued Globus and took the case through Markman, summary judgment, a jury trial, JMOL, and a Federal Circuit appeal, and is now litigating Medtronic and NuVasive in parallel with heavy discretionary-denial briefing.

The clock. The '516's adjusted expiration is 2027-01-25, i.e., roughly four months from today. Any assertion of the '516 today yields a very short damages window, and any IPR would take longer than the remaining term — a strong argument for a district court to deny a stay as to the '516 specifically (a stay would moot the patent), and a strong reason for a defendant to prefer reissue/reexam-adjacent timing arguments, § 285 fee exposure, and laches/damages-limitation defenses over a slow IPR.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Treat the "no PTAB activity" finding as the operative fact and build the defense on district-court grounds, not PTAB history. There is no FWD to cite and no claim to point to as canceled.
2. Do not wait on a stay for the '516. With expiry on 2027-01-25, an IPR (institution + 12-month trial + possible appeal) cannot meaningfully outrun the patent's life. If you want PTAB relief, focus on the live children — the '738 (IPR2026-00265) and '183 (IPR2026-00285) — where the commercial exposure and remaining term are greater.
3. Mine the Medtronic petitions for your § 102/§ 103 package against the '516. The references Medtronic chose for the '738 child — Moskowitz 2008/0033440, Waugh (2008/0249569), Michelson '019 — are the natural starting point, since the '738 shares the '516 specification. Verify dates and confidential-family status before relying on Moskowitz's own publication.
4. Run a fresh PET/assignment search before filing. A right-of-attribution/assignment shadow exists: the PTO record shows inventor declarations initially missing for 15/490,107 and a series of corrective assignments (2015, 2016, 2018) culminating in Moskowitz Family LLC. Any defect in the '516's chain — including the original "Individual" assignee status at filing — is worth a standing/ownership look.
5. If the '516 is asserted, calendar the § 315(b) one-year bar from service immediately, and consider a § 325(d)-resistant petition built on art not before Examiner Philogene, since the file history (see the IDS of 2018-05-11 citing dozens of Moskowitz family publications) shows the examiner considered a large body of self-citation.
6. Monitor institution decisions in the Medtronic set. If the Board institutes on the '738 or '183, that signals the art is credible and materially improves the odds of an institution on the '516; if those are denied on § 314(a)/settled-expectations grounds, the "mature family" discretionary-denial theory would apply with even more force to the '516.

Sources: USPTO PTAB structured data (no proceedings on the '516); Google Patents record for US 8,734,516 (adjusted expiration 2027-01-25); PTAB E2E/docket records for IPR2020-01303–01310 and the IPR2025-01598 / IPR2026-00121 / -00216 / -00265 / -00285 filings; Fed. Cir. Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 2024-1696 (2026-09-11), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01696/pdf/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01696-0.pdf.

I'll research the assignment record for US 8734516 from the available sources.

Let me search the USPTO assignment records and litigation/entity data directly.

Let me try to pull the actual USPTO assignment records and the correspondence/attorney data.

Ownership Analysis — US 8,734,516 B2

Sourcing caveat (read first). I was not able to open the USPTO Assignment Center / Assignment Search API directly in this session (it is a JavaScript app and returned no machine-readable records to my queries). What follows is reconstructed from Google Patents legal events, the patent's own front matter, and a PTAB chain-of-title statement (37 CFR 3.73(c)) filed in the sibling IPR2026‑00163 for U.S. 11,376,136, which sits in the same Moskowitz family. Where a reel/frame is quoted from that sibling chain rather than confirmed against the '516 record itself, I flag it. Verify every reel/frame at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search "8734516") before relying on it.

---

Inventors

Pattern note. This is not the classic "employees of an operating company file, then the company divests" pattern. The named inventors are a physician-inventor and his two sons (plus one outside engineer). Google Patents lists the Original Assignee as "Individual" — i.e., the inventors personally, with no corporate assignee at issue. Two additional assignors appear in the family chain of title but are not inventors on the '516: Eric Sugalski and David Schoon. They are likely assignors on sibling patents (see timeline); do not assume their assignments encumber '516 without checking the record.

---

Original assignee

The inventors themselves (individual co-owners). Google Patents records the "Original Assignee" as Individual; the inventors collectively filed and held the '516 without a corporate owner. They are physician-inventors, not a device company.

• Product shipped embodying the claims: No. I found no evidence any Moskowitz-family entity has sold a commercial spinal implant. The family licenses and litigates the portfolio.
• Primary line of business: Development and licensing/enforcement of spinal-fusion IP. Moskowitz Family LLC's own complaint (W.D. Tex. 19-cv-672) states it "was created for the purpose of developing human spine related devices, and for the protection and licensing of any resulting inventions and intellectual property."
• Current status: The inventor-owned holding entity Moskowitz Family LLC (Rockville, MD; formed 2017–2018) is active and litigating. The individual-inventor title is effectively consolidated into it.

---

Assignment timeline

The Assignment Center's index for this patent shows only inventor-side conveyances — no operating-company owner has ever appeared in the chain. The Google Patents legal-events block for US 8,734,516 records four transfers:

• 2015-05-04 executed / recorded 2015 — Reel 045636/0075 (from PTAB chain; date per Google Patents)

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Pablo A. Valdivia Y. Alvarado
  • Assignee: Nathan C. Moskowitz (individually)
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved — the Assignment Center correspondent field was not accessible in this session.
  • Context: Consolidation — a co-inventor conveys his ¼ interest to the lead inventor, apparently to centralize standing before enforcement.

• 2016-08-03 executed / recorded 2016 — Reel 046069/0540 (reel/frame from PTAB chain)

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Ahmnon D. Moskowitz
  • Assignee: Nathan C. Moskowitz (individually)
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved.
  • Context: Consolidation (family internal — father/son).

• 2016-08-03 executed / recorded 2016 — Reel 045997/0805 (reel/frame from PTAB chain)

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Mosheh T. Moskowitz
  • Assignee: Nathan C. Moskowitz (individually)
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved.
  • Context: Consolidation (family internal).

• 2018-03-14 executed / recorded 2018 — Reel 045586/0373 (reel/frame attributed in PTAB chain to a MOSKOWITZ, NATHAN C. conveyance; not independently confirmed as the Moskowitz Family LLC deed for '516)

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Nathan C. Moskowitz
  • Assignee: Moskowitz Family LLC (Rockville, MD)
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved.
  • Context: Transfer to the family's licensing/enforcement vehicle — the sole post-issuance transfer to a non-individual.

Adjacent chain-of-title entries that are not confirmed against '516 (quoted from IPR2026‑00163 for U.S. 11,376,136; treat as family-portfolio context, not '516 assignments):

• Reel 045904/0815 — Eric Sugalski → Nathan C. Moskowitz
• Reel 057014/0629 — David Schoon → (assignee blank in the quoted excerpt)

If the Assignment Center in fact shows only these entries, the key finding stands: no operating company, aggregator, or third-party acquirer ever held title. Every leg is inventor-to-inventor or inventor-family.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8734516
    2005 : Priority date
    2009 : Application filed by four individuals
    2014 : Patent issued
    2015 : Valdivia interest assigned
         : To Nathan C Moskowitz
    2016 : Ahmnon interest assigned
         : Mosheh interest assigned
    2018 : Nathan C Moskowitz assigns
         : To Moskowitz Family LLC
    2019 : Globus infringement suit
    2025 : Suits v NuVasive and Medtronic
    2026 : IPRs by Medtronic

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — weak / partial. Title ends at Moskowitz Family LLC, which self-describes as a vehicle for "protection and licensing" and shows no products in commerce. But it is not anonymous: it is inventor-controlled, has a real Rockville, MD office (212 N. Adams St., Suite 200), and its principals are the named inventors. It lacks the anonymous-shell tells (no out-of-state registered-agent address, not a stranger-owned LLC). Mark unclear, leaning present only on the "no products" prong.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No assignee matches the cited NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, DGC, Spangenberg entities). Moskowitz Family LLC is nonetheless a serial plaintiff (see below) — frequent-plaintiff behavior, but not a listed assertor.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. The assignment correspondents were not retrievable. Prosecution correspondence recurs at Fish & Richardson P.C. (Customer No. 26191) — e.g., Michael T. Hawkins (Reg. 57,867) and Stuart A. Nelson (Reg. 63,947), Minneapolis MN — and, earlier, Dresch IP Law, PLLC (Potomac Falls, VA). Fish & Richardson is a large firm that does both operating-company and assertion-side work; a single/handful of appearances is not a finding. No evidence these attorneys run anonymous shells.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. The legs are consolidation steps (2015, 2016) followed by one transfer to the LLC (2018) — ~3 years, single ultimate transferee, no chained unrelated LLCs.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present / unclear. The LLC took title 2018-03-14; the first suit naming the portfolio, Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical (W.D. Tex. 19-cv-672), was filed November 2019 — roughly 20 months later, outside the 6-month window. Whether the '516 specifically was ever asserted is unclear; the Globus case asserted the '913, '022 and '319 patents.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No bankruptcy, receivership, or 363 sale appears anywhere in the chain.

7. Privateering — not present. No operating company transferred to an NPE to assert against competitors; the inventors are themselves the asserters.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents or OIN. Instead, Globus (IPR2020‑01305) and Medtronic (IPR2025‑01598, IPR2026‑00121, IPR2026‑00163) are filing IPRs against Moskowitz Family LLC.

Assertion footprint (context, not an assignment signal): Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical (Nov 2019; Fed. Cir. 24‑1696 affirmed non-infringement Sept. 11, 2026); v. Zimvie (D. Del. 22‑cv‑1632, Dec. 22, 2022); v. NuVasive (D. Del. 1:25‑cv‑00711, June 6, 2025); v. Medtronic (D. Minn. 0:25‑cv‑00769, 2025). Notice letters to NuVasive, Titan Spine and Medtronic date to 2015.

---

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The chain terminates at Moskowitz Family LLC, an entity that does not practice the '516 and whose own complaint characterizes it as existing for "the protection and licensing" of the family's IP; it has asserted the portfolio against Globus (2019), Zimvie (2022), NuVasive (2025) and Medtronic (2025), which is the functional definition of non-practicing assertion. That is one strong signal. It does not rise to high confidence because the classic NPE infrastructure is absent: there is no shell cascade, no known listed assertor, no alienated or anonymous ownership, no bankruptcy sale, and the assignee is the inventors' own family vehicle — an inventor-owned non-practicing patent owner rather than a patent-buying troll. Contrary signals (reel/frame for the 2018 deed and all assignment correspondents) remain unverified, so I flag this as a data-limited call.

Verify at: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — search 8734516 (also https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/). Pull the correspondent field on each of the four entries (expected reels 045586/0373, 045636/0075, 045997/0805, 046069/0540); a recurring attorney across those frames — or a match to a known assertion-side filer — is the one input that would move this verdict.

I'll research US 8734516 and its cited prior art. Let me run several searches.

Let me pull the specific citation lists for US 8,734,516 from multiple sources.

Scope and confidence note (read first)

Before the analysis, two honesty flags required by the instructions:

1. What I could verify. From the authoritative full text you supplied plus the searches I ran, I can confirm the bibliographic data and the prior art that the patent's own specification cites. I ran four rounds of searches and then was cut off by a tool-call limit before I could retrieve the complete, authenticated "References Cited / Patent Citations" table printed on the face of US 8,734,516 itself (the USPTO/Google Patents front-page list of examiner- and applicant-cited U.S. patents).
2. What I will not do. One search result surfaced a large "Referenced Cited — U.S. Patent Documents" list (4554914 Kapp; 4599086 Doty; 4636217 Ogilvie; 4904261 Dove; 4960420 Goble; 4997432 Keller; 5005749 Aranyi; 5062850 MacMillan; 5123926 Pisharodi; … 8734516 Moskowitz; 9622875 Moskowitz …). That list is attached to US 10,064,738 (a later Moskowitz family member) on Justia — not necessarily to US 8,734,516. I will not silently attribute it to 8,734,516. It is reproduced below only as unverified probable family-art context, clearly labeled.

---

1. Identification of the patent (interpreted literally)

Note: the fetched page also shows a docket-family litigation flag (Darts-IP family 39642026) and a PTAB/globus IPR trail involving related Moskowitz patents — relevant to validity challenges, not to citation content.

Claim architecture visible in the specification. The description is written as "aspects of the invention," which correspond to the claim set:

• Apparatus claims — BDFT screw/cage with (a) two oppositely-angled internal screw guides aligned along the cage longitudinal axis, two screw members, and (b) either a central screw locking lever 24 (handle 26 + stem 28, rotatable between unlocked and locked positions) or a screw locking horizontal bracket 30 (cover portion, side tabs 32, bracket hooks 34, hook insertion slots 36, flexion grips).
• Method claims — inserting the cage flush/countersunk into the disc-space midline, inserting and driving the two screws, then locking via the central screw locking lever (rotating 90°) or by press-fitting the horizontal bracket.
• Pliers device claims — arms with upper tip 42 / lower tip 44, stops 46, leaf spring 48 pre-load, limiter 50 / limiting screw 52.
• Staple gun claims — lumbar facet gun (bars 408/410, cylinder 412, puller 414, independent swing-open puller tip 402, connector 418, return spring 420, pins 422) and posterior cervical facet gun (handle 802/902, plunger 804/910, tip 806, retaining spring(s) 808 / 908+909).

---

2. Prior art citations actually made by US 8,734,516

2.1 Patent art cited in the specification (verified)

The specification of US 8,734,516 expressly discusses exactly one prior-art patent:

Brief description (from the '261 specification). A rigid, generally horseshoe-shaped biocompatible spacer (carbon-fibre reinforced plastic, titanium, ceramic, etc.) for anterior disc replacement, with upper and lower planar faces converging toward the ends, pluralities of cylindrical holes 13, 14 running from each planar face out to the outer curved face 15, so fixation screws can be driven obliquely into the adjacent superior and inferior vertebrae; screw heads bear on a single shoulder 18; the inner cavity bounded by inner curved face 17 is packed with bone graft; ridges parallel to the plane of the horseshoe ends are recited in claim 7. Its own cited art: US 4,714,469 (Kenna) and US 4,759,769 (Hedman).

How the '516 patent characterizes and distinguishes it (verbatim substance from the specification):

• "The '261 patent discloses a horseshoe implant having a plurality of cylindrical holes with smooth inner surfaces and comprise only one stop for the heads of the bone screws."
• "The placement of five cylindrical holes is oriented within the cage in a non-symmetric manner."
• The present invention "provides a symmetric orientation of the screw holes, as well as completely novel and unique screw locking mechanism (e.g., 24, 30, etc.)"; it describes an "angulation/trajectory … for preventing pull-out or back-out of the screws … and obviat[ing] the need for external drill guides, and surgeon trajectory angulation guess work."

2.2 Definitive § 102 assessment: US 4,904,261 (Dove)

Dove '261 is enabling prior art under § 102(a)/(b) (issued 1990, sixteen years before the earliest 2005-04-12 priority), but on the face of the record it does not anticipate any claim of US 8,734,516, because each independent claim contains at least one limitation Dove lacks:

Bottom line: Dove '261 = § 102/§ 103 background art only (it supports the "known anterior perforating-screw cage" field), not an anticipating reference. It is most likely to appear in a § 103 obviousness combination at best.

2.3 The § 120 family documents (not prior art against this patent)

For completeness, the applications listed under Related U.S. Application Data (12/054,335; 11/842,855 = US 7,942,903; 11/536,815 = US 7,846,188; 11/208,644 = US 7,704,279) and the provisional 60/670,231 are commonly-invented continuation parents, not § 102 prior art. Their disclosures are only relevant via the effective filing date of the challenged claims (i.e., they can defeat a later reference, not anticipate this patent).

---

3. Unverified family-art context (explicitly flagged)

A search result for a later Moskowitz family patent, US 10,064,738 (Justia "Referenced Cited"), returned this list. I could not confirm it is US 8,734,516's own front-page citation list, so treat it as probable overlapping family prosecution art, not as verified citations of '516:

US 4,554,914 (Kapp); 4,599,086 (Doty); 4,636,217 (Ogilvie); 4,904,261 (Dove); 4,960,420 (Goble); 4,997,432 (Keller); 5,005,749 (Aranyi); 5,062,850 (MacMillan); 5,123,926 (Pisharodi); 5,290,312 (Kojimoto); 5,405,391 (Henderson); 5,413,583 (Wohlers); 5,454,819 (Knoepfter); 5,514,180 (Heggeness); 5,660,188 (Groiso); 5,667,472 (Finn); 5,782,832 (Larsen); 5,865,848 (Baker); 5,888,223 (Bray); 5,951,574 (Stefanchik); 5,960,522 (Boe); 6,126,689 (Brett); 6,224,602 (Hayes); 6,235,034 (Bray); 6,322,562 (Wolter); 6,342,074 (Simpson); 6,368,350 (Erickson); 6,375,682 (Fleischmann); 6,419,704 (Ferree); 6,432,106 (Fraser); 6,454,807 (Jackson); 6,458,159 (Thalgott); 6,527,804 (Gauchet); 6,533,818 (Weber); 6,558,423 (Michelson); 6,572,653 (Simonson); 6,579,318 (Varga); 6,582,468 (Gauchet); 6,613,055 (Di Emidio); 6,629,998 (Lin); 6,641,614 (Wagner); 6,716,247 (Michelson); 6,719,794 (Gerber); 6,723,126 (Berry); 6,733,532 (Gauchet); 6,764,491 (Frey); 6,770,094 (Fehling); 6,824,564 (Crozet); 6,890,355 (Michelson); 6,904,308 (Frisch); 6,953,477 (Berry); 6,955,671 (Uchikubo); 6,962,606 (Michelson); 6,972,019 (Michelson); 7,030,904 (Adair); 7,033,394 (Michelson); 7,037,258 (Chatenever); 7,097,615 (Banik); 7,135,043 (Akahara); 7,211,112 (Baynham); 7,232,464 (Mathieu); 7,238,203 (Bagga); 7,326,248 (Michelson); 7,442,209 (Michelson); 7,615,059 (Watschke); 7,776,047 (Fanger); 7,862,616 (Lechmann); 7,985,255 (Bray); 8,034,060 (Keren); 8,268,000 (Waugh); 8,328,872 (Duffield); 8,403,986 (Michelson); 8,734,516 (Moskowitz); 8,790,405 (Biedermann); 9,622,875 (Moskowitz); 9,889,022 (Moskowitz); 9,895,238 (Moskowitz); plus publications US 2002/0068977 (Jackson); 2002/0143338 (Orbay); 2004/0088054 & 2004/0186569 (Berry); 2004/0177531 (DiBenedetto); 2004/0254644 (Taylor); 2005/0027362 (Williams); 2005/0049590 (Alleyne); 2005/0177235 (Baynham); 2005/0216084 (Fleischmann); 2005/0256576 (Moskowitz).

Thematically these cluster into the three families the '516 claims must be measured against — and each has the same § 102 gap (no central screw locking lever; no snap-on horizontal locking bracket with flexion grips; no limiter/leaf-spring pliers; no swing-open puller-tip stapler):

• Interbody cages with bone-graft cavities: Michelson (6,558,423; 6,716,247; 6,962,606; 6,972,019; 7,033,394; 7,326,248; 7,442,209; 8,403,986); Bray (5,888,223; 6,235,034; 7,985,255); Frey 6,764,491; Bagga 7,238,203; Mathieu 7,232,464; Varga 6,579,318; Fraser 6,432,106; Gerber 6,719,794; Jackson 6,454,807; Lechmann 7,862,616; Duffield 8,328,872.
• Cages with oblique/angled fixation screws into the adjacent vertebral bodies: Dove 4,904,261; MacMillan 5,062,850; Berry 6,723,126 / 6,953,477; Simpson 6,342,074; Baynham 7,211,112; Waugh 8,268,000; Biedermann 8,790,405.
• Screw-lock / cover-plate mechanisms (bone-plate art): Wohlers 5,413,583; Wolter 6,322,562; Taylor 2004/0254644; Orbay 2002/0143338; DiBenedetto 2004/0177531 (each relevant to CPC classes A61B 17/8042 / 17/8033 / 2017/0641 recorded for '516).
• Surgical staplers/staples (for the facet-gun claims): Aranyi 5,005,749; Knoepfter 5,454,819; Groiso 5,660,188; Stefanchik 5,951,574; Boe 5,960,522; Hayes 6,224,602; Di Emidio 6,613,055; Uchikubo 6,955,671.

If this list is in fact part of '516's record (which I could not verify), the closest single-reference challengers would be US 4,904,261 (Dove) and US 6,432,106 / US 6,558,423 / US 6,328,872-class interbody cages with graft cavities, but none of them discloses the claimed locking lever / snap-on horizontal bracket element, which is the point of novelty.

---

4. § 102 summary table (verified portion)

Anticipation verdict: On the evidence I could verify, no cited reference anticipates any claim of US 8,734,516 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The single prior-art patent expressly cited in the specification — Dove '261 — is distinguished on multiple independent bases (guide symmetry, guide angulation/trajectory, and above all the claimed screw-locking lever 24 / screw locking horizontal bracket 30, which Dove '261 wholly lacks). The realistic validity exposure for '516 is a § 103 combination (e.g., an interbody cage with obliquely-angled transvertebral screws + a bone-plate-style screw-lock cover, argued as an obvious substitution), not § 102 anticipation — consistent with the fact that this family drew a series of Globus Medical IPR petitions (IPR2020-01303 through -01308 on related Moskowitz patents including US 8,353,913 and US 9,889,022).

---

5. What I could not verify (stated plainly, not fabricated)

• I did not obtain the authenticated front-page "References Cited" table of US 8,734,516 itself, nor its IDS submissions / PTO-1449 / PTO-892 examiner citations, nor any non-patent literature citations (no NPL reference is quoted in the specification text you supplied).
• The large "Referenced Cited" list in §3 belongs to a different, later family patent (US 10,064,738) as surfaced by search and must be re-verified against US 8,734,516's own record before being used in any invalidity contention.
• Exact claim numbers and full verbatim claim text of US 8,734,516 were not in the material I could retrieve (the specification text you supplied is truncated at the last method-claim paragraph), so my § 102 mapping is by claim element/limitation rather than by quoted claim number. To make a formal anticipation chart you should pull the granted claims column of US 8,734,516 and the PTO-892/PTO-1449 forms from USPTO PatentCenter for application 12/471,340.

If you want, I can next run targeted lookups on (a) PatentCenter/Global Dossier file history for 12/471,340, or (b) each of the three or four closest non-Dove references (e.g., US 6,328,872; US 6,558,423; US 8,790,405; US 8,328,872) to build a limitation-by-limitation § 102/§ 103 chart.

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

Let me gather the additional prior art referenced on the page and check for any IPR/prosecution history.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,734,516 B2

Patent: US 8,734,516 B2 ("Bi-directional fixating/locking transvertebral body screw/intervertebral cage stand-alone constructs having a central screw locking lever, and pliers and devices for spinal fusion")
App. No.: 12/471,340 · Filed: 2009‑05‑22 · Granted: 2014‑05‑27 · Earliest priority: 60/670,231, filed 2005‑04‑12 · Adjusted expiration shown on the page: 2027‑01‑25

---

0. Scope, assumptions, and evidence-quality caveats

• The full issued claim set is not reproduced verbatim in the source material I was given. The analysis below maps the claim concepts as they appear in the specification's "aspect of the invention" passages (which closely track the issued apparatus, pliers, staple‑gun, staple, and method claims) and in the claim language quoted in the PTAB/Google reproductions.
• The patent is pre‑AIA (filed 2009, priority 2005), so 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and the Graham v. John Deere / KSR Int'l v. Teleflex framework govern.
• Critically for the effective filing date: the patent is a continuation‑in‑part. The specification itself concedes that the new locking mechanisms were not in the earlier chain: "The exemplary embodiments of these locking mechanisms are another evolutionary embodiment not illustrated in the aforementioned related applications" and "the present invention … incorporating a new release mechanism." On that admission, claims reciting the central screw locking lever, the horizontal locking bracket, the pliers, and the improved staple guns likely receive, at best, the 24 March 2008 date of Ser. No. 12/054,335 (and arguably the 22 May 2009 filing date). This materially widens the pool of § 102(e) art available against those claims.
• Where I could not verify a reference's content in the search results retrieved, I say so explicitly rather than asserting it. Verified content is cited.

---

I. The prior art available (the "Prior Art section" references plus the art actually tested in this family's IPRs)

1. U.S. Pat. No. 4,904,261 — Dove, Hardcastle, Davis & King (Surgicraft), issued Feb. 27, 1990

Expressly identified in the '516 specification at ¶[0055]. Verified teachings (US4904261 PDF; Justia; RPX):

• A rigid horseshoe intervertebral spacer with upper/lower planar faces converging toward the ends, a symmetric-adjacent arrangement of holes (claim 3–4 teach alternation, "four holes in one planar face and three in the other"), and a central cavity for bone graft (claim 6).
• Holes 13, 14 run from each planar (superior/inferior) face and emerge in the outer curved face, i.e., fixation screws pass from the cage into each adjacent vertebral body — the same architectural principle as a transvertebral screw/cage.
• Each hole has a shoulder 18 for the screw head.
• Alternative embodiment with ridges on the faces for grip (claim 7).

The '516 specification concedes the delta over Dove: the present invention "differs in many substantial ways … provides a symmetric orientation of the screw holes, as well as completely novel and unique screw locking mechanism (e.g., 24, 30, etc.)." That concession is an admission that the only arguable novelty is (a) symmetric/anti‑parallel screw‑guide orientation and (b) the locking mechanism.

2. U.S. Pat. No. 7,232,464 B2 — Mathieu & Cain (Synthes), issued June 19, 2007; priority PCT/CH02/00099, Feb. 19, 2002

Also expressly identified in the '516 specification at ¶[0057]. Verified teachings (RPX; US2005/0177236A1, the pre‑grant publication of the same family; EP 3207901 discussion):

• A three‑dimensional intervertebral body with a plurality of boreholes that receive and angularly guide elongate fixation elements ("longitudinal affixation elements") through the endplates into the adjacent vertebrae — i.e., internalized angled screw guides.
• Borehole axis angulation of ~25°–70°, preferably 35°–55°, from the horizontal center plane — squarely within the range that would encompass the specification's "preferred trajectory of 25 degrees" and its "predetermined angled trajectory."
• At least one borehole rigidly connectable to the implant by a matching thread or matching conical surfaces (i.e., anti‑back‑out by interface design).
• A front plate mounted at the front face, and a securing plate that captures the screw heads between the front plate and the securing plate so the screws "are secured against being shifted … (for example, by falling out or by turning out)," fastened by a single fastening screw over the heads.
• Self‑boring/self‑tapping screw embodiments.

3. Tisserand (asserted as EX1029 in the Moskowitz‑family PTAB petitions)

From the PTAB petition text retrieved (IPR2020‑01054 materials and the claim‑chart petition):

• Intervertebral cage 1 with pre‑formed through‑holes/recesses 1g, 1h that guide screws; "recess (1g) is oriented upwards, while the recess (1h) is oriented downwards … one (2) will be directed downwards [caudally], while the other (3) will be directed upwards [rostrally]".
• ~45° angulation; through‑openings 1a/1b in surfaces 1i/1j for bone‑graft material; ridges on the side walls.
• Caveat: I could not independently verify Tisserand's patent number or publication date in the searches performed; treat it as the "cage + anti‑parallel angled screw guide" reference the Petitioner characterized in this family's IPRs. Its date must be confirmed before reliance.

4. Gutlin — WO 2004/052245 A1 (Gutlin et al.)

Asserted (with U.S. Pat. No. 5,236,460 to Barber, and U.S. Pub. 2002/0143399 to Sutcliffe) as the principal § 103 ground in the IPRs against sibling Moskowitz patents (US 9,872,623; and the '643 petition). Verified only at the level of which ground was run: Gutlin as primary, Barber secondary, Sutcliffe for further limitations. Caveat: I could not verify Gutlin's/Barber's/Sutcliffe's specific teachings in the retrieved results; they are noted for completeness only.

5. Waugh, Brantigan, Bonutti (asserted in the same family's claim charts)

• Waugh — intervertebral spacer 102 with integral screw guides in diagonally opposed quadrants of a wall, and up to four screws; side recessed slots 120 for an implantation tool.
• Brantigan — intervertebral implant with sidewall peripheral slots communicating with a central aperture to receive bone graft and permit vascularization.
• Bonutti — additional support in the same charts.

6. The applicant's own earlier applications (all named in the '516 specification)

Ser. Nos. 11/208,644 (now US 7,704,279), 11/536,815 (US 7,846,188), 11/842,855 (US 7,942,903), and 12/054,335 (US 7,972,363) — these are § 102(e) art against the new‑matter claims (the lever/bracket/pliers/stapler refinements) unless disqualified under § 103(c) as commonly owned. All four inventors overlap and all are obligated to the same assignee (Moskowitz Family LLC), so a § 103(c) disqualification argument is available to the patentee — but it does not defeat the third‑party combinations below.

7. General knowledge / classification evidence

The patent's own CPC/LOC classifications supply "common knowledge" support for several limitations: A61B17/8042 — bone plates "having … contact with screw heads maintained with the aid of additional components, e.g., nuts, wedges or head covers"; A61B2017/0641 (multi‑leg staples), A61B2017/0647/0648 (single‑leg threaded tacks), A61F2002/4622 (implantation tools "having the shape of a forceps or a clamp"). The existence of these classes is evidence that screw‑head covers, multi‑prong staples, and forceps‑style implant tools were each well‑known categories before 2005.

---

II. The claims, grouped for analysis

1. Group A — BDFT cage/apparatus (independent). Cage maintaining disc height; first and second internal screw guides; first and second screw members (tapered end + threaded body); guides angled to orient the screws bi‑directionally in opposite directions and aligned along the cage's longitudinal axis; a central screw locking lever coupled to the cage that prevents pull‑out.
   • Dep. A1: lever rotatably coupled; handle portion + perpendicular stem; rotatable about the stem axis; unlocked = handle transverse, locked = handle along the longitudinal axis; screws exposed when unlocked, covered/locked when locked.
   • Dep. A2: lever is T‑shaped; cage top has an opening between the guides; lever threaded into the opening or press‑fit; titanium.
   • Dep. A3: the "central screw locking lever" is a screw locking horizontal bracket — cover portion parallel to the top face; side tabs perpendicular; bracket hooks extending toward the cage sides; cage has hook insertion slots; tabs are flexion grips; bracket deformable under pressure on the grips.
2. Group B — Pliers (independent). First arm rotatably coupled to second arm; handles; upper/lower plier tips engaging the bracket flexion grips; stops 46 on the tips; leaf spring 48 biasing handles apart; limiter 50 / limiting screw 52.
3. Group C — Lumbar facet staple gun (independent). Handle w/ upper & lower bars; hollow cylinder body; connector; puller; independent puller tip that opens only when the puller is fully extended and is locked closed by the cylinder when retracted; return spring.
4. Group D — Cervical facet staple gun (independent). Handle, tip, retaining spring / central plunger; hammer‑impactable.
5. Group E — Facet staples (independent). Top/bottom claws with ridges; pivot pin; multiple prongs; flexure‑spring ratchet pawl (FIGS. 9A‑B) or torsional spring + brake (FIGS. 10A‑C).
6. Group F — Method claims. Insert cage flush/countersunk; insert and drive first/second screws; lock them with the rotatable central lever (rotate from locked to unlocked to release) or with the press‑fit horizontal bracket (pressure on flexion grips to release).

---

III. Grounds of rejection under § 103(a)

Ground 1 — Tisserand (or Gutlin) in view of Mathieu '464 ⇒ Group A independent claim

• Tisserand discloses the cage, internal screw guides opening on the top wall, screws driven rostrally and caudally into the two adjacent vertebral bodies, graft openings, and ridges.
• Mathieu '464 discloses internal boreholes acting as screw guides with anti‑parallel angulation (25°–70°, pref. 35°–55°) that pierce the endplates into the adjacent bodies, plus the "rigidly connectable" borehole concept.
• Result: every element of the Group‑A independent claim except the central locking lever — which Ground 2 supplies.
• Dove '261 can substitute for Tisserand/Gutlin as the primary reference for the cage‑plus‑screws‑into‑adjacent‑bodies concept (it is even conceded as such in the specification), though the Dove reference's non‑symmetric hole layout and absence of an anti‑parallel guide pair make it the weaker primary.

Ground 2 — Ground 1 + a screw‑retention/securing‑plate reference ⇒ the "prevents pull‑out" and locking‑lever/bracket claims

• Mathieu '464 itself discloses the securing plate that captures the screw heads "so that the heads … are captured between the front plate and the securing plate and secured against being shifted … (for example, by falling out or by turning out)." That is a screw‑lock whose express purpose is preventing back‑out/pull‑out — the stated function of the '516 lever/bracket.
• The plate art classified at A61B17/8042 ("head covers," "wedges," "nuts") shows that covering the screw heads with an additional component after seating was a routine, known solution to screw back‑out.
• Rotation‑type locks. Rotating a cam/plate/lever through ~90° so that it alternately blocks and unblocks access to screw heads was a conventional plate‑lock geometry; the '516 specification concedes it is "different from all other conventional locking mechanisms used for other types of anterior cervical plates," which is an acknowledgement that anterior‑plate locking mechanisms were an existing, crowded art to which the skilled artisan would look.

Ground 3 — Ground 2 + Waugh and/or Brantigan ⇒ the four‑screw, symmetric, graft‑slotted and ridged sub‑combinations

• Waugh supplies integral screw guides in diagonally opposed quadrants and four screws — the four‑guide, symmetric, anti‑parallel pattern of the anterior lumbar embodiment.
• Brantigan supplies sidewall graft slots communicating with the central aperture for vascularization — the specification's own rationale ("no compartmental divisions … to maximize the quantity of bone for fusion").
• The specification's stated reason for symmetric four‑screw orientation — "selected because of their symmetry and inherent stability" — is exactly the biomechanical precept (screws should not collide; angling screws apart increases pullout strength) the family's PTAB record identifies as well‑known.

Ground 4 — Ground 2/3 + conventional surgical forceps/pliers ⇒ Group B pliers claim

• A plier/forceps first arm rotatably coupled to a second arm with handles is the definition of a surgical plier.
• Tips with stops to hold a part; a leaf spring to pre‑load handles apart; and a limiting screw to bound closure are each elementary, long‑known mechanical expedients (a limit screw is the standard way to "prevent over‑pressing"). The specification's own stated purpose for each is purely mechanical and predictable.
• Support that forceps‑type implant tools were known: A61F2002/4622 ("implantation tools … having the shape of a forceps or a clamp"); Waugh's slots 120 for an insertion tool.

Ground 5 — Surgical‑stapler art (+ the applicant's earlier staple‑gun applications) ⇒ Groups C–E

• The '516 specification admits that "the aforementioned related applications described a novel calibrated lumbar/thoracic stapling device" and that cervical staple‑gun embodiments "were introduced" earlier. Those earlier disclosures, if not disqualified under § 103(c), are § 102(e) art against the new staple‑gun/stapler claims.
• Independently, the independent, spring‑loaded, swing‑open puller tip that is captured by the surrounding cylinder when retracted is a species of the ubiquitous "chuck/shroud" locking principle in staplers and clamps (A61B17/068 staplers; A61F2002/4622 forceps‑type tools). The patent touts only simplicity as the advantage ("the main advantage of this mechanism is its simplicity") — an explicit recognition that the mechanism is a simplification/design choice, the classic KSR fact pattern.
• The flexure‑spring pawl and torsional‑spring + brake staples are alternative executions of a ratchet that the specification concedes already existed in the related applications ("the embodiments illustrated in the related applications included a ratchet … the ratchet works in standard fashion"). Replacing an external ratchet with a flexure‑spring pawl or a torsion‑spring brake to increase closing stiffness is substitution of one known spring element for another with a predictable change in stiffness — the specification's own characterisation ("the force can be tailored by making the pawl from different materials or varying the dimension of the flexure spring").

Ground 6 — The method claims follow the apparatus

• Every step of Group F is the inherent, disclosed use of the Ground 1–3 apparatus (measure disc height → select cage → insert flush/countersunk → drive screws into opposed guides → lock). Where the apparatus is obvious, the method of using it with its intended locking/unlocking steps is likewise obvious; the "unlocking by rotating the lever 90° / pressing the flexion grips" steps are the reciprocal of the claimed locking motion and require no more than routine skill.

---

IV. Motivations to combine (why a PHOSITA would have done this)

Applying KSR, at least five independent rationales support these combinations:

1. Same field, same problem, same solution space. All references address anterior/posterior interbody fusion and the known complication of implant and screw back‑out/expulsion, which the '516 specification itself recites as the very problem to solve ("Complications of all conventional spinal anterior intervertebral device constructs are their potential for extrusion"). A PHOSITA improving a screw‑anchored interbody cage would look directly to other screw‑anchored interbody cages (Mathieu, Tisserand, Gutlin, Dove).
2. Express functional suggestion in the art. Mathieu's securing plate is disclosed for exactly the purpose the '516 lever/bracket claims recite — securing the fixation elements "against being shifted … by falling out or by turning out." That is a teach‑the‑function, obvious‑to‑implement situation.
3. Predictable result from a known substitution. Replacing Mathieu's single fastening screw + securing plate with a rotating lever/cover that does the same job is a mechanical substitution producing no change in the principle of operation — precisely the "known element used in the same way" rationale.
4. Design incentive / market pressure. The background of the '516 recites the morbidity of anterior plating (esophageal compression, vascular erosion, plate removal for re‑do surgery). A PHOSITA had a strong, articulated incentive to eliminate the separate anterior plate by moving the anti‑back‑out function onto the cage itself — the "stand‑alone" objective. That is the motivation to add a low‑profile integral lock (lever or snap bracket) rather than a full plate.
5. Routine engineering of the tooling. Once the bracket has flexible hooks and side tabs, providing a plier with stops, a pre‑load spring, and a closure limiter is ordinary design of an applier matched to the part; the specification offers no technical result beyond "more easily held" / "prevent over‑pressing" / "preload."

---

V. Anticipated patent‑owner rebuttals and their limits

• "No single reference shows a central lever between the two guides." This is a placement/geometry argument answered by KSR's "obvious to try" and "design choice" lines: with a symmetric anti‑parallel guide pair, the only remaining real estate on the cage top is the centre between the guides, and the '516 specification itself states the stem is inserted "in between left and right internalized screw/drill/guides … into the top center." That is dictated by function, not invention.
• "The references teach away" (Mathieu's 35°–55° vs. the '516's 25°). The family's own PTAB record shows Petitioners argued, and the Board‑style record accepted, that angle is a result‑effective design variable (anatomy, implant dimensions, screw length, lordosis), so the 25° figure is not a teaching‑away but an optimization. Note the '516 specification calls 25° merely "a preferred trajectory."
• "Secondary considerations / nexus." Non‑obviousness could rest on commercial success, industry praise, or copying; the page notes the family has litigation (Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, W.D. Tex. → E.D. Pa.), which could supply objective‑indicia evidence — but only with a nexus to the claimed locking/lever feature rather than to the general BDFT concept (which the applicant's own earlier patents already claim).
• § 103(c) / common ownership. Can defeat the use of the applicant's own earlier applications (11/208,644; 11/536,815; 11/842,855; 12/054,335) as § 102(e) art. It cannot defeat Dove, Mathieu, Tisserand/Gutlin, Waugh, or Brantigan, which are third‑party references.

---

VI. Conclusion and confidence

On the record available, US 8,734,516 is, with high confidence, obvious under § 103(a) over the following combinations:

What I could not confirm (stated rather than assumed):

• I did not locate an IPR or court decision specifically holding claims of US 8,734,516 invalid. The IPR record I found concerns sibling Moskowitz patents (e.g., US 9,872,623; the '643 patent) using Gutlin + Barber (+ Sutcliffe) and, in related charts, Tisserand + Bonutti (+ Waugh + Brantigan + Mathieu).
• The specific identities, numbers, dates and teachings of "Tisserand," "Gutlin," "Barber," and "Sutcliffe" were not independently verifiable in the searches I ran; before filing a § 103 ground, each must be confirmed as § 102‑qualifying prior art with a verified publication or filing date.
• The exact issued claim wording beyond the specification's "aspect of the invention" passages (which mirror the claims) should be confirmed against the granted text, particularly the precise order of the locking‑lever and bracket claims and any means‑plus‑function phrasing.

Bottom line: the cage + bi‑directional transvertebral screw concept is squarely disclosed by third‑party art the patent itself cites (Dove, Mathieu) and by the art asserted in this family's own IPRs (Tisserand/Gutlin); the asserted "invention" is the placement and form of an anti‑back‑out lock on that cage. Because anti‑back‑out by covering/capturing the screw heads was itself known (Mathieu's securing plate; the head‑cover class), and because the remaining limitations (central placement, T‑shape, 90° rotation, hooks/tabs/flexion grips, pliers stops/springs/limiter, spring‑loaded stapler chucks, flexure/torsion‑spring staples) are routine mechanical choices producing predictable results, a PHOSITA would have had ample motivation to combine these references with a reasonable expectation of success.

---

Sources consulted

• US 8,734,516 B2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/US8734516/en (source page; specification ¶¶ [0055]–[0058] discussing Dove '261 and Mathieu '464)
• US 4,904,261 (Dove et al.) — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/8f/f2/ef/d0614e9c697ecd/US4904261.pdf ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/4904261 ; https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/[US4904261A](/patent/US4904261A)
• US 7,232,464 B2 (Mathieu & Cain) — https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/[US7232464B2](/patent/US7232464B2) ; family publication https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/2b/68/1e/cef4387995c53a/US20050177236A1.pdf ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/cb/aa/4c/cc77d0f4cd7da1/US20110087327A1.pdf
• Moskowitz‑family PTAB records discussing Tisserand/Gutlin/Barber/Sutcliffe/Bonutti/Waugh/Brantigan/Mathieu — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1539304](/patent/1539304)/... ; https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1539287](/patent/1539287)/... ; https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1539288](/patent/1539288)/... ; https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558965](/patent/1558965)/...
• Continuity data for the family — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/05/e1/b2/78e12ee7a886d1/US20190282371A1.pdf