US 9730805

US Patent 9730805 (referred to as US9730805B1 in Google Patents data) is titled "Intervertebral fusion device and method or use".

Here's a concise summary of the patent:

• Title: Intervertebral fusion device and method or use
• Assignee: Spinelogik Inc.
• Inventor: Jeffrey Paris Wensel
• Filing Date: October 18, 2012
• Issue Date: August 15, 2017
• Abstract: An apparatus and method for intervertebral fusion involves delivering a fusion member between two vertebral bodies after removing a portion of the fibrocartilaginous disc. The apparatus then affixes the fusion member to the vertebral bodies. It includes a fusion member with channels, a delivery mechanism for positioning the fusion member, and anchoring members that pass through the channels and into the vertebral bodies. A hardening material, such as bone cement or PMMA, can be injected through the anchoring members into the marrow space of the vertebral bodies to further solidify the attachment. The anchoring members can have surface contours and perforated tips to enhance retention within the bone once the hardening material sets. The delivery mechanism also features a retention mechanism to controllably detach from the fusion member after placement and anchoring.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes an apparatus for spinal fusion. It includes a fusion member designed to be placed between two vertebral bodies after disc removal. This fusion member has at least one channel. The apparatus also features at least one anchoring member that can be advanced through the fusion member's channel and into the vertebral bodies. The anchoring member has a hollow channel and perforations near its tip, allowing for the injection of a hardening material (like bone cement or a polymer) into the vertebral bodies to secure the fusion member. The claim further specifies a delivery mechanism that holds the fusion member and the anchoring member(s) and allows for the controlled detachment of the delivery mechanism after the fusion member is secured.
• Independent Claim 12: This claim describes a method for intervertebral fusion. The method involves providing a fusion member (as described in Claim 1) and a delivery mechanism. The fusion member is positioned between two vertebral bodies using the delivery mechanism. Then, at least one anchoring member is advanced through the fusion member's channels and into the adjacent vertebral bodies. A hardening material (bone cement or polymer) is injected through the anchoring member's hollow channel and perforations into the vertebral bodies. Finally, the delivery mechanism is detached from the fusion member.
• Independent Claim 13: This claim details another method for intervertebral fusion, focusing on the use of a specifically designed anchoring member. It involves providing a fusion member with channels and an anchoring member with a hollow channel, perforations, and a flanged base. The method includes inserting the fusion member between vertebral bodies, advancing the anchoring member through the fusion member's channel and into a vertebral body, and locking the anchoring member to the fusion member via its flanged base.
• Independent Claim 14: This claim outlines a method for intervertebral fusion similar to claim 13, but explicitly includes the step of injecting a hardening material. It specifies providing a fusion member with channels, and an anchoring member with a hollow channel, perforations, and a flanged base. The fusion member is positioned between vertebral bodies, the anchoring member is advanced into a vertebral body and locked to the fusion member via its flanged base. Subsequently, a hardening material is injected through the hollow channel and perforations of the anchoring member into the vertebral body.

Regarding CAFC 2026 dockets for US9730805B1, I do not have authoritative information specifically identifying ongoing litigation related to this patent in the CAFC dockets for 2026. Searches for CAFC dockets primarily provide information on scheduled cases and opinions, and while general search tools for patents can indicate if a patent family has litigation, it does not specify current year CAFC dockets for specific patent numbers.

Known litigation involving US patent 9730805B1 includes the following:

1. Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

   • Case Number: 2:23-cv-00297
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Litigation

2. Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

   • Case Number: 2:23-cv-00529
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Litigation

3. Jurisdiction: PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board)

   • Case Number: IPR2025-00225
   • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner not explicitly named; data from Unified Patents.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text (typically the patent owner).
   • Filing Date: Indicated as filed in 2025 based on the case number (IPR2025-00225), but a specific date is not provided.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Pending - Instituted

Proceedings overview

The patent US9730805 has one active AIA trial proceeding on file, which has been instituted. This gives a defendant some defensive leverage, as the patent owner faces uncertainty regarding the patentability of the challenged claims. However, the ultimate impact on the patent's claims is currently pending the issuance of a Final Written Decision.

IPR2025-00225 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Spinelogik Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-12-19
• Status: Instituted. The Final Written Decision was due on 2026-06-25, but no such decision or termination has been publicly identified as of 2026-07-11.
• Judge panel: Not publicly identified from available sources.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not publicly identified from available sources without access to the full petition and institution decision.
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2025-06-25. The specific reasoning for institution is not publicly identified from available sources without access to the full institution decision.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet publicly identified, despite the due date passing.
• Settlement / termination: Not publicly identified.
• Appeal: Not applicable yet.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that at least some claims of US9730805 are currently under review for patentability. The ultimate defensive value will depend on the outcome of the Final Written Decision. Until then, the patent owner may face challenges in asserting claims that are subject to this IPR.

Strategic summary

The patent US9730805 is currently subject to one ongoing Inter Partes Review, IPR2025-00225. This IPR has been instituted, meaning the PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. However, details regarding which specific claims were challenged, the prior art cited, and the precise reasoning for institution are not publicly available from the current sources without reviewing the full petition and institution decision documents. The Final Written Decision for this proceeding was due on 2026-06-25, but no decision has been publicly released as of today, 2026-07-11, nor has any termination been publicly identified.

As the IPR is still active (indicated by "Instituted" status despite the FWD due date passing, which could imply a potential extension or lag in public record updates), the claims under challenge are currently in a state of uncertainty. Without the institution decision and FWD, it is not possible to determine which claims are currently canceled, sustained, or remain untested. The petitioner in this case is Unified Patents, LLC, which is a defensive aggregator known for filing IPRs to help its members mitigate patent assertion risks. The estoppel landscape from this proceeding is not yet defined, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.

Recommended next steps

It is critical to monitor IPR2025-00225 for the issuance of the Final Written Decision or any notices of termination. The PTAB has a statutory one-year deadline for issuing a Final Written Decision from the institution date (2025-06-25), making the FWD due on 2026-06-25. If no FWD has been issued, it is possible an extension was granted, or the parties may have settled confidentially and a joint motion to terminate is pending or has been filed but not yet processed publicly.

Defendants facing assertion of US9730805 should investigate the full institution decision for IPR2025-00225 to understand the challenged claims and grounds. This document would shed light on the specific vulnerabilities of the patent's claims and inform any potential defensive strategies, including available prior-art grounds. The status of this proceeding can be monitored at the Unified Patents portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-00225.

Inventors

• Jeffrey Paris Wensel (Spinelogik Inc.)

Original assignee

The original assignee is Spinelogik Inc. It is unclear whether Spinelogik Inc. shipped a product embodying the claims of US9730805B1. The primary line of business for Spinelogik Inc. appears to be medical devices, specifically spinal implants. Its current status is unclear based on the provided information.

Assignment timeline

There are no recorded assignments for US9730805B1 on the USPTO Patent Assignment Search database beyond the original assignment to Spinelogik Inc.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9730805
    2012 : Filed by Spinelogik Inc
    2017 : Issued to Spinelogik Inc

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No recorded transfers from an operating assignee to a licensing-only LLC.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No known asserters are listed as assignees.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. There are no recorded assignments in the chain to evaluate for repeat correspondents.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. No multiple consecutive assignments were found.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While there is litigation associated with this patent (e.g., US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court, PTAB case IPR2025-00225), there are no recorded assignments to assess for pre-litigation transfers.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No evidence of the original assignee filing for bankruptcy and selling patents in proceedings.
7. Privateering — unclear. No information available to suggest privateering.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data. The USPTO Assignment Center search shows no recorded post-issuance assignments for US9730805B1 beyond the original assignment to Spinelogik Inc.. Therefore, there is insufficient information to determine if any NPE/troll patterns are present in the patent's ownership chain.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 9730805, I will search the USPTO Patent Public Search database for the patent and then examine its cited references. The USPTO provides tools for this purpose.

A prior art search is crucial for determining the patentability of an invention, specifically regarding novelty and non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, respectively. Prior art includes U.S. patents, published patent applications, foreign patents, and various other public disclosures. Applicants have a duty to disclose known relevant prior art to the USPTO.

As a large language model, I do not have direct access to USPTO databases. I am unable to perform live, interactive searches of patent databases. Therefore, I cannot directly pull the list of cited prior art from the USPTO for patent 9730805 and analyze each reference as requested.

To fulfill your request, I would need a list of the specific prior art references cited by US patent 9730805. Once provided with that list, I can then, for each reference:

• Provide a full citation.
• Extract the publication/filing date.
• Offer a brief description.
• Analyze which claim(s) of US patent 9730805 it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102, based on the provided text of US9730805 and the description of the prior art.

Without that specific list of cited prior art, I cannot proceed with the requested analysis.

A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) in the field of spinal fusion and orthopedic surgery, prior to the priority date of US9730805 (March 27, 2008), would likely be a biomedical engineer, orthopedic surgeon, or neurosurgeon with experience in the design, implantation, and performance of spinal fusion devices and related surgical techniques. This POSITA would be aware of the existing challenges and limitations in spinal fusion surgeries, particularly the "unacceptably high" failure rates, often exceeding 10 percent. [cite: U.S. Pat. No. 4,961,740]

The claimed invention of US9730805, as broadly described in its "Definitions" section, pertains to an apparatus for intervertebral fusion and stabilization. This apparatus includes:

1. A fusion member (e.g., a rectangular or oblong block, potentially tapered) with one or more channels (e.g., tubular channels).
2. One or more anchoring members designed to be pushed through these channels of the fusion member and into the marrow space of the adjacent vertebral bodies, thereby affixing the fusion member.
3. A delivery mechanism for positioning the fusion member and guiding the anchoring members.
4. Optionally, the injection of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) or other bone cement/hardening polymer through the anchoring members into the vertebral bodies to further solidify the attachment.

The patent itself identifies existing prior art in its "Definitions":

• U.S. Pat. No. 4,961,740 ("Ray, et al.") introduced the concept of the threaded cylindrical interbody fusion cage in 1990. [cite: U.S. Pat. No. 4,961,740]
• Numerous other interbody fusion devices subsequently developed, including cylindrical, rectangular, and tapered cages and spacers composed of various materials (metals, polymers, human bone allograft). [cite: U.S. Pat. No. 4,961,740]
• Some of these devices incorporated or were coated with human bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) or other agents to promote new bone formation and accelerate fusion. [cite: U.S. Pat. No. 4,961,740]

The recognized problem in the art was that "failure rates for spinal fusion surgeries remain unacceptably high," providing a clear motivation for a POSITA to seek improved methods of securing interbody fusion devices. [cite: U.S. Pat. No. 4,961,740]

The following combinations of prior art elements would render the features of US9730805 obvious to a POSITA:

Combination 1: Known Interbody Fusion Device + Channels for Anchoring Members + Anchoring Members Extending into Vertebral Bodies

• Prior Art Elements: A POSITA would be familiar with existing interbody fusion devices, such as the threaded cylindrical cages introduced by Ray, et al., and the subsequent development of various shaped cages and spacers (e.g., rectangular or tapered blocks) used to restore disc height and promote fusion between vertebral bodies. [cite: U.S. Pat. No. 4,961,740] A POSITA would also be aware of conventional orthopedic techniques for securing implants to bone using anchoring elements like pins, spikes, or screws.
• Motivation to Combine: Given the high failure rates and challenges with the structural integrity of existing fusion procedures, a POSITA would be motivated to improve the mechanical stability of interbody fusion devices. It would be an obvious design choice to enhance the fixation of a known fusion member by integrating a system for direct mechanical anchorage into the adjacent vertebral bodies. Creating channels through the fusion member to guide anchoring members (e.g., needles, pins, or spikes) into the marrow space of the superior and inferior vertebral bodies would be a straightforward adaptation to provide this enhanced, direct mechanical engagement and prevent migration of the fusion member. The term "anchoring" itself is a prior art keyword, indicating the established concept of securing devices to vertebral bodies. [cite: Prior art keywords]

Combination 2: Combination 1 + Injection of Bone Cement through Anchoring Members for Enhanced Fixation

• Prior Art Elements: Building upon the concept of a fusion member with anchoring members extending into vertebral bodies (as in Combination 1), a POSITA would also possess knowledge of bone cements, such as polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). The use of PMMA for bone augmentation and stabilization, particularly in vertebral bodies (e.g., in vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty procedures), was a known technique in orthopedic surgery. The patent's own description of PMMA as "bone cement or hardening polymer material" that forms a "cloud" and "hardens after a duration of time" to "solidif[y] the attachment" implies this material and its function were commonly understood.
• Motivation to Combine: Recognizing that mechanical anchoring alone might be insufficient, especially in patients with compromised bone quality (e.g., osteoporosis), a POSITA would be motivated to further enhance the purchase and stability of the anchoring members within the trabecular bone. It would be obvious to combine the technique of direct anchoring with the known benefits of PMMA injection. By utilizing hollow anchoring members, a POSITA could inject PMMA into the marrow space around the anchoring member tips, forming a hardened "cloud" that significantly increases the surface area for fixation and interlocks with the bone, thereby providing a more robust and stable attachment of the fusion member to the vertebral bodies. This directly addresses the goal of achieving "solid mechanical fusion" as stated in the patent.

Design Choices and Routine Variations

Many other features described in US9730805 would be considered routine design choices or minor variations within the skill of a POSITA, motivated by standard engineering principles and surgical requirements:

• Fusion member shape: Cylindrical, rectangular, or tapered profiles for restoring disc height and physiologic lordosis were known. [cite: U.S. Pat. No. 4,961,740]
• Fusion member material: Composing the fusion member from metals (like titanium or stainless steel), polymers, carbon fiber, or bioabsorbable materials was known in the art of interbody fusion devices. [cite: U.S. Pat. No. 4,961,740]
• Anchoring member tips and contours: Designing anchoring members with perforated tips (for cement outflow) and surface contours (e.g., angled teeth or backfacing ridges) to enhance mechanical interlock or prevent withdrawal is a common practice in orthopedic fixation to improve implant stability.
• Delivery and retention mechanisms: The need for a delivery mechanism to precisely position an implant and a retention mechanism to temporarily secure it and then detach it is fundamental to surgical instrumentation. The patent itself acknowledges that "one of ordinary skill will realize that other embodiments use other retention structures (e.g., other male/female structures, other structures such as expandable clasps... or a clamp, etc.) to affix the delivery mechanism to the fusion member." This indicates that such retention structures are well-known alternatives in the art.
• Curved channels and pivoting mechanisms: If specific anatomical trajectories require curved channels for the anchoring members, providing a pivoting mechanism in the delivery system to facilitate their advancement through such curves would be a straightforward mechanical engineering solution.

In summary, the core inventive concept of US9730805—an interbody fusion member with through-channels for anchoring members extending into adjacent vertebral bodies, optionally augmented by bone cement injection—represents a logical combination of known elements in the prior art, driven by the well-recognized need to improve the stability and reduce the failure rates of spinal fusion surgeries. The specific design implementations of these features would be considered within the ordinary skill of a POSITA.