US 9924940

I'll search for this specific patent number across USPTO sources and CAFC 2026 dockets.

Let me run more targeted searches on the CAFC 2026 docket and the USPTO record for this specific patent.

Summary — U.S. Patent No. 9,924,940 B2

Search note on scope. I searched for the literal identifier 9924940 against web/USPTO-indexed sources and 2026 CAFC material. Results are summarized below; I flag below where the record is silent or where hits are false positives for this number.

---

Bibliographic data

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9924940B2](/patent/US9924940B2)/en (fetched 2026-09-26).

Priority chain (per the spec's own priority statement): continuation of 12/347,990 (now US 7,951,180) → divisional of 11/208,644 (now US 7,704,279) → provisional 60/670,231. Family also includes later continuations US 10,251,643, US 10,238,383, US 10,952,723, US 11,864,755.

---

Abstract (as printed)

An apparatus and method for joining members together using a self-drilling screw apparatus or stapling apparatus are disclosed. The screw apparatus includes a shell and first and second first screw members having tapered ends and threaded bodies that are disposed within the shell. A drive mechanism rotatably drives the first and second screw members from the shell in opposite directions and causes the screw members to embed themselves in the members to be joined. The screw apparatus can be used to join members such as bones, portions of the spinal column, vertebral bodies, wood, building materials, metals, masonry, or plastics. The stapling apparatus includes first and second lever arms rotatably joined together at a fulcrum … When the ends of the lever arms are rotated towards each other the staples from the cartridges are interlocked.

---

Plain-language overview of the three independent claims

Claim 1 — self-drilling "BDFT" screw apparatus in a cage.
An intervertebral cage with a shell; two screw members inside it, each with a tapered (self-drilling) tip and a threaded body; and a drive mechanism made up of a drive screw + a pinion. Turning the drive screw makes the pinion simultaneously push both screws out of the cage and rotate them (one left-handed, one right-handed) so they extend in opposite directions into the bone above and below. Essentially: a single actuator that screws two opposed screws outward at once through an interbody cage.

Claim 22 — expansile artificial disc with two sets of endplate spikes.
An artificial expansile disc with first/second shells and an expansion mechanism (a turning mechanism) between them that spreads the shells apart when turned; a tool-engagement portion faces the insertion direction so it can be turned in situ. Each shell has two sets of bone-engagement features: a first (smaller) set and a second, larger set that extends further and has substantially conical tips for piercing the vertebral endplates. Essentially: a turn-to-expand interbody device with coarse conical anchoring spikes plus finer engagement features.

Claim 32 — cage + telescoping nested screws + simultaneous drive.
An intervertebral cage with a top wall, bottom wall and two sidewalls defining an open space for bone-filling material; two screw members in the cage, where the first screw is smaller in diameter and nests inside a hollow threaded portion of the second (larger) screw; and a drive mechanism that simultaneously drives both screws out of the cage and rotates them. Essentially: claim 1's pinion-drive system combined with a telescoping lag-screw arrangement in a graft-fillable cage.

Dependent claims: 2–21 depend from claim 1 (e.g., oppositely-threaded shell apertures, keyways, end caps, twin mini-plates, telescoping screws, bidirectional equal-distance extension); 23–31 depend from claim 22 (two-dimensional expansion, PEEK shells, screw-type engagement features, "means for expanding in a second direction").

---

CAFC 2026 docket check — negative finding

I found no 2026 Federal Circuit appeal whose docket names U.S. Patent 9,924,940. The 2026 Moskowitz CAFC decision that dominates the search results is Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 24-1696 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2026) (precedential; Prost, Schall, Stoll, JJ.), and it concerns the '913, '889/…'022, and '319 patents — not the '940. Sources: https://fedcircuitblog.com/2026/09/11/opinions-orders-september-11-2026/ ; https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01696/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01696-0 ; https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/13/cafc-affirms-noninfringement-rulings-on-spinal-implant-patents/

The '940's litigation footprint that does appear is district court / PTAB, not the 2026 CAFC:

• Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00711 (D. Del., filed June 6, 2025) — per the earlier-generated ownership section, the '940 is one of the asserted patents; Google Patents also links this case to the '940. Source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A25-cv-00711
• Related Moskowitz campaigns involve Medtronic (D. Minn. 0:25-cv-00769) and multiple Medtronic IPRs (e.g., IPR2025-01598, IPR2026-00124, IPR2026-00216), but the IPRs I surfaced are directed at other family patents ('293, '797, '284), not the '940 specifically — I could not confirm a 2026 IPR naming 9,924,940.

Uncertainty flag: I could not retrieve the USPTO Assignment Center or PatentCenter page for 9924940 directly within this session (the tool ran out of steps), and the search index did not expose a CAFC docket for this patent. So the statements "no 2026 CAFC appeal names the '940" and the litigation association above reflect the sources reviewed rather than a complete docket sweep.

---

False-positive warning (per strict-ID rule)

Two search hits that look like this patent are not it, and I have not attributed them:

• "WO 9924940 A1" (priority CH9700424, class G07C 9/00) in the Polish gazette — a PCT (WO) publication number, unrelated subject matter.
• "US 9924940 W 19991022" — a PCT application number (US99/24940), not US Patent 9,924,940.

These must not be auto-corrected or conflated with US 9,924,940 B2.

I'll research litigation records for US 9,924,940 specifically. Let me run several targeted searches.

The NuVasive case clearly asserts the '940. Let me check the other Moskowitz campaigns (Globus, ZimVie, Medtronic) and any PTAB/Federal Circuit activity for this specific patent.

The '940 is confirmed in the NuVasive case. Let me check whether it was asserted in the Globus (2019), ZimVie (2022), and Medtronic (2025) campaigns, and whether any PTAB proceeding names it.

I've reached my research limit. Here's what the searches establish — with an explicit flag on one that I could not close.

Litigation involving US 9,924,940

One district-court case is confirmed to assert the '940.

Detail on case 1

• The '940 is expressly pleaded. The Rule 3 Report to the Commissioner (D.I. 3, entered June 6, 2025) lists US 9,924,940 B2 among ten asserted patents: US 7,972,363; 9,005,293; 9,301,854; 9,924,940; 10,016,284; 10,426,633; 10,925,753; 11,376,136; 11,771,567; 12,144,743. (CourtListener docket #3; UniCourt)
• Accused instrumentality for the '940 specifically: the X-CORE® Expandable Vertebral Body Replacement (VBR) System, charted under claim 22 in Exhibit D2 ("U.S. PATENT 9,924,940 Infringement Claim Chart"), filed as D.I. 1‑12 at 1:25‑cv‑00711‑GBW. (archive.org exhibit copy; CourtListener exhibit D2)
• Relationship to the earlier/parallel Moskowitz campaigns: the '940 is the parent of US 10,251,643 ("the '643 patent is a continuation of U.S. Application Serial No. 13/093,812 … issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,924,940"). The '643 was the patent asserted in the Globus case — but that is the child, not the '940 itself. (Petitioner Globus Medical, PTAB filing)

Cases I checked and could NOT link to the '940 (so you don't mis-attribute them)

• Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc. (W.D. Tex. 6:19‑cv‑672, filed Nov. 20, 2019 → E.D. Pa. 2:20‑cv‑03271; Fed. Cir. No. 24‑1696, decided Sept. 11, 2026, noninfringement affirmed). The asserted patents on appeal were the '913, '022 and '319; the '940 is only a family ancestor. I found no evidence the '940 itself was asserted in Globus. (Not fully closed — flagged.)
• Moskowitz Family LLC v. ZimVie Inc. (D. Del. 1:22‑cv‑01632, filed Dec. 23, 2022; voluntarily dismissed Feb. 17, 2023). The asserted set was US 9,622,875; 10,238,383; 10,610,371; 10,952,723; 11,083,591; 11,135,072 — the '940 is not among them. (The '383 and '723 are family relatives that cite the '940, but they are different patents.) (Justia docket; Stanford NPE DB)
• Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. et al. (D. Minn. 0:25‑cv‑00769, filed Feb. 28, 2025). The Medtronic IPR/Mandatory-Notice record I retrieved names '284, '183, '633, '797, '293, '088 and others — I did not find the '940 named. (Not fully closed — I exhausted search steps before confirming the Minnesota complaint's full patent list.)

PTAB / appellate activity specific to the '940

• No IPR petition naming US 9,924,940 as the challenged patent was found. The Moskowitz IPRs surfaced in searches (IPR2025‑01598 → '293; IPR2026‑00216 → '284; IPR2026‑00285 → '183; IPR2026‑00121, ‑00124, ‑00162, ‑00217, ‑00265, etc.) target other family members, not the '940. The '940 appears in that record only as a cited prior-art/ancestor reference — e.g., Patent Owner Exhibit 2011: "Information Disclosure Statement citing '755 great-grandparent U.S. 9,924,940" in Medtronic/Warsaw App. No. 17/246,968.
• No Federal Circuit appeal of the '940 was found. The one Moskowitz Fed. Cir. decision in the record (No. 2024‑1696, Globus) concerns the '913, '022 and '319 — not the '940.

The patent's own front-page litigation flags

Google Patents displays for the '940: (a) the D. Del. 1:25‑cv‑00711 case (the NuVasive suit above), and (b) a Darts‑IP "First worldwide family litigation filed" entry keyed to family 40583835 — i.e., it flags the family's first suit, which is broader than the '940 itself.

---

Bottom line

*One known litigation involves US 9,924,940: Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC and NuVasive, Inc., D. Del. No. 1:25‑cv‑00711 (filed June 6, 2025), still pending* — the '940 is asserted through claim 22 against the X‑CORE™ Expandable VBR System. The other Moskowitz campaigns (Globus, ZimVie, Medtronic) assert different patents in the same 2005 family; I found no record of the '940 being asserted in them, though I could not fully close the Globus and Medtronic checks within this session.

Two accuracy notes:

1. Date inconsistency (flagged, not corrected): your prompt sets the current date as April 26, 2026, but the retrieved docket shows entries dated Sept. 9 and 15, 2026 and a scheduling order running to Dec. 18, 2026 — so the underlying record appears to be current later than April 2026. I have reported the dates exactly as retrieved.
2. Unverified items: whether the '940 was asserted in the 2019/2020 Globus complaint and in the 2025 Medtronic Minnesota complaint. These should be confirmed against the actual complaints (PACER/Justia) before being relied on.

Primary sources: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A25-cv-00711 · https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70476467/moskowitz-family-llc-v-nuvasive-llc/ · https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ded.89445/gov.uscourts.ded.89445.1.12.pdf

I'll verify the structured "no proceedings" block against live sources before writing, since the previously generated sections reference IPRs on sibling Moskowitz patents that could be confused with the '940.

The second query returned a false positive (an EPO glass-mould patent), and the first surfaced a critical near-miss: IPR2018‑01275 involves "the '940 patent" but that is US 9,203,940 (Hawkins) — a different patent entirely. Let me run targeted searches to confirm whether any AIA trial names US 9,924,940 itself.

Critical distinction emerging: the Globus IPR wave (IPR2020‑01303–01310) covered eight sibling patents — '913, '022, '740, '319, '268, '643 — but not the '940. Let me do a final targeted pass for any proceeding naming 9,924,940 directly, plus a PGR check.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,924,940 B2

Patent: US 9,924,940 B2 (Moskowitz et al.), App. 13/093,812, filed 2011‑04‑25, granted 2018‑03‑27, priority 2005‑04‑12; assignee Moskowitz Family LLC.
Statutory framework note: Because App. 13/093,812 was filed before 2013‑03‑16, this is a pre‑AIA patent. Any AIA trial on it would be decided under pre‑AIA § 102/§ 103 — which matters because the examiner‑cited art of record was also assessed that way, and because the petitioners in the family's actual IPRs pleaded "35 U.S.C. § 103(a)."

---

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings on U.S. Patent No. 9,924,940 B2. The canonical structured list you supplied (USPTO Open Data Portal) returns no IPR, no PGR, and no CBM for this patent, and my independent searching confirmed that every AIA trial ever filed against a Moskowitz‑family patent is keyed to a different patent number — the family's eight Globus Medical petitions (IPR2020‑01303 through ‑01310) hit the '268, '319, '913, '022, '740 and '643 patents, and Medtronic's 2025–2026 wave (IPR2025‑01598; IPR2026‑00121, ‑00124, ‑00162, ‑00163, ‑00216, ‑00217, ‑00265, ‑00285) hits ten other family members. Not one names 9,924,940.

Breakdown: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0. The bottom‑line defensive posture is therefore neither of the two framings in your prompt: the patent has not "survived two IPRs and hardened" — it has never been tested at the Board, so all 32 claims remain unadjudicated, and no Final Written Decision, no estoppel, and no cancellation exists to hand you anything. But the mirror‑image conclusion ("the troll has no case") is equally wrong: the patent is live, asserted, and un‑narrowed, and — critically — the post‑grant window in which a third party could still open a PTAB front appears to have closed (see the § 315(b)/PGR analysis below). Confusingly for triage, the '940 is the direct parent of two patents that were challenged (the '643 via IPR2020‑01310 and the '755 via IPR2026‑00121), and one near‑miss search result labels a completely unrelated Hawkins patent "the '940 patent."

---

Proceedings on US 9,924,940 B2

None. There is nothing to list. Per your instruction not to invent proceeding numbers, I am not manufacturing entries. The correct factual statement is: as of 2026‑09‑28, no petition for inter partes review, post‑grant review, or covered business method review has ever been filed against U.S. Patent No. 9,924,940, and no AIA trial has ever been instituted on its claims.

Two structural reasons the Board has never seen this patent, both worth flagging because they shape the strategy:

1. § 315(b) one‑year bar has likely run for the currently‑sued parties. The D. Del. complaint asserting the '940, Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC, No. 1:25‑cv‑00711, was filed 2025‑06‑06. Where a petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of this patent more than one year ago, it is barred. If NuVasive was served in mid‑2025, its window to petition on the '940 closed in mid‑2026 — i.e., before today. (Confirm the exact service date; I am inferring service shortly after filing.)
2. The PGR window closed long ago. The '940 granted 2018‑03‑27; a PGR had to be filed within nine months, i.e., by approximately 2018‑12‑27. That door is shut. CBM review is unavailable both because the subject matter is a technological spinal implant (not a "covered business method") and because the CBM transitional program has sunset.

The practical consequence: the only remaining invalidity vehicle for the '940 is the district court. There is no instituted IPR to join under § 315(c), because no IPR on this patent was ever instituted by anyone.

---

Adjacent Moskowitz‑family proceedings — context, NOT the '940

These are supplied so you do not mis‑docket a family member as the '940. Every one of them is a different patent number. Ordered by relevance to the '940.

IPR2020-01310 — Globus Medical, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC ⚠️ direct child of the '940

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020‑07‑21 (petition signed 2020‑07‑21; docketed 2020‑07‑21)
• Patent challenged: US 10,251,643 — which is a continuation of App. 13/093,812, i.e. of the '940 itself. Same specification, same figures, same priority chain.
• Status: Institution denied (retrieved records list the denial among the eight Globus petitions "each denied in 2021," per Moskowitz's representation to the Board; I did not retrieve the '643 denial paper itself). This is not verbatim structured data — the ODP block reports nothing for the '940 at all.
• Judge panel: Not retrieved.
• Petition grounds (from the petition text): § 103(a), pre‑AIA. Ground 1 mapped WO 2004/052245 (Gutlin) in view of US 5,236,460 (Barber); Ground 2 mapped Gutlin + Barber + a further US publication against claims 8, 10 and 16. Petitioner's expert: Dr. Ochoa.
• Institution decision: Denied. Reasoning not retrieved.
• FWD: None — institution denied, so no claim‑level adjudication ever occurred.
• Settlement / termination: Not reported as a settlement; terminated by denial of institution.
• Appeal: None available as of right (denial of institution is not appealable under § 314(d) absent mandamus).
• Defensive value: High informational value, low precedential value. Because the '643 shares the '940's entire specification, the reasoning of this denial tells you how the Board read the '940's disclosure — and, bluntly, the petitioner's own petition concedes the '940 is the ancestral application ("a continuation of U.S. Application Serial No. 13/093,812 filed April 25, 2011 issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,924,940"). But a denial is not a validity holding, and it binds no one.

IPR2026-00121 — Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC ⚠️ grandchild of the '940

• Type: IPR
• Filed: 2025‑11‑10
• Patent challenged: US 11,864,755 ("the '755 patent"). Per Patent Owner's own mandatory notices, the '755 is a continuation of 16/362,152 ('723) → 15/934,622 ('643) → 13/093,812 ('940) → 12/347,990 → 11/208,644. So the '940 sits three links up the chain.
• Status: Fielded; not reported as instituted. Patent Owner filed mandatory notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2)) identifying the D. Minn. litigation (0:25‑cv‑00769) as the related matter.
• Judge panel: Not retrieved.
• Petition grounds (from Petitioner's opposition to discretionary denial, retrieved): Grounds 1–3 rest on Schäfer as primary reference; Grounds 4–6 rest on Berry. Petitioner argued neither was previously presented under § 325(d) because they appear only in the examiner's search history, not on the face of the '755 patent or in an IDS.
• Institution decision: Not retrieved.
• FWD: None retrieved.
• Appeal: None retrieved.
• Defensive value: Shows the current playbook against this family — attack the adequacy of the original prosecution search (Schäfer/Berry were never "considered"), and use the size of the family to defeat § 325(d) and Fintiv. If you are attacking the '940, the '940's own prosecution history is thin in the same way: it was allowed in the line that produced US 7,704,279 / 7,951,180 without the expandable‑cage art being front‑and‑center.

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

• Type: IPR | Filed: 2020‑07‑21 | Patent challenged: US 9,889,022 | Status: Institution denied — "Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 U.S.C. § 314," Paper 8, 2021‑01‑25, 24 pages (document title as listed in an examiner‑considered IDS).
• Relevance: The '022 is the family member whose claim 47 (the internal screw guide/counterbore claim) was construed by the Federal Circuit in the Globus appeal. If your infringement theory involves an internal screw guide, read this denial and the CAFC opinion together.
• Defensive value: Denial means no estoppel and no cancellation — but also that the Board, on that record, did not consider the challenge strong enough to institute.

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

• Type: IPR (companion petitions on the same patent, ranked 1st and 2nd) | Filed: 2020‑07‑20 (docketed) / petitions dated 2020‑07‑21 | Patent challenged: US 10,307,268
• Status: Both institution denied — Paper 7 dated 2021‑01‑26 (38 pp.) and Paper 7 dated 2021‑01‑27 (34 pp.), each titled "Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 U.S.C. § 314."
• Petition strategy of note: Petitioner expressly hedged against § 325(d) Becton, Dickinson risk by filing two petitions with different primary references — Baynham in one, an alternative primary reference in the other.
• Judge panel: APJ Neil T. Powell is associated with the 2020‑01303–01310 filings in third‑party judge‑profile data; I could not confirm the full panel composition.
• Defensive value: Illustrates that a well‑funded competitor filed eight petitions across the family in 2020 and got none instituted. That is a warning that this family's claims are not trivially invalidatable at the threshold stage — and a warning that the Board's discretionary‑denial practice in 2020–2021 was hostile to these challenges.

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

• Type: IPR | Filed: 2020‑07‑20 | Patent challenged: US 10,478,319 | Status: Both denied — Paper 7 dated 2021‑01‑08 (31 pp. and 34 pp. respectively), "Decision Denying Institution … § 314."
• Defensive value: Same as above; note that the two denial papers are different lengths on the same patent, meaning the panne[s] addressed distinct grounds.

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

• Type: IPR | Filed: 2020‑07‑21 | Patent challenged: US 8,353,913
• Status: Conflicting sources — flag as unresolved. An examiner‑considered IDS lists Paper 7 dated 2020‑12‑21 as "Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 U.S.C. § 314 … 18 pages." A third‑party docket mirror, however, hosts a Paper 7 of the same date under a filename containing "Trial_Instituted." I could not resolve the conflict within this session and am not asserting institution. The same Paper 7 contains the table cross‑referencing the family's other IPRs (see below), which is a common feature of both grant and denial decisions.
• Defensive value: None until resolved; verify at PTAB E2E before relying on either characterization.

Cross‑reference table (reproduced from the institution‑decision document text, verbatim): 9,889,022 → IPR2020‑01308; 10,028,740 → IPR2020‑01309; 10,251,643 → IPR2020‑01310; 10,307,268 → IPR2020‑01303, IPR2020‑01304; 10,478,319 → IPR2020‑01305, IPR2020‑01306. US 9,924,940 does not appear.

Medtronic's 2025–2026 wave — none on the '940

This is the single most important pattern signal for a '940 defendant: IPR2026‑00265 is, on the retrieved record, the first Moskowitz‑family IPR ever instituted. The winning theory is not a third‑party anticipation — it is the patent owner's own earlier application ("Moskowitz 440," US 2008/0033440, from a parent application) as § 102 prior art, plus Waugh for the screw‑locking bracket. That is an admissions‑based attack.

---

False‑positive alert — read this before you docket anything

Search results for "US 9,924,940 IPR" surface IPR2018‑01275 (Apple Inc. v. —), whose papers repeatedly refer to "the '940 patent." That is US 9,203,940 (Hawkins), an unrelated patent: the exhibit list reads "APPLE‑1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,203,940 to Hawkins, et al. ('the '940 patent')," and the grounds are Maloney/Beghtol/Ishihara/Vertaschitsch/Little. This is not US 9,924,940 and must not be cited as a proceeding against this patent. I have not attributed it.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. There is no claim‑level PTAB disposition for US 9,924,940 — no claim is canceled and no claim is sustained, because no FWD exists. All 32 claims (independent claims 1, 22 and 32, with their dependents) are UNTESTED at the Board. There is no narrowing to report, and therefore no "surviving claim list": the full original claim set — including claim 22, which is the claim Moskowitz has charted against NuVasive's X‑CORE / X‑CORE Mini expandable VBR system in D. Del. Exhibit D2 — remains in force.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel on this patent at all: estoppel attaches only after a final written decision, and every Moskowitz‑family proceeding was terminated at the institution stage (or is still pending). Nor does the denial of institution in the Globus petitions create estoppel as to the '940 — those petitions concerned different patents, so § 315(e) never engaged for the '940. Consequence: if a defendant still has an open § 315(b) window (unlikely for the 2025‑served parties; potentially open for a newly‑sued party), every prior‑art ground is available — nothing is barred. And in district court, all § 102/§ 103 defenses are fully available, including art the Board never saw.

Pattern signals.

• Same petitioner, multiple IPRs: Yes, heavily — Globus filed eight across the family in 2020‑07 (all denied), and Medtronic has filed at least nine since 2025‑09. Neither has ever petitioned on the '940.
• Patent‑owner aggression at the PTAB: Moskowitz litigates PTAB discretionary denial hard, filing detailed § 314(a)/§ 325(d)/"settled expectations" briefs (e.g., in IPR2025‑01598 and IPR2026‑00121) built on the 2005–2015 disclosure narrative and the 2015 portfolio‑wide notice letters. It has prevailed at the institution stage repeatedly. Expect the same brief if anyone ever petitions on the '940.
• Defensive aggregator: None appears in the chain. All petitioners identified are operating competitors (Globus, Medtronic) or a large operating company. Unified Patents tracks the family's litigation but I found no Unified Patents IPR petition. The '940 has not been neutralized by any aggregator.
• PTAB appeals: None for this family. The only appellate decision I found, Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., Fed. Cir. No. 2024‑1696 (decided 2026‑09‑11), is a district‑court appeal about the construction of "universal" in the '913/'022 patents — not a PTAB appeal, and it does not touch the '940. (NuVasive filed it as supplemental authority in the '711 case on 2026‑09‑15.)

---

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant and believe an IPR is the answer — check the calendar first. Determine the exact date you were served with a complaint alleging infringement of the '940. If that date is more than one year before your intended filing date, § 315(b) bars your petition and no joinder escape exists (no IPR on the '940 was ever instituted). On the dates I have, the 2025‑served NuVasive and Medtronic defendants are past the bar.
2. If your window is somehow still open, file on the admissions theory. The only Moskowitz‑family IPR that has ever been instituted (IPR2026‑00265, 2026‑07‑28, on US 10,064,738) won its footing on "Moskowitz 440" (US 2008/0033440) as prior art in view of Waugh, not on third‑party art. For the '940, that points squarely at the family's own 2005–2008 disclosures. US 2008/0033440 and its parent US 7,704,279 / 7,951,180 are the first place to look, along with Waugh (US 2008/0249569) for anti‑back‑out structure.
3. If the PTAB door is shut (most likely), direct the effort at three district‑court levers:
   • § 112 / priority attack on claims 22–31 and the cage‑wall language of claims 20/32. Group C (the two‑shell expansile disc with dual‑size conical spike sets, claims 22–31) and the "top wall, bottom wall, two sidewalls / open space for bone filling" recitations appear to have been added in the 2011 continuation, not the 2005 provisional. If those claims lose the 2005‑04‑12 date, their effective filing date is 2011‑04‑25 and the intervening art opens up. Flagged independently in the § 103 section of this analysis; it remains the sharpest issue in the case.
   • Claim 22 specifically — it is the asserted claim for the X‑CORE products and, per the § 103 analysis, the weakest of the three independent claims (expandable‑shell art + endplate‑spike art + PEEK material substitution).
   • Claim 11's unrestricted use‑claim language ("wood, building materials, metal, masonry or plastics") is a § 112/§ 103 soft spot.
4. Read the denial papers, not for law but for admissions. The Globus '643 petition (IPR2020‑01310) concedes the '940 is the ancestral application and dates the family's priority to 60/670,231; the '022 and '268 denials show which art the Board found insufficient. Those documents are free discovery about how the other side frames the family.
5. Track the live family docket for cascading effect. Dispositive motions in D. Del. 1:25‑cv‑00711 are due 2026‑12‑18 (answering brief 2027‑01‑08, reply 2027‑01‑15), and NuVasive served an invalidity expert report on 2026‑08‑27 (Michael Sherman). An invalidity ruling on the '940's siblings — or a § 112 ruling on the shared specification — would be indirect but real pressure on the '940.

---

Contradictions flagged with earlier sections of this analysis

1. Proceeding‑number mismatch in the § 103 section. The prior Obviousness section attributes the "Tisserand in view of Bonutti" ground against claims 47, 49, 51–53, 56, 59–63, 65–69 to IPR2020‑01303, and separately calls the family challenge "IPR2020‑01303 et seq." on the '022 patent. But the institution‑decision cross‑reference table (reproduced above) shows IPR2020‑01303 and ‑01304 are on US 10,307,268, while US 9,889,022 — the patent carrying claim 47 — is IPR2020‑01308. The claim‑number‑to‑proceeding pairing is therefore likely off by the proceeding index. Verify before citing.
2. Unverified outcomes carried forward. The § 103 section states it "did not verify the outcome of IPR2020‑01303 through ‑01308." This section supplies those outcomes where retrievable (all denials, dates and paper numbers above) — and adds that the Globus campaign's total is eight petitions, not six, spanning '268, '319, '913, '022, '740 and '643.
3. The word "IPR" never attaches to the '940. Every prior section of this analysis (assignment, prior art, obviousness) correctly treats the family IPRs as being on other patents. This section confirms that and supplies the reason: no petition was ever filed on the '940.

---

Sources / verification

• Structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal) — reports no AIA trial proceedings for US 9,924,940.
• Institution/denial cross‑reference table: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2020-01307/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8353913/docs/12-21-2020-Board/Institution_Decision-7-Trial_Instituted_Document.pdf
• Examiner‑considered IDS listing the eight Globus denial papers (Paper 7/8 citations with dates and page counts): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558746](/patent/1558746)/download-documents
• '643 petition (chain‑of‑priority admission re 13/093,812 = '940; § 103(a) grounds; Gutlin/Barber): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1539304](/patent/1539304)/download-documents
• '755 mandatory notices (chain re '940): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558700](/patent/1558700)/download-documents
• Medtronic docket, IPR2025‑01598 (filed 2025‑09‑29): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-01598/Medtronic_Inc._v._Moskowitz_Family_LLC/
• Medtronic docket search incl. IPR2026‑00265 / ‑00285 / ‑00216 / ‑00217 / ‑00162 / ‑00163 / ‑00121 / ‑00124: https://www.docketalarm.com/search/PTAB/?f=party_obj.name_exact-Medtronic
• IPR2026‑00265 institution (2026‑07‑28) and grounds (Moskowitz 440 + Waugh): https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2026-00265
• False positive — IPR2018‑01275 (Apple; US 9,203,940 Hawkins): https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2018-01275/doc/1017
• D. Del. 1:25‑cv‑00711 docket (service/filing dates, claim chart Ex. D2 on the '940): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70476467/moskowitz-family-llc-v-nuvasive-llc/
• Fed. Cir. No. 2024‑1696 (2026‑09‑11): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01696/pdf/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01696-0.pdf

Not verified in this session (do not treat as confirmed): the judge panels for any proceeding; the reversal/denial conflict in IPR2020‑01307; the FWD status of IPR2026‑00265 beyond institution; whether the '940 appears in the Medtronic or Globus complaints (as opposed to the NuVasive complaint, where it definitively does); and the exact § 315(b) service dates. Confirm each at PTAB E2E / PTAB Decisions (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/) and the district dockets before relying on it.

I'll research the assignment record, litigation, and entity details before writing. Let me run several searches in parallel.

Good progress. Let me verify the front-page assignee, the reel/frame numbers, and whether Moskowitz Family LLC appears on any NPE lists.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 9,924,940 B2

Scope note / data provenance. I worked from the authoritative full text you supplied (Google Patents, fetched 2026‑09‑26) plus open‑web corroboration. The Google Patents record for this patent exposes the two post‑issuance assignment events but does not expose reel/frame numbers or the recording correspondent for them. I was not able to reach the USPTO Assignment Center to pull the underlying reel/frame entries within this session. Where I cite reel/frame numbers below, they come from related‑family 37 CFR 3.73(c) statements in PTAB filings — they are consistent with, but not confirmation of, this patent's own chain. I have not fabricated any assignment data.

---

Inventors

Per the record, two named inventors:

Corroboration: the direct continuation of the '940 application (US 10,251,643, a continuation of 13/093,812) lists inventors "Mosheh T. Moskowitz, Rockville, MD; Nathan C. Moskowitz, Rockville, MD." (Docket Alarm, IPR2020‑01310, EX1001.)

Pattern notes.

• This is a father‑and‑son family inventorship group, not a corporate R&D team. No university or hospital appears as co‑owner, so all rights tracked to the individuals — no institutional assignment ever occurred, which is unusual for a Johns‑Hopkins‑affiliated clinician‑inventor.
• Sibling branches of the same 2005 priority family (e.g., US 9,889,022) name four inventors (adding Ahmnon D. Moskowitz and Pablo A. Valdivia Y Alvarado), so the family's inventorship rosters are inconsistent across continuations. The '940 branch itself names only two.
• The "all inventors leave within 12 months" fire‑sale pattern is not present — these are self‑employed/independent inventors who retained and consolidated rights themselves.

---

Original assignee

Moskowitz Family LLC is named on the front page as original assignee (recorded 2018‑03‑14, 13 days before the 2018‑03‑27 issue date — early enough for the assignee to be printed on the patent). The rights had previously sat with the individual inventors and with Nathan C. Moskowitz personally.

• Business: Patent holding and licensing. The NuVasive complaint (¶7) states the company "was created to develop human spine related devices and protect and license any resulting inventions and intellectual property." Principal place of business: 212 North Adams Street, Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20850 — a real commercial address, not a registered‑agent mail drop.
• Products: None. The complaint affirmatively states (¶25) that Moskowitz Family LLC "has not practiced any of the Asserted Patents through commercial manufacture, sale, offer for sale, or importation of patented articles," and that prototypes were made "solely for research and demonstration purposes," before issuance, and "never sold, offered for sale, or otherwise commercialized."
• Portfolio: ~100 US patents and ~7‑9 pending applications (D. Del. ¶¶8; D. Minn. 0:25‑cv‑00769 ¶8). Third‑party trackers (PlainPatent/PatentsView) credit ~56 granted US patents under the Moskowitz Family LLC name.
• Status: Operating as an active licensing/enforcement entity — not bankrupt, not acquired, not dissolved. Actively litigating in 2025‑2026.

---

Assignment timeline

The Assignment Center mirror for this patent exposes two recorded events. Execution‑date and reel/frame fields were not exposed in the retrieved records, and the recording correspondent is therefore also not retrievable. I am flagging this rather than filling it in.

• executed date not recorded / recorded 2016‑08‑03 — Reel/frame not exposed in retrieved records

  • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST")
  • Assignor: Moskowitz, Mosheh T.
  • Assignee: Moskowitz, Nathan C.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from the mirrored record. Cross‑reference: a related‑family 3.73(c) statement was signed "/Stuart A. ___/" on 2021‑08‑31, and the family's recurrent prosecution firm is Fish & Richardson P.C., Customer No. 26191 — this is prosecution counsel, not confirmed as the assignment correspondent; I make no finding from it.
  • Context: Internal family clean‑up — co‑inventor's rights consolidated into the lead inventor during prosecution (roughly five years after the 2011 filing).

• executed date not recorded / recorded 2018‑03‑14 — Reel/frame not exposed in retrieved records

  • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST")
  • Assignor: Moskowitz, Nathan C.
  • Assignee: Moskowitz Family LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrievable. Cross‑reference: related‑family filings cite Reel 048237 / Frame 0270 for "Moskowitz, Nathan C. → Moskowitz Family LLC" (PTAB 3.73(c) chain‑of‑title) — plausible as a bulk family assignment covering the '940, but unconfirmed for this patent.
  • Context: Reorganization into the family holding company, timed 13 days before issuance.

If those two are indeed the only recorded events, the Assignment Center record for this patent is complete at two entries. The 2005, 2008 and 2011 filings and the 2019‑2025 litigations are not assignments and are not shown as such.

Related‑family reels observed (not confirmed for '940)

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9924940
    2005 : Priority provisional filed
    2005 : Parent application filed
    2008 : Divisional application filed
    2011 : Continuation application filed
    2016 : Rights assigned to Nathan C Moskowitz
    2018 : Assigned to Moskowitz Family LLC
         : Patent issues as US 9924940
    2019 : Globus Medical suit served
    2022 : ZimVie suit filed
    2025 : Medtronic suit filed
         : NuVasive suit asserts the 940 patent

---

NPE / troll‑pattern signals

1. Shell‑entity transfer — unclear (atypical).
The defined trigger — an operating assignee transferring to a licensing‑only LLC — never happened: no operating company ever owned this patent. But two elements of the tell are independently confirmed: (a) the current owner is a licensing‑only entity with zero products (D. Del. 1:25‑cv‑00711 ¶25, admitted in a signed pleading), and (b) its stated purpose is to "protect and license." Against a shell finding: the name carries no "IP/Holdings/Ventures" suffix, the address is a real Rockville office, and the entity holds ~100 patents rather than one. This is a founder‑owned holding company, not an anonymous acquisition shell.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present.
No link in the chain matches Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or any Spangenberg entity. Moskowitz Family LLC is an inventor‑owned entity, and the assignors are its own principals. (Caveat: the named NPE lists are not exhaustive, and Unified Patents does track Moskowitz litigation — being tracked ≠ being a listed high‑frequency NPE.)

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not retrieved.
The recording correspondent is not exposed in the mirrored assignment record, so recurrence cannot be tested. The only recurring representative artifact I found is Fish & Richardson P.C. (Customer No. 26191) as family prosecution counsel — present on the '940's continuation US 10,251,643 and across the portfolio. Per your own caution, a single recurring prosecution firm is not a finding, and it is not the same role as assignment correspondent. No finding.

4. Cascading transfers — not present.
Only two assignments exist, both to family members/entities (individual → individual → family LLC), roughly 19 months apart, with no chained unrelated LLCs and no shared registered‑agent addresses. This is a two‑step title clean‑up, not a cascade.

5. Pre‑litigation transfer — not present as defined.
The last transfer was recorded 2018‑03‑14; the earliest Moskowitz assertion of record (Globus) was served 2019‑11‑21 — about 20 months later, well outside the six‑month window. The '940's NuVasive suit came in 2025, seven years after the transfer. No venue‑ or standing‑engineering timing signature. (The 2018 consolidation did precede all assertion activity, and the '940 issued 13 days after it — worth noting, but not the tight pre‑suit transfer the signal describes.)

6. Bankruptcy fire‑sale — not present.
No Chapter 7/11 filing by any assignor or assignee appears in any record reviewed. No third‑party patent purchase occurred at all.

7. Privateering — not present.
Privateering requires an operating company handing patents to an NPE to assert on its behalf against competitors. Here the original rights holders are the asserters, and the accused (NuVasive, Medtronic, Globus, ZimVie) never owned the patents or supplied them. The relationship is the inverse of privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present.
The chain terminates at Moskowitz Family LLC, an active plaintiff, not RPX / AST / LOT / Unified / OIN. The patent has not been neutralized — it is being asserted right now (D. Del. 1:25‑cv‑00711, trial‑track per the 2026 docket).

Additional non‑listed observation (not one of your eight): there is a documented disclosure‑then‑assertion narrative — the complaints allege NuVasive engaged with Dr. Moskowitz between 2010‑2011, received prototypes and claim reviews, and that a 2015 counsel letter put NuVasive on notice of 30+ patents, with willfulness pleaded accordingly (D. Del. ¶¶211‑220). That is a factual support for enhanced damages, not an NPE‑status signal.

---

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The strong signal is non‑practice confirmed on the record plus serial assertion: Moskowitz Family LLC — the current assignee since reel‑era recorded 2018‑03‑14 — affirmatively pleads that it "has not practiced any of the Asserted Patents through commercial manufacture, sale, offer for sale, or importation" (D. Del. 1:25‑cv‑00711 ¶25), and it has run a multi‑front campaign against product‑shipping competitors (Globus, served 2019‑11‑21 per IPR2020‑01305/01310; ZimVie, 2022; Medtronic, D. Minn. 0:25‑cv‑00769 and IPR2025‑01598, 2025; NuVasive, 1:25‑cv‑00711 asserting the '940, filed 2025‑06‑06). But none of the classic troll‑pattern indicia are present — no shell cascade (only two assignments, both family‑internal), no known‑asserter assignee, no bankruptcy sale, no defensive‑aggregator ending, and no tight pre‑suit transfer (the 2018‑03‑14 consolidation long predates the 2019 and 2025 suits). On the evidence this is a founder/inventor‑owned non‑practicing licensing entity — an "NPE" in the literal sense, not an aggregator or privateer.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (enter patent number 9924940; note the reel/frame and correspondent fields I could not retrieve), mirrored at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Litigation corroboration: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A25-cv-00711

Open items I could not close: (a) the reel/frame for the 2016‑08‑03 and 2018‑03‑14 assignments; (b) the recorded correspondent(s) for both; (c) whether Reel 048237/0270 actually covers the '940; (d) the executed (as opposed to recorded) dates; and (e) whether the '940 was asserted in the 2019 Globus or 2022 ZimVie complaints.

I'll search for US9924940 and its cited prior art.

Let me look for the examiner-cited references (backward citations) directly.

Let me try to retrieve the "References Cited" section from other patent databases.

Identification of the patent (verified against the authoritative record)

Strictly as printed, the identifier 9924940 resolves to:

Independent claims are claim 1 (self-drilling screw apparatus with intervertebral cage + pinion drive), claim 22 (artificial expansile disc with two sets of engagement features), and claim 32 (self-drilling screw apparatus with cage, nested screws, simultaneous drive). Claims 2–21 depend from 1; claims 23–31 depend from 22.

---

Important caveat on the "patent citations" you asked me to review

I need to flag a limitation honestly rather than paper over it:

The authoritative record I was given (the full Google Patents text of US 9,924,940) does not contain a backward "References Cited / Patent Citations" (examiner-cited prior art) section. The fetched document contains only:

• "Cited By (24)" — forward citations (later patents citing US 9,924,940), and
• "Families Citing this family (167)" — subsequent filings by the same family.

My attempts to pull the missing backward-citation list (the "References Cited — U.S. Patent Documents" block that would normally appear on the front page of the granted patent) did not return that list, and I ran out of search steps. I therefore cannot state, with confidence, which specific references the examiner cited against US 9,924,940, nor which claims each such reference was applied to under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Fabricating that list would violate the accuracy requirement, so I am not doing so. If you can supply the front-page "References Cited" block (or the USPTO PatentCenter/BCP file wrapper for 13/093,812), I can complete the § 102 mapping precisely.

One further literal-interpretation note: search hits containing strings like "US 9924940 W 19991022" and "WO 9924940 A1 / CH9700424" are false positives — those are PCT/EPO application numbers (e.g., US99/24940) and a Polish gazette entry, not US Patent 9,924,940. I have not attributed them to this patent.

---

What the record does supply: the forward citations ("Cited By," 24 entries)

These are not § 102 prior art to US 9,924,940, because every one of them postdates the 2005-04-12 priority date. They are useful only as evidence of the field and for the "landscape" narrative — not as anticipatory references.

Selected entries:

The remaining ~14 entries are the same Warsaw Orthopedic/Medtronic expandable-implant line (e.g., US 11,963,881; US 12,121,453; US 12,171,439; US 12,239,544; US 12,268,614; US 12,295,865; US 12,318,308; US 12,414,863; US 11,980,629; US 12,485,019; US 12,533,241) — all filed 2018 or later. None can anticipate under § 102 because none predates 2005-04-12.

---

Candidate references that could matter, with § 102 reasoning

Because the backward-citation list is unavailable, the following are the only references I can identify from the record that are temporally capable of being § 102 art. I'm labeling confidence and the § 102 subsection:

1. PCT/US2005/016493, filed May 11, 2005 (Moskowitz) — referenced in the US 9,924,940 specification itself.

• The '940 spec repeatedly incorporates this application by reference as the source of the "two-dimensional cervical/two- or three-dimensional expansile artificial disc" with titanium shells and spikes.
• Relevance to § 102: As a published PCT application, it could qualify as prior art under § 102(a)(1) (printed publication) only if published before 2005-04-12 — but its filing date (May 11, 2005) is after the '940 priority date, so it is not § 102(a)(1) art against the earliest claims. Its most plausible role is under § 102(a)(2) / § 102(e) (as a U.S. application publication or patent) if the '940 claims lose the 2005-04-12 priority benefit. It would then be chiefly relevant to claim 22 and its dependents (23–31), which recite the two-shell expansile disc with large conical-tip engagement features and PEEK shells — the exact subject matter this earlier Moskowitz filing describes. Low-to-moderate confidence; contingent on priority analysis.

2. Parent applications US 11/208,644 (now US 7,704,279) and US 12/347,990 (now US 7,951,180) — same family, earlier filings.

• US 7,704,279 (filed 2005-08-23) and US 7,951,180 (filed 2008-12-31) disclose the BDFT screw, zero-profile mini-plates, IBFD, and facet stapler.
• Relevance to § 102: These are the applications from which '940 claims § 120 benefit. Because they share the 2005-04-12 priority chain, they are not § 102 prior art against claims entitled to that date (they are the same inventive entity/family). They would only become § 102(e)-type references if a given '940 claim were denied the earlier priority date. Moderate confidence on the temporal analysis; high confidence they are family, not third-party art.

3. Third-party art cited in parallel Moskowitz-family IPRs (contextual only).

• In the co-pending PTAB proceedings against related Moskowitz patents, e.g. IPR2026-00124 (US 11,096,797) and IPR2025-01598 (US 9,005,293) (Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC), the petitioner relied on:
  • Waugh — US 2008/0249569 A1
  • McLuen — US 2006/0253201 A1
  • Gordon — US 2005/0278026 A1
  • Michelson — US 7,118,579
  • Lim — US 2005/0182416 A1
  • Allen — US 5,658,335
    (source: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558746](/patent/1558746)/...)
• Relevance to § 102: These are second-hand (I found them in IPR exhibit lists for other patents, not in the '940 file). They are temporally capable of being § 102 art against '940's earlier claims (all predate 2005-04-12), and they map topically onto '940's claim 1 / claim 32 subject matter (threaded spinal implants, expandable cages, bone-anchoring members). But I emphasize: I have not verified that any of these was cited in the '940 file, and I have not verified the specific claim-by-claim application. Treat this as a lead to check, not a confirmed § 102 mapping.

---

Bottom line

• US 9,924,940 B2 is confirmed as your target (App. 13/093,812; 2005-04-12 priority; Moskowitz Family LLC).
• The backward "References Cited" list for US 9,924,940 was not present in the authoritative record I was given and did not surface in my searches. Consequently I cannot responsibly list "each patent citation for 9924940" with a per-claim § 102 analysis — I would be inventing it.
• What I can state with confidence is that all 24 "Cited By" entries postdate the 2005-04-12 priority date and therefore cannot anticipate under § 102; and that the only temporally relevant candidates visible to me are the same-family parents (US 7,704,279 / US 7,951,180 — not § 102 art to their own continuation) and the in-spec-included PCT/US2005/016493, which is only § 102(a)(2)/§ 102(e) art if priority is lost, and then chiefly against claims 22–31.

If you provide the front page "References Cited" block for US 9,924,940 (or the file wrapper), I'll produce the exact reference-by-reference citation, date, description, and § 102 claim mapping you requested.

I'll start by pulling the actual prior-art citations associated with this patent and checking the references that appear on/around the page, since the fetched page shows only partial citation data.

Let me pull the actual examiner-cited references (the "References Cited" list) for this patent family via secondary sources.

I have the examiner-cited reference lists for this family. Now let me verify the key pre-2005 references and their disclosures so I ground each combination.

§ 103 Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,924,940 B2

Patent: US 9,924,940 B2 (Moskowitz et al.), "Bi-directional fixating transvertebral body screws, zero-profile horizontal intervertebral miniplates, expansile intervertebral body fusion devices, and posterior motion-calibrating interarticulating joint stapling device for spinal fusion"
App. No. 13/093,812, filed 2011‑04‑25; published US 2011/0208312 A1 (2011‑08‑25); granted 2018‑03‑27.
Priority chain: 60/670,231 (2005‑04‑12) → 11/208,644 (now US 7,704,279) → 12/347,990 (now US 7,951,180) → 13/093,812. Advertised prior‑art date on the face of the page: 2005‑04‑12; prior‑art keywords: screw, shell, screw member, members, shells.
Assignee: Moskowitz Family LLC. Litigation noted: D. Del. case 1:25‑cv‑00711; family also litigated in Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 2:20‑cv‑03271 (E.D. Pa.), aff'd, Fed. Cir. No. 2024‑1696 (decided Sept. 11, 2026).

Grounding note / limits. The Google Patents page as supplied does not reproduce the examiner's "References Cited" block; it supplies only Cited By (24) and Families Citing this family (167). I therefore reconstructed the cited‑art list from the family's own printed patents and from the parallel IPR record (sources listed at the end). Where I could not independently verify a reference's disclosure in this session, I say so explicitly rather than assuming it.

---

I. Legal framework applied

1. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966): scope/content of claims; differences over prior art; level of ordinary skill; secondary considerations.
2. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): a combination of known elements with known functions yielding predictable results is obvious; motivation may be found in "any need or problem known in the field"; "a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions"; design incentives, market forces, and "obvious to try" all count; the PTO/defendant may rely on "common sense" and the background knowledge of the POSITA.
3. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981): references must be read as a whole, each for what it fairly teaches; In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986): the test is what the combined teachings suggest to a POSITA, not bodily incorporation.
4. POSITA for this art: an orthopedic/spinal device engineer or spinal surgeon with an MD or MS-plus-3–5 years' experience in interbody fusion hardware — acquainted with interbody cages, expandable fusion devices, transvertebral and pedicle screws, plating, and with ordinary gear/mechanism design and surgical staples.
5. § 103 requires consideration of the claim as a whole and of all claimed elements, but a claim reciting known elements for their known purposes is prima facie obvious notwithstanding that no single reference contains all elements.

---

II. Claim scope and element decomposition

The 32 claims fall into four distinct invention groups — an important structural fact, because the patent's title suggests one family of devices, but the claims reach mechanically separate subject matter and therefore have different § 103 exposures.

Two claim‑construction/threshold points drive everything:

• "Intervertebral cage comprising a shell" (claim 1) and "intervertebral cage including a top wall, a bottom wall, and two sidewalls defining at least one open space capable of receiving bone filling" (claim 20/32) are, on their face, an ordinary fusion cage — precisely the structure the specification's own "Description of the Relevant Art" admits is old ("cylindrical threaded titanium interbody cages…, vertebral interbody rings or boxes, carbon fiber cages, or femoral ring allograft").
• Priority risk for Group C and the claim‑20/32 cage language. Groups C and D recitations (conical‑tipped dual‑size spike sets; walls/open space; equal‑distance bidirectional extension) are difficult to find in the 2005 provisional/11,208,644 disclosure in that form, whereas the 2011 continuation added them. If those claims are not entitled to 2005‑04‑12, their effective filing date is 2011‑04‑25, and the pre‑2005 environment plus the 2005–2010 intervening art (including the inventors' own WO 2006/110443 A2 and US 2006/0140403‑type publications) becomes available. I flag this as the single most consequential § 103 issue; I have not verified the priority support question in this session and it must be resolved on the specification.

---

III. The prior art of record (verified)

A. References cited on the face of the family patents (from the printed "References Cited" blocks of US 10,076,367 B2, US 10,251,643 B2, US 10,603,183 B2, US 9,532,821 B2, US 10,925,753 B2, and the Justia listing for US 10,238,383). Reproduced exactly as retrieved:

2,360,942 Ellerstein (10/1944); 4,064,881 Meredith (12/1977); 4,554,914 Kapp et al. (11/1985); 4,599,086 Doty (7/1986); 4,636,217 Ogilvie et al. (1/1987); 4,743,256 Brantigan; 4,904,261 Dove et al. (2/1990); 4,960,420 Goble et al.; 4,997,432 Keller (3/1991); 5,005,749 Aranyi (4/1991); 5,062,850 MacMillan et al. (11/1991); 5,123,926 Pisharodi (6/1992); 5,290,312 Kojimoto et al. (3/1994); 5,390,683 Pisharodi (2/1995); 5,405,391 Henderson et al.; 5,413,583 Wohlers; 5,454,819 Knoepfler; 5,514,180 Heggeness et al. (5/1996); 5,522,899 Michelson (6/1996); 5,554,191 Lahille et al. (9/1996); 5,609,635 Michelson; 5,660,188 Groiso (8/1997); 5,667,472 Finn et al.; 5,669,912 Spetzler; 5,713,912 Porter (2/1998); 5,722,976 Brown; 5,782,832 Larsen et al.; 5,800,547 Schafer; 5,865,848 Baker; 5,888,223 Bray, Jr.; 5,916,224 Espin; 5,951,574 Stefanchik et al.; 5,960,522 Boe; 5,986,094 Yeats et al.; 6,039,761 Li et al.; 6,106,556 Demopulos et al.; 6,126,689 Brett (10/2000); 6,176,882 Biedermann et al. (1/2001); 6,224,602 Hayes; 6,235,034 Bray; 6,258,125 Paul et al.; 6,322,562 Wolter; 6,342,074 Simpson; 6,368,350 Erickson et al.; 6,375,682 Fleischmann et al. (4/2002); 6,419,704 Ferree; 6,419,705 Erickson; 6,454,807 Jackson; 6,458,159 Thalgott; 6,527,804 Gauchet et al.; 6,533,818 Weber et al.; 6,579,318 Varga et al.; 6,582,468 Gauchet; 6,629,998 Lin; 6,641,614 Wagner et al. (11/2003); 6,706,070 Wagner et al.; 6,716,247 Michelson (4/2004); 6,719,794 Gerber; 6,723,126 Berry; 6,733,532 Gauchet; 6,764,491 …; 7,018,415 McKay; 7,028,878 Bauer; 7,211,112 Baynham et al.; 7,232,464 Mathieu et al.; 7,238,203 Bagga et al.; 7,442,209 Michelson; 7,776,047 Fanger et al.; 8,268,000 Waugh et al.

B. Real-world § 103 grounds already asserted against the sibling patents. In the Globus Medical v. Moskowitz Family LLC IPRs on the '022 patent (IPR2020‑01303 et seq.), the petitioner framed the challenge as:

• Tisserand in view of Bonutti → claims 47, 49, 51–53, 56, 59, 60–63, 65–69;
• + Mathieu → claims 54, 55, 64;
• + Brantigan → claim 57;
• + Waugh → claims 58, 70.

The Tisserand reference is described as a 1994 "Lumbar-sacral vertebrae anterior stabiliser": a hollow, generally rectangular insert for placement between two vertebrae that receives spongy graft and has holes for fixings that engage the adjacent vertebrae and are angled at 90° to one another, with grooved upper and lower surfaces for primary stability, made of titanium or carbon-fibre-reinforced polymer. That is, verbatim, a transvertebral‑screw interbody cage — the conceptual core of Group A.

C. Other references in the Tisserand citation graph, which independently confirm the state of the art: Brantigan, "Surgical prosthetic implant for vertebrae" (modular implants to support/fuse adjacent vertebrae); the Michelson "Interbody spinal fusion implants with single‑lock for locking opposed screws" (Dec. 2002) and Michelson, "Methods and instruments for interbody fusion" — described as an implant with "diverging bone screws passing through an end wall and upper and lower walls of the device to engage the adjacent vertebrae"; and McKay and Dorchak, "Osteogenic fusion device" (Dec. 2001) — a rigid elongated central element and a pair of opposing bone‑engaging members to promote fusion between adjacent vertebrae.

---

IV. Ground 1 — Claims 1–12, 17–19 (BDFT screw in a cage)

Proposed combination: Tisserand (anterior interbody stabiliser with transvertebral screws) + Brantigan US 4,743,256 and/or Michelson (interbody fusion implant with opposed, diverging vertebral‑engaging screws) + the mechanism art (Keller US 4,997,432 / Doty US 4,599,086 / Ellerstein US 2,360,942) or the ordinary mechanical knowledge of the POSITA.

Element-by-element:

Motivation to combine (KSR-compliant):

1. Same field, same problem. All references address fixation of an interbody implant between two vertebral bodies — the "field of the inventor's endeavor" (KSR).
2. The problem is a known one with a known solution direction. The patent's own background admits the extrusion/migration problem and admits pedicle screws and anterior plates as the known answers. Tisserand's express purpose is primary stability by screws that penetrate both adjacent vertebrae — exactly the function the BDFT claims perform.
3. Design incentive / predictable result. Driving two counter‑rotating, oppositely threaded screws from one common actuator (a) extends both screws simultaneously, (b) forces equal penetration in both vertebral bodies, and (c) converts a single rotary input into symmetric bidirectional translation. This is the classic "one input → symmetric opposed output" engineering requirement (bevel‑gear differential; expansion anchor; lead‑screw jack). A POSITA seeking to place a single low‑profile cage with fixation that does not require a second (posterior) approach would predictably arrive at this arrangement.
4. "Obvious to try." With a small number of identified, predictable solutions (one central screw with a gear, two pinions — the patent itself lists Embodiments I, II and III as alternatives: one pinion/two gears, or two pinions/two gears), the variation between them is a routine design choice.

Dependent-claim exposure (all plainly design choices or separately taught):

• Claim 2 / 18 (shell apertures threaded in opposite directions for the two screws): the intrinsic requirement of a bidirectional mechanism; taught by any right‑hand/left‑hand screw pair (and by Tisserand's 90°‑opposed fixings, which must be anchored in opposite directions).
• Claim 3 (gear rotated by the pinion, imparting rotation to both screws): the differential principle; also the applicant's own "Definitions" section describes the mechanism in exactly these generic terms.
• Claim 4 / 9 (accessible head on the drive screw): conventional actuator; cf. the driving‑screw references cited of record.
• Claim 5 (keyways for the screw members): routine torque‑transmission coupling — the specification itself calls them "symmetric keyways."
• Claim 6 / 10 (end caps and a top enclosing the shell): ordinary enclosure/assembly detail; cf. Brantigan's modular implants and the cage references of record.
• Claim 11 (use to join "bones, portions of the spinal column, vertebral bodies, wood, building materials, metal, masonry or plastics"): this recites no structure at all — it is a statement of intended use. Under In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re Casey, 165 F.2d 1010 (CCPA 1948), a claim differing only in an intended use of the same structure cannot be patentable on that difference; the specification itself concedes the same screw "may indeed have applications in general commercial, industrial and carpentry industries."
• Claim 12 / 19 (bidirectional extension from opposite ends; equal distance): inherent in the common‑pinion, common‑gear construction; precisely what Tisserand's opposed 90° fixings and the Michelson diverging screws do.

Reasonable expectation of success: High. Every element is a proven expedient in the same anatomical space; the only integration step (a gear train inside a cage sized to the disc space) is a dimensional/engineering exercise, not an unpredictable one — and was in fact implemented in three alternative ways in the specification with no assertion of criticality or unpredictability.

---

V. Ground 2 — Claims 13–16 (zero-profile horizontal/triangular mini-plate)

Proposed combination: the Group‑A combination + a bone plate/staple reference of record (Groiso US 5,660,188; Kapp US 4,554,914; Dove US 4,904,261; Ellerstein US 2,360,942; Bauer US 7,028,878) + a cage with bone‑graft apertures (Brantigan 4,743,256; Michelson 5,522,899).

• Claim 13 (first and second plates with a predetermined pattern of apertures for the screw apparatuses) reads on any orthopaedic plate with a screw pattern — an old and crowded art; the record shows the examiner treated surgical staple/plate references (Ellerstein, Kapp, Dove, Groiso) as the relevant art.
• Claim 14 (use to join a pair of vertebral bodies) — intended use of a known plate; not a structural distinction.
• Claim 15 (at least one pin and one slot for aligning the plates) — the specification itself describes "interdigitation of alignment pins 502 and recesses 503." Interdigitating pin‑and‑slot alignment between two plate halves is a routine joining technique; cf. the interlocking staple brackets of Groiso/Dove and the H‑shaped spinous‑process implant of Kapp 4,554,914.
• Claim 16 (slots in the plates for bone material) — porous/slotted implants for bone packing are expressly old (Brantigan; Michelson 5,522,899; and the admitted "vertebral interbody rings or boxes").

Motivation: Prevent device/graft extrusion without a high‑profile vertical plate — the problem the patent's background section itself identifies ("esophageal compression/injury in the cervical spine… vascular injury in the lumbar spine with plate movement"). The applicant's own admission that "the description of zero to subzero profile anterior or posterior horizontal spinal plates which traverse the diameter of the disc space has not been previously described" is an attorney argument, not evidence of non‑obviousness; the components (plate, apertures, pin/slot, graft slots) are all disclosed and their combination yields no more than the expected benefit of lower profile.

---

VI. Ground 3 — Claims 22–31 (expansile artificial disc with dual‑size spike sets) — the weakest claims

Proposed combination: an expandable interbody fusion device reference + an interbody implant with endplate‑penetrating anchors, + a PEEK/ceramic‑cage material reference.

• Primary (expansion mechanism): Biedermann et al. US 6,176,882 (expandable intervertebral implant with a threaded drive/expansion element and bone‑engaging teeth); Fleischmann et al. US 6,375,682; Wagner et al. US 6,641,614 and US 6,706,070; Gerbec US 6,852,129; Erickson US 6,368,350; Pisharodi US 5,123,926 / US 5,390,683 (artificial spinal implant, expandable); Paul et al. US 6,258,125. All are cited of record and all predate 2005. Each discloses, at minimum, two shells/endplates and a turning mechanism (a screw or ramp) that expands them apart upon rotation — i.e., claim 22's "expansion mechanism compris[ing] a turning mechanism configured to drive expansion between the first shell and the second shell in response to turning."
• Secondary (first, smaller set of engagement features): the ridges/teeth of Brantigan 4,743,256 and Michelson US 5,522,899 / US 6,716,247 — the express purpose of which is endplate purchase and anti‑migration.
• Tertiary (second, larger set with conical tips): longer, sharpened, conical endplate spikes/anchors are taught in the interbody art (e.g., the spike‑and‑ridge implants of Michelson and of the expandable‑cage references above, and the "sharp anchoring protrusions for impaction into the bone" family to which this patent itself is classified — A61F2002/30841). I did not independently re‑verify every one of these spike disclosures in this session; the classification record and the cited‑reference lists, however, place the applicant's own disclosure squarely within that art.
• Quaternary (PEEK shells — claims 26, 30): material substitution. The specification's own background lists "Peek (poly‑ether‑ketone)" as a known interbody material and "carbon fiber cages" as known; substituting a known material for a known reason (radiolucency, modulus) with no unexpected property is per se obvious (In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1996)) absent evidence of a new and unexpected result.

Why a POSITA would combine, and why the result is predictable:

1. Function of each set is known and complementary. Small teeth/ridges resist short‑term migration; long conical spikes penetrate and purchase the endplates to resist expulsion and toggling. Providing both, on the same implant, is the paradigm "arrange old elements for their known functions" case. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
2. "Second set larger, extending further, conical tips" is a matter of degree. Size, length and tip geometry of bone anchors are classic design choices optimized to a known parameter (endplate thickness and bone quality). In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459 (CCPA 1955); KSR (design incentives, predictable variation).
3. Tool engagement along the insertion direction (claim 22's last clause) is inherent in any expandable cage inserted down a tube/cannula and expanded in situ — the same disclosure the family's parallel applications describe for their "universal" cage and its inserter.
4. Claim 23/27 (expansion in "at least two directions"/"geometrically in two dimensions"): two‑dimensional expansion of interbody devices is old (Pisharodi; Biedermann; the expandable cages above); the claim states a result, not a structure.
5. Claim 24 (the larger features are the screws, first/second from one shell and third/fourth from the other): this is just Ground 1's Tisserand/Michelson transvertebral screw construct placed on an expandable shell — combining Ground 1 with Ground 3(a). The motivation is direct: the screws perform double duty (fixation + expansion anchor).
6. Claim 31 ("means for expanding geometrically in a second direction"): § 112 ¶ 6 means‑plus‑function reciting a function already performed by the disclosed structure of the cited expandable cages; obvious for the same reasons.

Confidence: This is the ground on which I would expect the strongest invalidity position, conditional on the priority/support question in § II. If claims 22–31 obtain only the 2011‑04‑25 effective date, the pool expands to include post‑2005 expandable cages (e.g., Waugh US 8,268,000, used in the parallel IPR record) and the applicant's own intervening publications, which would make the position substantially stronger.

---

VII. Ground 4 — Claim 32 (and claims 7, 17): telescoping screw + cage walls

Proposed combination: Ground 1 + Ground 3 + a compound/telescoping fastener reference.

• "Top wall, bottom wall, and two sidewalls defining at least one open space capable of receiving bone filling for biological bone fusion" — the mundane definition of an interbody fusion cage; taught by Brantigan, Michelson, Tisserand (hollow insert receiving spongy graft), and the admitted prior art in this patent's own background.
• "First screw member diameter smaller than the second; second includes a hollow threaded portion that receives a portion of the threaded body of the first" — a telescoping/lagged compound fastener. Screws threaded over screws, and nested tubular screws that extend telescopically from a common body, are standard mechanical fasteners (expansion anchors, "lag‑on‑lag" bone screws, turnbuckles) and are within the ordinary skill of the POSITA; the specification itself describes Embodiment II/III as a mere engineering preference ("allows for greater length of screw expansion") over a fully‑nested alternative. Selecting a nested hollow‑screw configuration for the admitted reason of obtaining longer extension is a predictable design variation with a recognized advantage, which is dispositive under KSR.

---

VIII. Overarching motivations a POSITA would articulate (for the whole claim set)

1. Obviate supplemental fixation. Every reference and every page of this specification is aimed at the same problem: hold an interbody implant in place without a second approach (pedicle screws) or a high‑profile anterior plate. That is a known problem with a finite set of known solutions.
2. Minimize profile and dissection. Lower profile → less esophageal/vascular risk (cervical/lumbar) → the horizontal mini‑plate and the transvertebral screw both follow.
3. Symmetry/equal distraction. A single actuator that drives both anchors equally is a recognized mechanical desideratum; the patent's own Embodiment I claims no criticality over Embodiments II and III.
4. Enhanced endplate purchase. Anti‑migration spikes/teeth are the standard answer to implant expulsion — a recognized design incentive.
5. Common sense / known arts crossover. The patent claims (and its specification concedes) utility "in the spine, other joints, or for any commercial or carpentry application." Where a reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem the inventor faced, it is analogous art even if from outside spinal surgery (In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).

---

IX. Anticipated rebuttals and how they fare

---

X. Bottom line

1. Claims 1–21 and 32 are prima facie obvious over Tisserand + Michelson/McKay/Brantigan + the mechanical driving‑linkage art of record (or the artisan's ordinary mechanical knowledge), with the strongest sub‑combination for claim 32 being that set plus a telescoping‑fastener teaching. The most complete, defensible articulation mirrors the ground the petitioner already asserted against the sibling '022 patent in IPR2020‑01303: Tisserand in view of Bonutti, with Mathieu, Brantigan and Waugh as further references mapped to specific dependent claims. (I could not verify the specific disclosure of the Bonutti reference in this session — it appears in the family's cited‑reference list as US 6,099,531 — and any written analysis should confirm which Bonutti document the petitioner relied on before adopting it.)
2. Claims 13–16 are obvious over the Ground‑1 combination plus any of the cited plate/staple references (Ellerstein, Kapp, Dove, Groiso, Bauer) and a graft‑slot cage (Brantigan, Michelson).
3. Claims 22–31 are the most vulnerable claims — combinations of expandable‑cage art (Biedermann, Fleischmann, Wagner, Gerbec, Erickson, Pisharodi, Paul) with endplate‑spike/ridge art and a PEEK material teaching render them obvious, with the "two sets of different‑sized features" and "conical tips" limitations squarely within the regime of obvious design choice. Their validity depends materially on whether they are entitled to 2005‑04‑12; if they are not, the § 103 case strengthens considerably.
4. Threshold priority/written‑description attack. Because Groups C and the cage‑wall language of claims 20/32 appear to be 2011‑era additions to a 2005 disclosure, the first question for any invalidity or IPR analysis should be the effective filing date of each claim group. That single issue determines the universe of prior art.

Stated uncertainties (so this is not mistaken for a completed FTO/validity opinion):

• I did not verify the disclosures of Kapp US 4,554,914, Keller US 4,997,432, Boe US 5,960,522, Brett US 6,126,689, Biedermann US 6,176,882, Fleischmann US 6,375,682, or the Bonutti reference against their full texts in this session; I attributed only such subject matter as the retrieved materials support and flagged the rest.
• I did not verify the outcome of IPR2020‑01303 through ‑01308 (institution, final written decision, or Federal Circuit review). Those outcomes would directly affect how aggressive a § 103 position is advisable and should be checked.
• Citations are given exactly as retrieved (e.g., US 10,076,367 B2; US 10,251,643 B2; IPR2020‑01303; D. Del. 1:25‑cv‑00711; Fed. Cir. 2024‑1696); I have not normalized or "corrected" any number.

---

Sources relied on

• US 9,924,940 B2, Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9924940/en ; publication US 2011/0208312 A1; priority 2005‑04‑12; litigation link: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A25-cv-00711
• Cited‑reference blocks of the family: US 10,076,367 B2 — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a3/3b/f9/f6c47f49ca6220/US10076367.pdf ; US 10,251,643 B2 — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/[PTAB](/ptab)/IPR2020-01310/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._10251643/docs/07-21-2020-Petitioner/Exhibit-1001-EX1001_US_Patent_10251643.pdf ; US 10,603,183 B2 — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/75/9c/93/62ecfacdbd587c/US10603183.pdf ; US 9,532,821 B2 — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/25/17/23/25a9d41e5d4727/US9532821.pdf ; US 10,925,753 — http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/9a/ab/57/2267027878b239/US10925753.pdf ; US 10,238,383 reference list — https://patents.justia.com/patent/[10238383](/patent/10238383)#3
• IPR § 103 grounds (Tisserand + Bonutti + Mathieu/Brantigan/Waugh): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1539287](/patent/1539287)/download-documents?artifactId=SjdFFJRycU-e3Lp7z5qLuwF2aBzo3NtCSyC9bD_eOkvDXPO6b64e4R8
• Tisserand "Lumbar-sacral vertebrae anterior stabiliser" (1994) description and citation graph: https://typeset.io/papers/lumbar-sacral-vertebrae-anterior-stabiliser-45gps3sd8u
• Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., Fed. Cir. No. 2024‑1696 (Sept. 11, 2026): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01696/pdf/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01696-0.pdf