IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: PTAB erred in finding some claims of orthopedic surgical device patent valid, (Oct 3, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

The Board had defined anticipation more narrowly than applicable case law allowed.

A seller of medical devices used to fix bones together showed error in a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding that some claims of a competitor’s patents relating to the use of screw plates to fix bones together were not anticipated, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The claims were were anticipated because a prior art reference described the claimed technique to transfer force, even though it did so in the context of a three-bone embodiment while the challenged claims concerned a two-bone embodiment (Stryker Corporation, et al. v. OsteoMed, LLC, Nos. 23-1925, 23-1926, 23-1928, 23-1929, 23-1979, (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2025)).

OsteMed, LLC (OsteoMed) was the owner of U.S. Patents Nos8,529,608 (the ’608 patent); 9,351,776 (the ’776 patent); 9,763,716 (the ’716 patent); and 10,245,085 (the ’085 patent), all of which shared a specification and related to a system for securing bones together across a joint using bone plates after a joint fusion surgery. Stryker Corporation and other entities (collectively, Stryker) petitioned for inter partes review of all four patents on anticipation and obviousness grounds.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted review and found some of the challenged claims patentable and some unpatentable. Both parties appealed. Both appeals concerned anticipation by the same prior art reference WO 2007/131287 (Slater), which taught a bone plate for immobilizing a joint by fusion of adjacent bones in the ankle.

The ’608, ’776, and ’716 patents. Stryker appealed the Board’s findings that Slater did not anticipate the Tensile Transfer Limitations of these patents, which concerned transfer of tensile load from a second bone through a screw into a bridge portion of the bone plate when the bone was loaded. The Federal found that the Board took an overly-narrow interpretation of anticipation in finding that Slater did not anticipate these claims because the teachings of Slater’s three-bone embodiment were directly applicable to a two-bone embodiment, and Slater itself did not limit the teachings.

The ’805 patent. Stryker argued that the Board erred in finding claims 8 and 9 of the’805 patent, which required holes with a central axis that defined the direction of a screw, were not anticipated by Slater. The Federal Circuit found that the Board correctly determined that the holes in Slater, which expressly allowed screws at different angles to meet different patients’ needs, did not anticipate those claims.

On cross-appeal, OsteoMed challenged the Board’s construction of claim terms relating to the position of holes. The court held that the Board’s construction was consistent with the plain language of the claims and supported by the expert testimony in the record.

The Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s holding that the challenged independent claims of the ’608, ’776, and ’716 patents were not anticipated, and remanded for further proceedings as to the dependent claims. The court affirmed the Board’s findings as to the ’085 patent.

The case is Nos. 23-1925, 23-1926, 23-1928, 23-1929, 23-1979.

Judge: Hughes, T.

Attorneys: Sharon A. Hwang (McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.) for Stryker Corporation, Wright Medical Technology, Inc. Devon C. Beane (Alston & Bird LLP) for Osteomed LLC.

Companies: Stryker Corporation, Wright Medical Technology, Inc.; Osteomed LLC

Cases: Patent FedCirNews USPTO