Short Summary
Globus Medical has filed a petition for inter partes review of Spinelogik’s U.S. Patent 8,460,385 covering a spinal fusion device. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art implants (Moskowitz, Hess) and a combination with Steffee’s curved fasteners, and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑5, 7 and 9.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review (IPR2025‑00226), Globus Medical challenges claims 1‑5, 7 and 9 of Spinelogik’s ’385 patent directed to an intervertebral fusion member having curved channels and anchoring members. The petitioner relies on three grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing the Moskowitz and Hess patents as well as a combination of Moskowitz with Steffee’s curved fasteners, and argues that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references. The petition includes claim constructions for “channel” and “curved,” an expert declaration, and requests that the PTAB institute the trial and cancel the challenged claims.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Globus Medical, Inc. vs Spinelogik, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
POSCO Future M Co., Ltd.vsCAMX Power LLC
POSCO Future M Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against CAMX Power LLC's lithium-ion battery patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation or obviousness.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsW&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate 20 claims of W&Wsens Devices’ ’084 patent covering a microstructure‑enhanced photodetector integrated with a processor. The petition relies on Harada, Hasegawa, NXP and Yahaya references to argue obviousness. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
Dyson Technology Limited et al.vsOmachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,117,550 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering a wireless communication patent (U.S. 10,568,113). The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,159,210, asserting that all nine claims are obvious over the 802.11ax draft standard and two earlier patent publications. The petition relies on expert testimony and argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.