Intervertebral implant with keel

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 11690728
  • Patent Number
    11,690,728
  • Date Filed
    Monday, March 9, 2020
    4 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, July 4, 2023
    10 months ago
Abstract
An intervertebral implant component of an intervertebral implant includes an outer surface for engaging an adjacent vertebra and an inner surface. A keel extends from the outer surface and is designed to be disposed in a slot provided in the adjacent vertebra. This keel extends in a plane which is non-perpendicular to the outer surface; and preferably there are two of the keels extending from the outer surface which are preferably offset laterally from one another. In another embodiment, an anterior shelf is provided at an anterior end of the outer surface, and this anterior shelf extends vertically away from the inner surface in order to help prevent bone growth from the adjacent vertebra towards the inner surface. Further in accordance with disclosed embodiments, various materials, shapes and forms of construction of the component and/or keel provide various benefits.
Description
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Historically, when it was necessary to completely remove a disc from between adjacent vertebrae, the conventional procedure was to fuse the adjacent vertebrae together. This “spinal fusion” procedure, which is still in use today, is a widely accepted surgical treatment for symptomatic lumbar and cervical degenerative disc disease.


More recently, there have been important developments in the field of disc replacement, namely disc arthroplasty, which involves the insertion of an artificial intervertebral disc implant into the intervertebral space between adjacent vertebrae. Such a disc implant allows limited universal movement of the adjacent vertebrae with respect to each other. The aim of total disc replacement is to remove pain generation (caused by a degenerated disc), restore anatomy (disc height), and maintain mobility in the functional spinal unit so that the spine remains in an adapted sagittal balance. Sagittal balance is defined as the equilibrium of the trunk with the legs and pelvis to maintain harmonious sagittal curves and thus the damping effect of the spine. In contrast with fusion techniques, total disc replacement preserves mobility in the motion segment and mimics physiologic conditions.


One such intervertebral implant includes an upper part that can communicate with an adjacent vertebrae, a lower part that can communicate with an adjacent vertebrae, and an insert located between these two parts. To provide an anchor to the adjacent vertebrae, each part includes a vertically extending keel. Examples of this type of implant are disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,314,477 (Marnay) and U.S. Pat. No. 7,204,852 (Marnay et al.), which are hereby incorporated by reference.


While this and other known implants represent improvements in the art of artificial intervertebral implants, there exists a continuing need for improvements for these types of implants.


It will also be noted that in order to provide a keel slot in a vertebra, a cutting of the bone needs to be performed. Typically the cut is made by chiseling, drilling or milling. Combinations of these procedures are possible too. However, where a chisel cut is made using a chisel and a mallet, quite high forces are applied in direction of the cut. With drilling, lesser forces are applied, but the drill can slip of or bend during drilling. With milling, a precise cut is made without high forces, but the milling tool needs to have a certain diameter, because otherwise it will brake during milling so milling is not always possible where a long narrow cut is required. Thus, a procedure used to perform narrow cuts without applying high forces is desirable. Exemplary of such prior art devices and methods are those disclosed in USPA 2004-0215198 (Marnay et al.) and USPA 2006-0064100 Bertagnoli et al.), which are hereby incorporated by reference.


BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In accordance with the a disclosed embodiment, an intervertebral implant includes two components each having an outer surface for engaging an adjacent vertebra and an inner surface. A keel extends from the outer surface of one component and is designed to be disposed in a slot provided in the adjacent vertebra. This keel extends in a plane which is perpendicular to the outer surface. In one preferred embodiment, there are a pair of keels extending from the other outer surface, which are preferably offset laterally from one another. The pair of keels are preferably symmetrically located on either side of a vertical mid-plane of the outer surface, and are divergent or convergent with respect to each other.


Also in accordance with a disclosed embodiment, an intervertebral implant component of an intervertebral implant includes an outer surface for engaging an adjacent vertebra and an inner surface. A keel extends from the outer surface and is designed to be disposed in a slot provided in the adjacent vertebra. An anterior shelf is also provided at an anterior end of the outer surface, and this anterior shelf extends vertically away from the inner surface in order to help prevent bone growth from the adjacent vertebra towards the inner surface. In accordance with preferred embodiments, the anterior shelf can have a forward surface which is angled, an exterior surface which is polished, and/or a surface treatment which helps prevent bone growth thereon.


Further in accordance with disclosed embodiments, various materials and forms of construction of the component are disclosed. Posterior and/or anterior reductions of the keel are possible for different benefits. The body strength of the vertebra with keel slots on both the superior and inferior surfaces can also be stronger if the keels of the associated components requiring slots are laterally offset. Embodiments of components with modular keels, as well as a variety of advantageous keel shapes (both in horizontal cross section and vertical cross section) are also disclosed.


It will also be appreciated that various combinations of the features disclosed hereafter for a component, and hence for the implant, are also possible as desired.


An instrument for cutting of keel slots with a saw blade, and in particular for cutting multiple slots simultaneously, is also provided.


Other features and advantages of the present invention are stated in or apparent from detailed descriptions of presently preferred embodiments of the inventions found hereinbelow.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 is a bottom, right and back perspective view of an implant component in accordance with the present invention.



FIG. 2 is a top and front perspective view of the implant component depicted in FIG. 1.



FIG. 3 is cross-sectional side elevational perspective view of the implant component of FIG. 1 taken along the line 3-3 of FIG. 1.



FIG. 4 is an exploded front, bottom, left side perspective view of the implant component of FIG. 1.



FIG. 5 is a bottom and back perspective view of a second embodiment of an implant component in accordance with the present invention.



FIG. 6 is a top, front and left side perspective view of the implant component depicted in FIG. 5.



FIG. 7 is cross-sectional side elevational perspective view of the implant component of FIG. 5 taken along the line 7-7 of FIG. 5.



FIG. 8 is an exploded bottom, right and back perspective view of the implant component of FIG. 5.



FIG. 9 is a top, front and left side perspective view of an implant component with a pointed keel.



FIG. 10 is a top, back and right side perspective view of an implant component with an H-shaped keel. FIGS. 4A-4D illustrate an exemplary embodiment of another spine stabilization device, in which:



FIG. 11 is a top, back and left side perspective view of an implant component inserted in a vertebra with an anterior corner of the keel exposed. FIG. 4B illustrates a partial cutaway view of the spine stabilization device of FIG. 4A;



FIG. 12 is a top, back and left side perspective view of an implant component with a keel with a rounded top corner.



FIG. 13 is a top, back and left side perspective view of an implant component with a keel with a chamfered top corner.



FIG. 14 is a top, back and left side view of a vertebra with symmetrically cut slots for centered keels.



FIG. 15 is a top and front perspective view of mating implant components with two keels of one component offset from the single keel of the other component.



FIG. 16 is top, back and left side view of a vertebra with offset cut slots for the keels of the components depicted in FIG. 15.



FIG. 17 a front view of mating implant components with one keel of one component offset from the other keel of the other component.



FIG. 18 is a front and top perspective view of an implant component with two keels that are divergent.



FIG. 19 is a front and top perspective view of an implant component with two keels that are convergent.



FIG. 20 is a left side view of an implant component having a bone growth retarding plate which is inserted in a vertebra.



FIG. 21 is a top plan view of the implant component of FIG. 20.



FIGS. 22-24 are top plan views of implant components with different modular keel shapes retainable therein.



FIGS. 25-31 are top, back and left side perspective views of implant components with differently shaped keels for better longitudinal retention.



FIGS. 32-51 are front elevation views of different keel shapes.



FIGS. 52-58 are top plan views of different keel shapes.



FIGS. 59-61 are schematic front elevation views of mating implant components with different thicknesses of keels.



FIG. 62 is a top, back and right side perspective view of an instrument used to cut keel slots.



FIG. 63 is a top, front and right side perspective view of the cutting tool depicted in FIG. 62.



FIG. 64 is a top, front and right side perspective view of an alternative cutting tool for use with the instrument depicted in FIG. 62.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
Materials

With reference now to the drawings in which like numerals represent like elements throughout the views, a first component 10 of an intervertebral implant for total disc replacement according to the present invention is depicted in FIGS. 1-4. The implant including component 10 is primarily designed for insertion between adjacent vertebrae from an anterior direction. Thus, reference will sometimes be made to anterior and posterior directions for convenience. However, it will be appreciated that insertion from other directions is possible, and hence the referenced directions would thus be similarly changed. In addition, terms such as front/back, forward/rearward, left/right and top/bottom may be used to identify directions as depicted in the figures and/or as the implant is used relative to any insertion direction, even though the “front” may be facing anteriorly or posteriorly depending on the direction of insertion used. Thus, these terms are used for illustration purposes only and not as limiting terms for the invention.


In this embodiment, implant component 10 is formed of an endplate 12 having an outer surface 14 and an integral keel 16 extending outwardly away from outer surface 14. Outer surface 14 is designed to engage an adjacent vertebra, with integral keel 16 then being located in a slot suitably formed in the vertebra (see FIG. 11 for an illustration of a vertebra having a component mounted therein). Component 10 also includes an inner surface 18 in which an insert 20 is securely located. Insert 20 includes in this embodiment a concavity 22 therein, but it will be appreciated that insert 20 could instead have a convexity. Received in concavity 22 will be a mating component of the implant, allowing a ball joint movement of a similar endplate engaging an adjacent vertebra. The similar endplate could have a mating convexity provided thereon, either integrally formed or as an insert (like insert 20); or alternatively the similar endplate could be part of a substantially identical component, and a third component could be interposed between the two components to provide articulation between the facing concavities (or convexities) of the components.


Component 10 is designed to help overcome the problem of artifacts which arises when an MRI is taken of a metal orthopedic medical device such as an intervertebral implant typically having two such components. During spine surgery, MRI is a standard diagnostic tool used to determine the state of the anatomy by visualizing the soft tissue and nerve roots relative to the bony anatomy. However, commonly used metals for orthopedic devices cause MRI artifacts of different degrees. The amount of imaging artifact is reduced as the density of the material and magnetic properties of the material are decreased. For example, the following biomedical materials create imaging artifacts in decreasing order: stainless steel, CoCr alloy, Titanium alloy, ceramics and plastic polymer materials.


The design of component 10 is made to have a reduced amount of imaging artifact, and is thus comprised of two materials: a soft low density material with properties similar to that of the surrounding bone as the main construct foundation, and a harder dense material insert with superior wear properties for the articulating surface areas or parts. In particular, component 10 includes endplate 12 made of a titanium or titanium alloy, and insert 20 made of a material with good articulating properties such as Co—Cr. It will also be noted that insert 20 is reduced to a small area defining the articulating surface of the implant, further helping to reduce the MRI artifact problem.


Conveniently, insert 20 is a shrink-fit into a cylindrical portion 24 of a receiving and mating cavity 26 of endplate 12 located adjacent inner surface 18, though other ways to secure insert 20 as known in the art are possible (such as a sliding/locking ledge design, threads, adhesives, soldering, pressing, etc.). In this embodiment, it will be appreciated that the receiving cavity 26 of endplate 12 has been optionally designed to pass through outer surface 18, so that a portion of insert 20 is viewable and flat with outer surface 18 as shown in FIG. 2.


Depicted in FIGS. 5-8 is an alternative embodiment of a component 10′ which is broadly similar to component 10 and whose similar elements will thus be identified with the same reference numerals followed by a prime (′). In this embodiment of component 10′, insert 20′ has a wide flat bottom 28 (as shown best in FIG. 7, for example) which mates with the similar shape of cavity 26′. This bottom 28 is used to secure insert 20′ to endplate 12′ by use of a suitable adhesive or the like, while the cylindrical areas 30 on the sides of insert 20′ in cavity 26′ are slightly spaced from the surrounding metal of cylindrical portion 24′ of endplate 12′ to create an air channel 25 between the two as shown. It will also be noted that cavity 26′ does not extend through to outer surface 14′, as shown in FIG. 6.


Other alternatives to the embodiments above could include any number of hard materials and/or surface treatments to be used for the articulating function, such as a ceramic insert, a titanium nitride coated hardened surface, a diamond coated surface such as a DLC (amorphic diamond like carbon), or any other type surface treatment or material for medical use that provides a hardened superior wear surface. A layer of Co—Cr, ceramic, carbon or other biocompatible low-friction material could also be plasma coated and/or sputtered onto the low-density material of an endplate in a position thereof providing the articulating area (ball and/or socket). This layer of material can then be ground, polished, and/or treated to create the desired low-friction, low-wear articulating surfaces.


Alternatives to the titanium base could be PEEK, PEKK, or some other structural polymer, carbon reinforced or other similar composite materials, or any other low density structural biomaterial. A possible alternative could be a pyrolitic carbon implant with a smooth articulating surface and roughened bone contacting surfaces similar to that used in hand and wrist implants.


Posterior Keel Reduction

It has been found that during surgical implantation final seating of the implant endplates has in a few cases proven to be difficult. It is believed that during surgical preparation (typically chiseling, or cutting or drilling) of the keel receiving channel in the vertebral body, not all of the cut bone material is removed but instead some material may be forced to the posterior (or closed) end of the channel by the action of the chisel or the like. This material is then inadvertently left to form an obstruction to the full seating of the keel at the closed end of the channel, resulting in a suboptimal implant position. In order to alleviate this problem, a number of designs are proposed with means designed to accommodate for such excess material, as by a posterior (forward) reduction of the keel. The concept is to create a significantly reduced angled/inclined surface to the forward (or posterior) edge of the keel, more pronounced than the large chamfer at the forward end of the keel such as shown in U.S. Pat. No. 7,204,852 which is designed instead for easier insertion of the keel.


Thus, a means for accommodating excess material in accordance with the present invention is shown in FIG. 9. In this embodiment, component 36 has a keel 38 with a front edge formed as a pointed edge 40 (or knife edge shape). With pointed edge 40, keel 38 can easily cleave through any excess material located in the bottom end of the channel in the vertebra. A similar solution would be to reduce the length of the keel by increasing the distance between the posterior (forward) face of the keel and the posterior (bottom) edge of the component. The depth (bottom) of the clearance cut preparation in the bone of the channel for the keel would then remain the same, but the anterior to posterior (or trailing to leading) length of the keel would be reduced on the posterior (forward or leading) end. Doing this would create added clearance between the bone material left in the channel and the posterior (forward) surface of the keel. FIG. 3G shows a bottom perspective view of the spine stabilization device of FIG. 3E. The inferior plate 26 may also include an opening within which resides a bottom cap 50. This bottom 50 cap may also contain an opening, as shown. This bottom cap 50 may be configured with a curved, round, or chamfered edge so that the inferior plate closely matches the lower endplate of the intervertebral space. Like the other domed cap 40, this domed cap 50 may be eccentric or centric.


Still another means for accommodating excess material is shown in FIG. 10. In this embodiment, component 44 has a keel 46 with a forward U-shape, and preferably an overall an H-shape in plan view. This U-shape can be provided by removing remove material out of the central forward portion of keel 46 so as to create a slot 48 that goes down the front of keel 46. Any obstructive bone material in the channel would fill into the slot 48 and allow keel 46 to fully seat in the formed channel.


Anterior Keel Reduction

It has also been found that in rare cases, due to the irregular anatomy of some patients and/or in cases of extreme anterior (rearward) positioning of the implant, an anterior (rearward) top (outer) corner 52 of a keel may be proud or protruding out from the anterior (rearward) surface 54 of the bone as shown in FIG. 11. This exposed metal corner can cause irritation in surrounding tissue. For that reason, a means for slightly reducing the anterior (rearward) corner profile in the keel in the anterior (rearward) end (as well as posterior end, if desired, as noted above) is desirable.


One means for slightly reducing the anterior (rearward) corner profile in the keel at the anterior end is to provide a component 58 with a keel 60 in which the anterior (rearward) corner is reduced by a curved rounded surface 62 as shown in FIG. 12. Another means for slightly reducing the anterior (rearward) corner profile in the keel at the anterior (rearward) end is to provide a component 64 with a keel 66 in which the anterior (rearward) corner is reduced by a chamfer 68 as shown in FIG. 13.


Other embodiments could include an angled surface or other feature to reduce keel material in this area.


Vertebral Body Strength

In small or weakened vertebrae, weakening of the bone due to the alignment in the central axis of the spine of keel receiving channels 74 and 76 superior and inferior to vertebra 72 in a multi-level (consecutive) disc replacement case will occur as shown in FIG. 14. This occurrence would leave a much smaller central portion of the bone in vertebra 72, possibly creating a weaker bony construct surrounding the two keels of the two adjacent implants. Thus, it was determined that designs where the keels would be offset in different locations would be desirable for leaving a more intact stronger bone construct.


One means for offsetting keels in adjacent implants is depicted in FIGS. 15-16. In this embodiment, an implant 80 has a single central keel 80 on one (superior) endplate 82 and double laterally offset keels 84 on the other (inferior) endplate 86. Obviously, the positions of double keels could instead be superior, if desired. However, the desired result of a stronger vertebra is as shown in FIG. 16 where such an implant is used both above and below the depicted vertebra. In particular, there are double keel receiving channels 90 in the superior side of vertebra 92 which are on either side (laterally offset) from single keel receiving channel 94 in the inferior side of vertebra 92—leaving a larger amount of bone in the central area of vertebra 92.


As a variation of this design, the two components of an implant could have oppositely offset keels 98a and 98b as depicted in FIG. 17.


Another variations of this design could include embodiments wherein offset keels 84′ are divergent at a certain angle as shown in FIG. 18, or offset keels 84″ are convergent as shown in FIG. 19. The enhanced benefit of having divergent/convergent keel designs is to prevent loosening of the associated endplate with that type of geometry. The divergent or convergent angles of the keels would add greater resistance to movement in the axial direction and become less likely to be loosened over time. Thus, it will be appreciated that such divergent or convergent keel designs would be beneficial even when not used in consecutive implants; and thus the keels of paired endplates could be both convergent or both divergent, or one convergent and one divergent.


Prevention of Fusion

It has been found that in some cases of total disc arthroplasty in the neck, bone has grown across the implant located in between the vertebral bodies so that the adjacent vertebrae have become fused in spite of the articulating implant provided therebetween. Mostly this problem occurs in the anterior portion of the implant. Therefore, in order to prevent this from happening, a means is added to the implant endplates to retard or stop bone from bridging over the implant.


Depicted in FIGS. 20-21 is an implant component 100 having an endplate 102 and insert 104. Provided at the anterior (outer) end of component 102 is a raised plate edge or shelf-like feature 106. The presence of raised edge 106 serves as a means for retarding bone growth/formation between the adjacent vertebrae by its presence and large distance which must then be bridged.


It will also be appreciated that tissue, including bone tissue, tends to grow into and anchor to rough surfaces of titanium implants but does not adhere to certain plastics or other materials. Thus, this raised anterior edge 106 of endplate 104 is preferably polished to a smooth surface finish. Alternatively, the raised anterior edge 106 is treated with a suitable surface coating since bone fusion is usually related to the blood supply and cell formation/cell growth for a given area. For example, an anti-cellular coating could be placed in this area to prevent bone forming and hence undesirable bone fusion. Alternatively, an anti-blood coagulating surface or agent could be integral to raised edge 106. Raised edge 106 could also be designed to hold cement or other material that would contain an anti-coagulant or anti-cellular growth inhibiting agent. The bone cement, implant coating, and/or implant edge fusion block feature could also contain a controlled release anti-inflammatory agent to retard the healing process and thus retard bone growth in that area of undesired fusion.


Modular Keels

In order to improve fixation of a keel while avoiding removing of some of the vertebra, the keel or other fixation feature of an implant could also be modular as depicted in FIGS. 22-24. With such an embodiment, the endplate is placed into the intervertebral space first; and then the fixation element, such as a keel, is moved through the plate into a mating slot provided in the bone. Finally, that fixation element is then locked to the plate by a suitable mechanical means such as a fastener or set screw. Thus, depicted in FIG. 22 is an implant component 110 having an endplate 112 in which there is a central aperture 114 shaped to matingly receive a keel 116. As shown, set screw 118 is used to secure keel 116 in place in aperture 114 of endplate 112 once keel 116 is located properly. Keel 116 has a “ball” shape at one end, with the vertebra thus having a cutout or slot designed to receive this ball shape. With this shape, keel 116 is more stably held in place longitudinally, without removing so much of the vertebrae.


Other possible keel geometries or configurations are possible, such as the “Xmas Tree” shape of keel 116′ of component 110′ depicted in FIG. 23, or the snake-shaped keel 116″ of component 110″ depicted in FIG. 24. It would also be alternatively possible to put the keel in place first, and then attach the endplate to the keel in a similar manner.


Keels Shapes

A variety of different keel shapes are also possible to enhance the ability of the keel to be retained (or not to loosen as easily) in the slot cut into the vertebra. For example, the shape of the keel can be slightly wedged in one dimension (in the forward or insertion direction) as shown by keel 122 in FIG. 25 (or keel 126 in FIG. 27); or in two dimensions as shown by keel 124 in FIG. 26. Typically the wedge shape is regular and symmetrical, but it could also be irregular and unsymmetrical. The wedge shape can go over the whole length of the keel or just in a short section of the keel. The wedge shape of the keel does not need to be solid, and thus could be hollow as shown by keel 126 in FIG. 27. In this embodiment, keel 126 is open from the top, and from the anterior (outer) end; and in another embodiment the keel could also be open from the front (forward end) as shown schematically by keels 128 in FIG. 28. Keel 126 or 128 could also be open from the sides as desired; and it will be thus appreciated that combinations of different openings are also possible.


A keel with steps is also desirable, as shown by keels 130, 132 and 134 shown in respective FIGS. 29, 30 and 31. In the case of keel 130, it consists of respective small parts 130′ that are grouped together to build the keel-shape. It will be appreciated that keel 134 also provides special surfaces preventing the backing out by the keel, namely angled out fin or surface 134′ and angled in surface 134″, even though keel 134 is easy to insert in one (forward) direction as surface 134′ has a ramping action in that direction.


While the vertical cross-sectional shape of a keel is typically a simple rectangular shape, the vertical cross-sectional geometry of a keel could also be modified to enhance fixation and/or stability in the bone. This cross section can vary, as it can be symmetrical or asymmetrical. Some examples of different vertical cross-sectional shapes, and combinations of vertical cross-sectional shapes, are shown in the drawings as described hereafter with reference to the noted figures.



FIG. 32: bowed on each side;



FIG. 33: angled asymmetrically on each top side;



FIG. 34: pointed at the top side;



FIG. 35: angled to one side;



FIG. 36: top edge angled;



FIG. 37: right angle triangle shaped;



FIG. 38: round nosed;



FIG. 39: one side inwardly angled;



FIG. 40: one side inwardly bowed;



FIG. 41: both sides inwardly bowed;



FIG. 42: top edge angled to one side which is angled inward;



FIG. 43: angled on each top side, and each side angled inward;



FIG. 44: both sides angled inward;



FIG. 45: both sides angled outward;



FIG. 46: diamond shaped;



FIG. 47: both ends chamfered;



FIG. 48: parallelogram shaped;



FIG. 49: elongated hexagonal shaped;



FIG. 50: both ends stepped at both sides; and



FIG. 51: elongated pentagon shaped.


Also, while the horizontal cross-sectional shape of a keel is also typically a simple rectangular shape, the horizontal cross-sectional geometry of a keel could also be modified to enhance fixation and/or stability in the bone. This cross section can vary, as it can be symmetrical or asymmetrical. Some examples of different horizontal cross-sectional shapes, besides those already mentioned above, and combinations of horizontal cross-sectional shapes, are shown in the drawings as described hereafter with reference to the following figures.



FIG. 52: angled symmetrically toward the leading edge;



FIG. 53: angled symmetrically toward the leading edge to a point;



FIG. 54: rounded leading edge;



FIG. 55: sharply angled to one side leading edge;



FIG. 56: a series of angled leading edges;



FIG. 57: diamond shaped with trailing edge blunted; and



FIG. 58: asymmetrically bowed.


Further, where more than one keel is present on one of the two components the thicknesses of the keels can vary. Some examples of differing thickness keels are shown in the drawings as described hereafter with reference to the following figures.



FIG. 59: the top keels have a small and a large thickness, while the bottom keel has an intermediate thickness;



FIG. 60: the bottom keels have a small and an intermediate thickness, while the top keel has a large thickness;



FIG. 61: the top keels have a small and a large thickness, while the bottom keels have a small intermediate thickness and a large intermediate thickness.


Cutting of Dual Keel Slots

As noted above, instruments and methods have been disclosed for cutting keel receiving slots in a vertebra, or in two adjacent vertebrae. Typical of such devices and methods are those shown and described in USPA 2004-0215198 (Marnay et al.) and USPA 2006-0064100 Bertagnoli et al.) which primarily disclose chiseling or burring embodiments.


Depicted in FIGS. 62-63 is an instrument broadly similar to those disclosed in the above noted published applications, and thus including a trial implant 150 having an adjustable stop 152. The trial implant 150 includes a top slot 154 at the location above which a keel slot is to be cut in a superior (or inferior) vertebra when trial implant 150 is located between two vertebrae. It will be noted that trial implant also has two bottom slots (not shown) similar to top slot 150, but at locations where offset keel slots are to be cut in the inferior vertebra—so that trial implant 150 is thus used to cut the slots for an implant such as disclosed in FIG. 15.


Extending away from trial implant 150 is a guide 156 which is used to guide trial implant into the intervertebral space between two adjacent vertebrae after the disc is removed and to which adjustable stop 152 is threadedly engaged. Guide 156 has slots corresponding to those in trial implant 150, such as top slot 158. Slots 154 and 158 serve to guide saw cutting tool 160 therealong, where cutting tool 160 is rapidly reciprocated by a suitable motor 162 shown schematically and which can take the form of various power tools as known in the art. Rapid reciprocation of saw cutting tool 160 is effective to produce is a reduced impact on the vertebral bone due to the acceleration to mass relationship between cutting tool 160 and the vertebral bone.


It will be appreciated that cutting tool 160 includes three thin saw blades 162 which extend at a proximal edge thereof along slots in guide 156 and trial implant 150, such as slots 158 and 154. At the distal edge, saw blades 162 have suitable cutting teeth 164, which at a leading or forward end form a ramp for easier starting into the vertebra. The insertion depth of cutting blades into the vertebrae is controlled by adjusting the position of adjustable stop 152.


While cutting tool 160 has been shown with three blades, it will be appreciated that only a single blade could be provided to cut each slot individually as needed. It would also be possible to provide a blade more like a chisel but with cutting teeth just at the front. Different interchangeable blades would also be possible, if a narrower or wider, or higher or lower, or deeper or shallower, cut slot was desired. If desired, motor 162 can be dispensed with, and the blade or blades moved by hand with the same guidance. The material of the blades is preferably a suitable metal, but ceramic or plastic blades, or even a diamond cutting blade, would also be possible. If desired or necessary, a coatings to reduce friction could be used with the cutting blades.


Depicted in FIG. 64 is another cutting tool 168 usable in place of cutting tool 160 and with trial implant 150. Cutting tool 168 includes chisel blades 170 and would thus be used to chisel three slots simultaneously.


Various advantageous features have been described above with respect to various embodiments. Such advantageous features are also considered to be usable together, rather than singly as typically depicted and described.


While the present invention has been described with respect to exemplary embodiments thereof, it will be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that variations and modifications can be effected within the scope and spirit of the invention.

Claims
  • 1. An intervertebral implant for insertion into an intervertebral disc space between two adjacent vertebrae along an insertion direction, the implant comprising: a component having an outer surface for engaging one of the adjacent vertebrae and an inner surface opposite the outer surface, the component further including first and second fixation elements extending from the outer surface, said first and second fixation elements extending in a plane which is substantially perpendicular to said outer surface, wherein each of the fixation elements has a leading end in the insertion direction and a trailing end opposite the insertion direction, wherein the first fixation element extends from the leading end to the trailing end in a first direction transverse to the insertion direction and wherein the second fixation element extends from the leading end to the trailing end in a second direction transverse to the insertion direction and transverse to the first direction.
  • 2. The intervertebral implant of claim 1, wherein the leading end of the second fixation element is spaced from the leading end of the second fixation element relative to the insertion direction.
  • 3. The intervertebral implant of claim 1, wherein the component comprises an anterior portion, a posterior portion and at least two sidewalls connecting the anterior portion to the posterior portion, wherein the component defines an axis from the anterior portion to the posterior portion and the leading and trailing ends of the first and second fixation elements are disposed lateral to the axis.
  • 4. The intervertebral implant of claim 3, wherein the leading edge of the first and second fixation elements are disposed lateral to the axis and the trailing ends of the first and second fixation elements are disposed lateral of the axis on an opposite side of the axis such that each of the first and second fixation elements each extend across the axis.
  • 5. The intervertebral implant of claim 1, wherein the first and second fixation elements include opposed side walls that are substantially parallel to each other.
  • 6. The intervertebral implant of claim 1, further comprising a second component having an outer surface for engaging the other of the two adjacent vertebrae and an inner surface opposite the outer surface, and third and fourth fixation elements extending from the outer surface, wherein the third and fourth fixation elements on the second component each have a leading end in the insertion direction and a trailing end opposite the insertion direction, wherein the third fixation element extends from the leading end to the trailing end in a third direction transverse to the insertion direction and wherein the fourth fixation element extends from the leading end to the trailing end in a fourth direction transverse to the insertion direction and transverse to the third direction.
  • 7. The intervertebral implant of claim 1, wherein the first and second fixation elements are substantially aligned with each other in the insertion direction to define a keel.
  • 8. The intervertebral implant of claim 7, further including an insert residing between the first and second components.
  • 9. An intervertebral implant for insertion into an intervertebral disc space between two adjacent vertebrae along an insertion direction, the implant comprising: a component having an outer surface for engaging one of the adjacent vertebrae and an inner surface opposite the outer surface, the component comprising an anterior portion, a posterior portion and at least two sidewalls connecting the anterior portion to the posterior portion, wherein the component defines a longitudinal axis from the anterior portion to the posterior portion, the component further including at least first and second fixation elements extending from the outer surface, said fixation elements extending in a plane which is substantially perpendicular to said outer surface, wherein each of the fixation elements has a leading end in the insertion direction and a trailing end opposite the insertion direction, wherein the leading end of the first fixation element is disposed on a first side of the longitudinal axis and the leading end of the second fixation element is disposed on a second side of the axis opposite the first side, wherein the trailing end of the first fixation element is disposed on the second side of the longitudinal axis and the trailing end of the second fixation element is disposed on the first side of the longitudinal axis.
  • 10. The intervertebral implant of claim 9, wherein the first and second fixation elements extend across the axis from the leading end to the trailing end.
  • 11. The intervertebral implant of claim 9, wherein the second fixation element is spaced from the first fixation element in the insertion direction.
  • 12. The intervertebral implant of claim 9, wherein the first and second fixation elements include opposed side walls that are substantially parallel to each other.
  • 13. The intervertebral implant of claim 9, further comprising at least a third fixation element having a leading end and a trailing end, wherein the leading end of the third fixation element is disposed on the one side of the axis and the trailing end of the third fixation element is disposed on the opposite side of the axis.
  • 14. The intervertebral implant of claim 9, wherein the first and second fixation elements are substantially aligned with each other in the insertion direction to define a keel.
  • 15. The intervertebral implant of claim 9, further comprising a second component having an outer surface for engaging the other of the two adjacent vertebrae and an inner surface opposite the outer surface and comprising an anterior portion, a posterior portion and at least two sidewalls connecting the anterior portion to the posterior portion, wherein the component defines an axis from the anterior portion to the posterior portion, and third and fourth fixation elements extending from the outer surface, wherein each of the third and fourth fixation elements of the second component has a leading end in the insertion direction and a trailing end opposite the insertion direction, wherein the leading end of the third fixation element is disposed on one side of the axis and the leading end of the fourth fixation element is disposed on an opposite side of the axis.
  • 16. The intervertebral implant of claim 15, further including an insert residing between the first and second components.
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/888,505 filed Feb. 5, 2018, which is a continuation application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/643,287 filed Mar. 10, 2015, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,387,086, which is a continuation application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/375,071 filed Nov. 20, 2009, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,998,990, which is a national stage application of International Patent Application No. PCT/US2007/074218 filed Jul. 24, 2007, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional No. 60/832,595 filed Jul. 24, 2006 and entitled “NEXT GENERATION PRODISC C IMPLANT DESIGN: IP DISCLOSURE,” the contents of which are incorporated in their entirety by reference.

US Referenced Citations (363)
Number Name Date Kind
114816 Hiestand May 1871 A
2854981 Morrison Oct 1958 A
3320951 Wittebol May 1967 A
3486505 Morrison Dec 1969 A
3510883 Cathcart May 1970 A
3579829 Sampson May 1971 A
3740769 Haboush Jun 1973 A
3875595 Froning Apr 1975 A
3903549 Deyerle Sep 1975 A
3992726 Freeman et al. Nov 1976 A
D243286 Deyerle Feb 1977 S
4021864 Waugh May 1977 A
4034746 Williams Jul 1977 A
4038897 Murray et al. Aug 1977 A
4038987 Komiya Aug 1977 A
4232404 Samuelson et al. Nov 1980 A
4309777 Patil Jan 1982 A
4349921 Kuntz Sep 1982 A
4467802 Maslanka Aug 1984 A
4470158 Pappas et al. Sep 1984 A
4545374 Jacobson Oct 1985 A
4550450 Kinnett Nov 1985 A
4622959 Marcus Nov 1986 A
4653487 Maale Mar 1987 A
4681589 Tronzo Jul 1987 A
4697586 Gazale Oct 1987 A
4714469 Kenna Dec 1987 A
4736738 Lipovsek et al. Apr 1988 A
4743262 Tronzo May 1988 A
4759766 Buettner-Janz et al. Jul 1988 A
4759769 Hedman et al. Jul 1988 A
4770661 Oh Sep 1988 A
H571 Hollinger Feb 1989 H
4805607 Englehardt et al. Feb 1989 A
4819334 Mongeon Apr 1989 A
4863476 Shepperd Sep 1989 A
4874389 Downey Oct 1989 A
4875474 Border Oct 1989 A
4892545 Day et al. Jan 1990 A
4932975 Main et al. Jun 1990 A
4936853 Fabian et al. Jun 1990 A
4936863 Hofmann Jun 1990 A
4946378 Hirayama et al. Aug 1990 A
4986826 Roger Jan 1991 A
4997432 Keller Mar 1991 A
5004476 Cook Apr 1991 A
5022576 Jenq Jun 1991 A
5035698 Comparetto Jul 1991 A
5035716 Downey Jul 1991 A
5037438 Davidson Aug 1991 A
5062850 MacMillan et al. Nov 1991 A
5071437 Steffee Dec 1991 A
5108442 Smith Apr 1992 A
5122130 Keller Jun 1992 A
5122142 Pascaloff Jun 1992 A
5171280 Baumgartner Dec 1992 A
5192327 Brantigan Mar 1993 A
5211645 Baumgart et al. May 1993 A
5228455 Barcel Jul 1993 A
5236460 Barber Aug 1993 A
5258031 Salib et al. Nov 1993 A
5271737 Baldwin et al. Dec 1993 A
5282868 Bahler Feb 1994 A
5290312 Kojimoto et al. Mar 1994 A
5306308 Gross et al. Apr 1994 A
5306309 Wagner et al. Apr 1994 A
5314477 Marnay May 1994 A
5326366 Pascarella et al. Jul 1994 A
5336232 Green et al. Aug 1994 A
5344458 Bonutti Sep 1994 A
5364397 Hayes et al. Nov 1994 A
5370697 Baumgartner Dec 1994 A
5383888 Zvenyatsky et al. Jan 1995 A
5395317 Kambin Mar 1995 A
5401269 Buttner-Janz et al. Mar 1995 A
5403318 Boehringer Apr 1995 A
5409492 Jones et al. Apr 1995 A
5423825 Levine Jun 1995 A
5425773 Boyd et al. Jun 1995 A
5431658 Moskovich Jul 1995 A
5443514 Steffee Aug 1995 A
5458641 Ramirez Jimeniz Oct 1995 A
5484437 Michelson Jan 1996 A
5489307 Kuslich et al. Feb 1996 A
5501654 Faille et al. Mar 1996 A
5505732 Michelson Apr 1996 A
5507816 Bullivant Apr 1996 A
5507821 Sennwald et al. Apr 1996 A
5509934 Cohen Apr 1996 A
5534029 Shima Jul 1996 A
5534030 Navarro et al. Jul 1996 A
5545229 Parsons et al. Aug 1996 A
5554191 Lahille et al. Sep 1996 A
5556431 Buttner-Janz Sep 1996 A
5562736 Ray et al. Oct 1996 A
5562738 Boyd et al. Oct 1996 A
5571109 Bertagnoli Nov 1996 A
5591235 Kuslich Jan 1997 A
5609636 Kohrs et al. Mar 1997 A
5658347 Sarkisian et al. Aug 1997 A
5674296 Bryan et al. Oct 1997 A
5676701 Yuan et al. Oct 1997 A
5683465 Shinn et al. Nov 1997 A
5702469 Whipple et al. Dec 1997 A
5702486 Craig et al. Dec 1997 A
5716415 Steffee Feb 1998 A
5720751 Jackson Feb 1998 A
5722977 Wihelmy Mar 1998 A
5755798 Papavero et al. May 1998 A
5755811 Tanamal et al. May 1998 A
5776199 Michelson Jul 1998 A
5782830 Farris Jul 1998 A
5782832 Larsen et al. Jul 1998 A
5797909 Michelson Aug 1998 A
5800547 Schafer et al. Sep 1998 A
5824094 Serhan et al. Oct 1998 A
D401335 Koros et al. Nov 1998 S
5865848 Baker Feb 1999 A
5885300 Tokuhashi et al. Mar 1999 A
5888226 Rogozinski Mar 1999 A
5895428 Berry Apr 1999 A
5897593 Kohrs et al. Apr 1999 A
5899901 Middleton May 1999 A
5899941 Nishijima et al. May 1999 A
5951564 Schroder et al. Sep 1999 A
6006174 Lin et al. Dec 1999 A
6010502 Bagby Jan 2000 A
6017342 Rinner Jan 2000 A
6022353 Fletcher Feb 2000 A
6033405 Winslow et al. Mar 2000 A
6036692 Burel et al. Mar 2000 A
6039763 Shelokov Mar 2000 A
6042582 Ray et al. Mar 2000 A
6059790 Sand et al. May 2000 A
6063088 Winslow May 2000 A
6063121 Xavier et al. May 2000 A
6080155 Michelson Jun 2000 A
6083225 Winslow et al. Jul 2000 A
6086595 Yonemura et al. Jul 2000 A
6096038 Michelson Aug 2000 A
6096080 Nicholson et al. Aug 2000 A
6102950 Vaccaro Aug 2000 A
6102954 Albrektsson et al. Aug 2000 A
6110179 Flivik et al. Aug 2000 A
6113602 Sand Sep 2000 A
6113637 Gill et al. Sep 2000 A
6113638 Williams et al. Sep 2000 A
6126660 Dietz Oct 2000 A
6126674 Janzen Oct 2000 A
6145426 Ward Nov 2000 A
6146421 Gordon et al. Nov 2000 A
6156040 Yonemura et al. Dec 2000 A
6159215 Urbahns et al. Dec 2000 A
6171339 Houfburg et al. Jan 2001 B1
6174311 Branch et al. Jan 2001 B1
6179874 Cauthen Jan 2001 B1
6224599 Baynham et al. May 2001 B1
6238414 Griffiths May 2001 B1
6241769 Nicholson et al. Jun 2001 B1
6251140 Marino et al. Jun 2001 B1
6261296 Aebi et al. Jul 2001 B1
6264655 Pisharodi Jul 2001 B1
6270498 Michelson Aug 2001 B1
6296647 Robioneck et al. Oct 2001 B1
6309421 Pisharodi Oct 2001 B1
6368350 Erickson et al. Apr 2002 B1
6368353 Arcand Apr 2002 B1
6375681 Truscott Apr 2002 B1
6395030 Songer et al. May 2002 B1
6402785 Zdeblick et al. Jun 2002 B1
6413278 Marchosky Jul 2002 B1
6436139 Shapiro et al. Aug 2002 B1
6440142 Ralph et al. Aug 2002 B1
6440168 Cauthen Aug 2002 B1
6440169 Elberg et al. Aug 2002 B1
6368351 Glenn et al. Sep 2002 B1
6447547 Michelson Sep 2002 B1
6478800 Fraser et al. Nov 2002 B1
6478801 Ralph et al. Nov 2002 B1
6478823 Michelson Nov 2002 B1
6500206 Bryan Dec 2002 B1
6517544 Michelson Feb 2003 B1
6558424 Thalgott May 2003 B2
6565574 Michelson May 2003 B2
6595995 Zdelblick et al. Jul 2003 B2
6599294 Fuss et al. Jul 2003 B2
6610065 Branch et al. Aug 2003 B1
6613091 Zdelblick et al. Sep 2003 B1
6626943 Eberlein et al. Sep 2003 B2
6635060 Hanson et al. Oct 2003 B2
6641582 Hanson et al. Nov 2003 B1
6641614 Wagner et al. Nov 2003 B1
6652533 O'Neil Nov 2003 B2
6652534 Zucherman et al. Nov 2003 B2
6679886 Weikel et al. Jan 2004 B2
6712819 Zucherman et al. Mar 2004 B2
6712825 Aebi et al. Mar 2004 B2
6733505 Li May 2004 B2
6740118 Eisermann et al. May 2004 B2
6746454 Winterbottom et al. Jun 2004 B2
6755841 Fraser et al. Jun 2004 B2
6770074 Michelson Aug 2004 B2
6824565 Muhanna et al. Nov 2004 B2
6835207 Zacouto et al. Dec 2004 B2
6875213 Michelson Apr 2005 B2
6896676 Zubok et al. May 2005 B2
6936071 Marnay et al. Aug 2005 B1
6964687 Bernerd et al. Nov 2005 B1
6966912 Michelson Nov 2005 B2
7037340 Gau May 2006 B2
7048766 Ferree May 2006 B2
7081120 Li et al. Jul 2006 B2
7083649 Zucherman et al. Aug 2006 B2
7087057 Konieczynski et al. Aug 2006 B2
7118580 Beyersdorlf et al. Oct 2006 B1
7153303 Squires et al. Dec 2006 B2
7169182 Errico et al. Jan 2007 B2
7204852 Marnay et al. Apr 2007 B2
7238203 Bagga et al. Jul 2007 B2
7252673 Lim Aug 2007 B2
7300441 Haid Nov 2007 B2
7306607 Metzger Dec 2007 B2
7491204 Marnay Feb 2009 B2
7547309 Bertagnoli et al. Jun 2009 B2
7575576 Zubok et al. Aug 2009 B2
7641692 Bryan et al. Jan 2010 B2
7648520 Markworth Jan 2010 B2
7763024 Bertagnoli et al. Jul 2010 B2
7803162 Marnay et al. Sep 2010 B2
7811325 Cannon et al. Oct 2010 B2
7837732 Zucherman et al. Nov 2010 B2
8025684 Garcia-Bengochea et al. Sep 2011 B2
8083746 Novak Dec 2011 B2
8414595 Baker Apr 2013 B2
8518045 Szanto Aug 2013 B2
20020016633 Lin et al. Feb 2002 A1
20020049497 Mason Apr 2002 A1
20020065558 Varga et al. May 2002 A1
20020072752 Zucherman et al. Jun 2002 A1
20020077702 Castro Jun 2002 A1
20020165612 Gerber et al. Nov 2002 A1
20030028197 Hanson et al. Feb 2003 A1
20030083747 Winterbottom et al. May 2003 A1
20030135275 Garcia et al. Jul 2003 A1
20030191534 Viart et al. Oct 2003 A1
20030195631 Ferree Oct 2003 A1
20030208273 Eisermann et al. Nov 2003 A1
20030233145 Landry et al. Dec 2003 A1
20040002758 Landry et al. Jan 2004 A1
20040002761 Rogers et al. Jan 2004 A1
20040010316 William et al. Jan 2004 A1
20040024462 Ferree et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040030387 Landry et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040073312 Eisermann et al. Apr 2004 A1
20040097929 Branch May 2004 A1
20040117022 Marnay et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040133278 Marino et al. Jul 2004 A1
20040138749 Zucherman et al. Jul 2004 A1
20040138750 Mitchell Jul 2004 A1
20040143332 Krueger et al. Jul 2004 A1
20040158328 Eisermann Aug 2004 A1
20040172133 Gerber et al. Sep 2004 A1
20040215198 Marnay et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040225295 Zubok et al. Nov 2004 A1
20040225365 Eisermann et al. Nov 2004 A1
20040225366 Eisermann et al. Nov 2004 A1
20050021042 Marnay et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050021145 de Villiers et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050021146 de Villiers et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050043802 Eisermann et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050060034 Berry et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050060035 Errico et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050085917 Marnay et al. Apr 2005 A1
20050113926 Zucherman et al. May 2005 A1
20050125061 Zucherman et al. Jun 2005 A1
20050143747 Zubok et al. Jun 2005 A1
20050143749 Zalenski et al. Jun 2005 A1
20050143820 Zucherman et al. Jun 2005 A1
20050154462 Zucherman et al. Jul 2005 A1
20050159818 Blain Jul 2005 A1
20050165408 Puno et al. Jul 2005 A1
20050203626 Sears et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050228500 Kim et al. Oct 2005 A1
20050234465 McCombs Oct 2005 A1
20050246022 Zubok et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050251260 Gerber et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050261769 Moskowitz et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050267581 Marnay et al. Dec 2005 A1
20060009796 Carusillo Jan 2006 A1
20060030856 Drewry et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060030860 Peterman Feb 2006 A1
20060036326 Baumgartner et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060041313 Allard et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060064100 Bertagnoli et al. Mar 2006 A1
20060089656 Allard et al. Apr 2006 A1
20060100633 Michelson May 2006 A1
20060116769 Marnay et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060149273 Ross et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060149378 Chase et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060210594 Trieu Sep 2006 A1
20060217729 Eskridge Sep 2006 A1
20060217809 Albert et al. Sep 2006 A1
20060217810 Leclercq Sep 2006 A1
20060235533 Blain Oct 2006 A1
20060241641 Albans et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060259147 Krishna et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060265077 Zwirkoski Nov 2006 A1
20070162134 Marnay et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070179615 Heinz et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070191955 Zucherman et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070198089 Moskowitz et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070198093 Brodke et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070213821 Kwak et al. Sep 2007 A1
20070225812 Gill Sep 2007 A1
20070233244 Lopez Oct 2007 A1
20070265707 Marnay et al. Nov 2007 A1
20080065211 Albert Mar 2008 A1
20080133013 Duggal et al. Jun 2008 A1
20080140204 Heinz Jun 2008 A1
20080140208 Zucherman et al. Jun 2008 A1
20080161923 Parsons Jul 2008 A1
20080215156 Duggal et al. Sep 2008 A1
20080228275 Cannon et al. Sep 2008 A1
20080243125 Guzman Oct 2008 A1
20090043392 Duggal et al. Feb 2009 A1
20090043393 Duggal et al. Feb 2009 A1
20090069894 Duggal et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090076608 Gordon et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090149964 May Jun 2009 A1
20090255390 Chaffin Oct 2009 A1
20090326540 Estes Dec 2009 A1
20100070042 Bryan et al. Mar 2010 A1
20100217395 Bertagnoli et al. Aug 2010 A1
20100228351 Ankney et al. Sep 2010 A1
20100234954 Justis et al. Sep 2010 A1
20100280617 Coppes et al. Nov 2010 A1
20100292800 Zubok Nov 2010 A1
20100298941 Hes et al. Nov 2010 A1
20100324690 Cannon et al. Dec 2010 A1
20110082556 Duggal et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110087331 Reichen et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110106263 Eisermann et al. May 2011 A1
20110118845 Overes et al. May 2011 A1
20110172773 Reichen et al. Jul 2011 A1
20110230887 Bickenbach Sep 2011 A1
20110282458 Aferzon et al. Nov 2011 A1
20110295374 Bryan et al. Dec 2011 A1
20110320001 Hughes et al. Dec 2011 A1
20110320003 Duggal et al. Dec 2011 A1
20120083888 Moumene et al. Apr 2012 A1
20120101579 de Villiers et al. Apr 2012 A1
20120101582 Raiszadeh et al. Apr 2012 A1
20120109316 Marnay et al. May 2012 A1
20120232663 Zipnick Sep 2012 A1
20120290093 Hansell et al. Nov 2012 A1
20120310349 Gordon et al. Dec 2012 A1
20120316648 Lambrecht et al. Dec 2012 A1
20130023990 Zipnick et al. Jan 2013 A1
20130110240 Hansell et al. May 2013 A1
20130138217 Laurence et al. May 2013 A1
20130204255 Milburn Aug 2013 A1
20140046331 Amos Feb 2014 A1
20140325855 Bozic Nov 2014 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (37)
Number Date Country
0624573 Aug 1981 CH
101027005 Aug 2007 CN
101631517 Jan 2010 CN
2263842 Jul 1974 DE
2804936 Aug 1979 DE
3023353 Apr 1981 DE
3526742 Jan 1987 DE
4328690 Mar 1995 DE
0077159 Apr 1983 EP
0333990 Jul 1993 EP
0770367 May 1997 EP
0712607 Feb 2002 EP
1793749 Jun 2007 EP
2120799 Nov 2009 EP
2718635 Oct 1995 FR
2724108 Mar 1996 FR
2737656 Feb 1997 FR
2742653 Jun 1997 FR
2795945 Jan 2001 FR
2261446 Oct 1990 JP
2010-521244 Jun 2010 JP
WO 1991013598 Sep 1991 WO
WO 1998034552 Aug 1998 WO
WO 2001001893 Jan 2001 WO
WO 2001019295 Mar 2001 WO
WO 2002071986 Sep 2002 WO
WO 2003053290 Jul 2003 WO
WO 2004019828 Mar 2004 WO
WO 2004098380 Nov 2004 WO
WO 2005051243 Jun 2005 WO
WO 2005053580 Jun 2005 WO
WO 2006012608 Feb 2006 WO
WO 2006033067 Mar 2006 WO
WO 2006036580 Apr 2006 WO
WO 2008014258 Jan 2008 WO
WO 2008112956 Sep 2008 WO
200905900 May 2010 ZA
Non-Patent Literature Citations (102)
Entry
U.S. Appl. No. 11/185,781, filed Jul. 21, 2005, Marnay et al.
Japanese Patent Application No. 2009-553793: Notification of Reasons for Rejection dated Dec. 3, 2012, 2 pages.
International Patent Application No. PCT/US2005/33007: International Search Report dated Oct. 20, 2006, 1 page.
International Patent Application No. PCT/US2008/056960: International Search Report dated Jul. 28, 2008, 6 pages.
“A New Tibia Plateau”, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Jul. 1, 1970, 52-A (5), 2 pages.
“Here's a Good Skate”, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Sep. 1, 1971, 53- A(6), 2 pages.
“Amended Judgment Awarding Enhanced Damages, Prejudgment Interest and Attorney Fees” (Filed Nov. 9, 2009, Doc. 521), 2 pages.
“Amended Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 103” (Dated Nov. 6, 2008, Doc. 332), 20 pages.
“Amended Order Denying Medtronic's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Alternative Motion for a New Trial” (Filed Aug. 20, 2009, doc. 494), 30 pages.
“Appeal from the US District Court: Spine Solutions, Inc. vs. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.”, In the United States Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Case No. 07-CV-02175, Decided: Sep. 9, 2010, 28 pages.
“Brief in Support of Medtronic's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on the Obviousness of the '071 Patent, No Willful Infringement and No Lost Profits” (Dec. 4, 2008, Doc. 406), Spine Solutions, Inc, v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. et al., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Docket # 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv, 9 pages.
“Citation of Supplemental Authority in Support of Medtronic's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Alternative Motion for a New Trial,” with accompanying exhibit (Feb. 18, 2009, Docs. 453, 453-2), Spine Solutions, Inc, v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. et al., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Docket # 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv, 17 pages.
“Judgment Awarding Enhanced Damages, Post—Dec. 31, 2007 Damages, Pre- and Post-Judgment Interest, and Injunctive Relief” (Filed Aug. 26, 2009, Doc. 497), 2 pages.
“Judgment” (Dec. 8, 2008, Doc. 412), Spine Solutions, Inc, v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. et al., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Docket # 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv, 2 pages.
“Jury Verdict Form” (Dec. 5, 2008, Doc. 411), Spine Solutions, Inc, v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. et al., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Docket # 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv, 4 pages.
“Memorandum in Support of Medtronic's Renewed for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Alternative Motion for a New Trial,” with accompanying exhibits (Dec. 22, 2008, Docs. 420-2 through 420-22), Spine Solutions, Inc, v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. et al., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Docket # 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv, 614 pages.
“Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law that the '071 Patent Is Not Invalid for Obviousness” (Dec. 4, 2008, Doc. 407-2), Spine Solutions, Inc, v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. et al., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Docket # 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv, 6 pages.
“Order Amending and Altering the Judgment Entered on Aug. 26, 2009 to Alter the Amount of Damages and Interest Awarded and to Amend the Judgment to Provide for an Award of Attorney Fees” (Filed Nov. 9, 2009, Doc. 520), 20 pages.
“Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 103” (Dated Sep. 30, 2008, Doc. 317), 20 pages.
“Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement” (Dated Sep. 30, 2008, Doc. 318), 12 pages.
“Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-infringement on 0-MAV; Order Granting Plaintiff Spine Solutions, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Infringement of Claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Pat. No. 6,939,071” (Dated Sep. 30, 2008, Doc. 313), 14 pages.
“Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-infringement, or in the Alternative for Invalidity; Order Granting Plaintiff Spine Solutions, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Medtronic's 35 U.S.C. § 112 Defenses” (Dated Sep. 30, 2008, Doc. 314), 16 pages.
“Order Denying Plaintiff Spine Solutions, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding the Obviousness Defense” (Filed Nov. 6, 2008, Doc. 333) 2 pages.
“Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Unseal the Court's Summary Judgment Orders, Post-Trial Orders, and Judgments” (Filed Dec. 23, 2009, doc. 525), 8 pages.
“Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Treble Damages, Award of Attorney Fees, Expert Witness Fees, Expenses, Post Dec. 31, 2007 damages, and Pre-and Post-Judgment Interest” (Filed Aug. 26, 2009, Doc. 495), 24 pages.
“Order Granting Plaintiff Spine Solutions, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (1) that the Asserted Claims of the '071 Patent Are Not Anticipated; and (2) that the (a) '785 Patent [U.S. Pat. No. 6,402,785], (b) Dr. Zdeblick and Mr. McKay's Alleged Invention, and (c) Numerous Unexplained References Are Not Prior Art” (Dated Sep. 30, 2008, Doc. 315), 14 pages.
“Order Granting Plaintiff Spine Solutions, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Failure of Defendants to State a Legal Defense or Claim for Relief Based on Inequitable Conduct” (Dated Sep. 30, 2008, Doc. 316), 10 pages.
“Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Permanent Injunction” (Filed Aug. 26, 2009, doc. 496), 24 pages.
“Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Medtronic's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Alternative Motion for a New Trial” (Jan. 23, 2009, Doc. 439), Spine Solutions, Inc, v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. et al., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Docket # 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv, 41 pages.
“Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Response to Medtronic's Reply Memorandum and Citation of Supplemental Authority, Regarding Medtronic's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Alternative Motion for a New Trial” (Mar. 11, 2009, Doc. 463), Spine Solutions, Inc, v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. et al., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Docket # 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv, 26 pages.
“Plaintiffs' Motion and Supporting Memorandum to Unseal the Court's Post-Trial Orders, Judgments, and Summary Judgment Orders” (Filed Nov. 17, 2009, doc. 523), 7 pages.
“Reply Memorandum in Support of Medtronic's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Alternative Motion for a New Trial”, with accompanying exhibit (Feb. 10, 2009, Docs. 449, 449-2), Spine Solutions, Inc, v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. et al., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Docket # 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv, 71 pages.
Ahrens et al., “Normal Joint Mobility is Maintained With an Artificial Disc Prosthesis”, Waldemar Link GmbH & Co., 1999, 4 pages.
David S. Hungerford, M.D. and Robert V. Kenna, “Preliminary Experience with a Total Knee Prosthesis with Porous Coating Used without Cement”, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Cementless Total Knee Prosthesis, No. 176, Jun. 1983, 95-107.
Ducheyne, “Declaration of Paul Ducheyne Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132”, Feb. 19, 2010, 22 pages.
European Patent Application No. EP 05795413: Supplementary European Search Report, dated Aug. 10, 2011, 7 pages.
Hoogland et al., “Total Lumbar Intervertebral Disc Replacement: Testing of a New Articulating Spacer in Human Cadaver Spines”, 24th Annual ORS, Dallas, Texas, Feb. 21-23, 1978, 102.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate”, Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/010,655 and No. 90/009,542, Filed Aug. 24, 2009 and Jul. 24, 2009, date mailed Jul. 14, 2010, 9 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Patent Owner's Response Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.550 in Merged Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 6,936,071,” Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/010,655 and No. 90/009,542, Filed Aug. 24, 2009 and Jul. 24, 2009, dated May 19, 2010, 36 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Request for Ex Parte Reexamination”, In re patent of: Marnay et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,936,071, filed on Jul. 24, 2009, 70 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Request for Ex Parte Reexamination”, In re patent of: Marnay et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,936,071, filed on Aug. 24, 2009, 23 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 10/070,823, filed Jul. 15, 2002 Notice of Allowance dated Jul. 13, 2006, 4 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 10/070,823, filed Jul. 15, 2002, Final Rejection dated Aug. 23, 2005, 11 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 10/070,823, filed Jul. 15, 2002, Non-Final Office Action, dated Sep. 23, 2004, 10 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 10/318,078, filed Dec. 13, 2002, Issue Notice dated Mar. 28, 2007, 1 page.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 10/318,078, filed Dec. 13, 2002, Final Rejection dated Aug. 1, 2006, 7 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 10/318,078, filed Dec. 13, 2002, Final Rejection dated Nov. 12, 2004, 7 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 10/318,078, filed Dec. 13, 2002, Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 21, 2004, 6 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 10/318,078, filed Dec. 13, 2002, Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 8, 2005, 5 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 10/318,078, filed Dec. 13, 2002, Notice of Allowance dated Feb. 26, 2007, 7 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 10/070,823, filed Jul. 15, 2002 Advisory Action dated Jun. 22, 2006, 2 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 10/998,951, filed Nov. 30, 2004, Non-Final Office Action, dated Aug. 19, 2009, 11 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 10/998,951, filed Nov. 30, 2004, Response to Non-Final Office Action, dated Feb. 19, 2010, 37 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 10/622,535, filed Jul. 21, 2003: Non Final Office Action dated Apr. 26, 2007, 6 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 10/622,535, filed Jul. 21, 2003: Non Final Office Action dated Aug. 30, 2005, 7 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 10/622,535, filed Jul. 21, 2003: Final Office Action dated Feb. 6, 2009, 7 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 10/622,535, filed Jul. 21, 2003: Non Final Office Action dated Jan. 31, 2008, 7 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 10/622,535, filed Jul. 21, 2003: Non Final Office Action dated Nov. 8, 2006, 6 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 10/622,535, filed Jul. 21, 2003: Non Final Office Action dated Sep. 12, 2007, 6 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 10/622,535, filed Jul. 21, 2003: Notice of Allowance dated Jul. 20, 2009, 3 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 10/622,535, filed Jul. 21, 2003: Final Rejection dated May 23, 2006, 6 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 10/622,535, filed Jul. 21, 2003: Notice of Allowance dated Nov. 17, 2009, 4 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 11/512,327, filed Aug. 30, 2006: Notice of Allowance dated Oct. 8, 2009, 4 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 11/512,327, filed Aug. 30, 2006, Final Rejection dated Jun. 23, 2009, 6 pages.
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Re. U.S. Appl. No. 11/512,327, filed Aug. 30, 2006, Non Final Rejection dated Oct. 6, 2008, 6 pages.
Marnay, “L'Arthroplastie Intervertebrale Lombaire”, La Revue de Medicine Orthopedique, Jun.-Sep. 1991, No. 25, 48-55.
Marnay, “Lumbar Intervertebral Arthroplasty”, English Translation of, “L'Arthroplastie Intervertebrale Lombaire”, La Revue de Medicine Orthopedique, Jun.-Sep. 1991, No. 25, 48-55.
Marnay, “Declaration of Thierry Marnay Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132”, Feb. 19, 2010, 24 pages.
Nichols, “Declaration of David Nichols Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132”, Feb. 19, 2010, 7 pages.
Pacer Docket sheet from Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. et al., U.S, District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Docket # 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv, As of May 19, 2009, 36 pages.
Robert E. Tooms, “Arthroplasty of ankle and knee”, Campbell's Operative Orthopaedics, Seventh Edition, Volume Two, ed. A.H. Crenshaw, (St. Louis, Washington, D.C., Toronto: The C.V. Mosby Company 1987), 1145-1152.
Robert V. Kenna and David S. Hungerford, M.D., “Design Rational for the Porous Coated Anatomic Total Knee System,” Total Knee Arthroplasty, A Comprehensive Approach, ed. David S. Hungerford, M.D., Kenneth A. Krackow, M.D., and Robert V. Kenna (Baltimore/London: Williams & Wilkins 1984), 71-88.
Spine Solutions, Inc, v, Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Answer and Counterclaims, May 4, 2007, 6 pages.
Spine Solutions, Inc, v, Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Plaintiff Spine Solutions, Inc.'s Opening Markman Brief, Feb. 19, 2008, 27 pages.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Plaintiff Spine Solutions, Inc.'s Response to Defendants' Motion to Amend Their Answer to Allege Inequitable Conduct, Dec. 7, 2007, 25 pages.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc, US. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Defendants' Opening Markman Brief, Feb. 19, 2008, 29 pages.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Expert Report #2, Rebuttal to other reports in this litigation, Paul Ducheyne, Ph.D, Dec. 21, 2007, 36 pages.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Expert Report of Charles A. Laff, Nov. 21, 2007, 12 pages.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Rebuttal Expert Report of Mark. E. Nusbaum, Nov. 21, 2007, 42 pages.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Expert Report of Dr. Thomas A. Zdeblick, M.D., Nov. 21, 2007, 77 pages.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Defendants' Responsive Markman Brief, Mar. 17, 2008, 26 pages.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Plaintiff Spine Solutions' Responsive Markman Brief, Mar. 17, 2008, 26 pages.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Defendants' Reply Markman Brief, Mar. 31, 2008, 21 pages.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Plaintiff Spine Solutions, Inc.'s Reply Markman Brief, Mar. 31, 2008, 39 pages.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Plaintiff Spine Solutions, Inc.'s Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Failure of Defendants to State a Legal Defense or Claim for Relief Based on Inequitable Conduct, Mar. 31, 2008, 62 pages.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiff Spine Solutions, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Medtronic's 35 U.S.C. 5 112 Defenses, Mar. 31, 2008, 25 pages.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Plaintiff Spine Solutions, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File a Surreply to Defendants' Reply Markman Brief, Apr. 7, 2008 7 pages.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Plaintiff Spine Solutions, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File a Response to DefendantsJ Surreply Memorandum Regarding Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Failure of Defendants to State a Legal Defense or Claim for Relief Based on Inequitable Conduct and a Declaration of Marvin Petry in Support Thereto, Jun. 25, 2008, 2 pages.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Defendants' Supplemental Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Jun. 19, 2008, 31 pages.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Order Following Markman Hearing, Jul. 2, 2008, 36 pages.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Defendants' Medtronic Sofamor Danek, inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.'s Sixth Supplemental Answers and Objections to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories, Dec. 14, 2007, 40 pages.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Plaintiffs Supplemental Response to Defendants' Interrogatory No. 2 (Relating to Conception, Reduction to Practice, First Sale), Oct. 29, 2007, 8 pages.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Expert Report of Stephen D. Cook, Ph.D., Nov. 21, 2007, 202 pages.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Defendants' Third Supp'l Answers & Objections to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1-6, Oct. 15, 2007, 58 pages.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02175-JPM, Amended Answer and Counterclaims, Nov. 21, 2007, 187 pages.
Szpalski et al., “Spine arthroplasty: a historical review,” Eur. Spine J., Oct. 2002, 11(Suppl. 2), S65-S84.
Transcript Pages: pp. 1441-1639, 1644-1682 (Dec. 3-4, 2008), Spine Solutions, Inc, v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. et al., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Docket # 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv, 246 pages.
Transcript Pages: pp. 1842-1892, 1899-1944 (Dec. 4-5, 2008), Spine Solutions, Inc, v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. et al., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Docket # 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv, 103 pages.
Transcript Pages: pp. 345-535, 544-644, 669-700 (Nov. 25-26, 2008), Spine Solutions, Inc, v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. et al., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Docket # 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dky, 334 pages.
Transcript Pages: pp. 908-1071, 1085-1102 (Dec. 1-2, 2008), Spine Solutions, Inc, v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. et al., U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Civil Docket # 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dky, 192 pages.
Viscogliosi et al., “Spine Arthroplasty: Market Potential & Technology Update”, Musculoskeletal Research, Nov. 2001, 202 pages.
Extended European Search Report for EP Appl. No. 19186610.2 dated Feb. 28, 2020.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20200205991 A1 Jul 2020 US
Provisional Applications (1)
Number Date Country
60832595 Jul 2006 US
Continuations (3)
Number Date Country
Parent 15888505 Feb 2018 US
Child 16812674 US
Parent 14643287 Mar 2015 US
Child 15888505 US
Parent 12375071 US
Child 14643287 US