The invention relates to an intervertebral implant, having an upper part that has a support face for a vertebra and a lower part that has a support face for an adjacent vertebra, on each of which parts engagement elements, which are accessible from one side of the intervertebral implant, for a manipulation instrument are disposed, in order to minimize the structural height of the intervertebral implant upon insertion into an intervertebral space.
One such intervertebral implant is known for instance from U.S. Pat. No. 5,314,477. This intervertebral implant is used to replace a disk removed from the intervertebral space, and accordingly the intervertebral implant must have a relatively low structural height, since it has to fit into the gap between vertebrae. This is particularly difficult if an additional pivot insert is also embedded between the upper part and the lower part, as is the case in the known intervertebral implant of U.S. Pat. No. 5,314,477.
But even in two-piece intervertebral implants, difficulties also arise, especially if the implants also have pins and other protrusions on their support faces that are intended for anchoring the intervertebral implant in the bone. Often, these parts can be inserted only by widening the intervertebral space greatly. Not only is this difficult, but it also presents the risk of injuries.
Since the intervertebral space has a relatively low height, it is also difficult for engagement elements that a manipulation instrument can engage to be secured to both parts of the intervertebral implant. It is conventional to have such manipulation instruments engage the upper part and the lower part separately, for instance by means of pins that are inserted into bores on the upper part and lower part, so that with the manipulation instrument, the two parts of the intervertebral implant can be inserted into the intervertebral space and can optionally also be varied in terms of their spacing from one another, thereby allowing a certain spreading open of the intervertebral space. In this respect, reference is made to the pincerlike manipulation instrument of U.S. Pat. No. 5,314,477.
Because of the strong forces, it is necessary to provide a certain structural height for the engagement elements; for instance, the receiving bores must have a certain diameter. This dictates a minimum structural height for the upper part and for the lower part, and in conventional intervertebral implants, the structural heights of the upper part and lower part are thus added together, so that even if the upper and lower parts rest directly on one another, a relatively great structural height of the intervertebral implant is still unavoidable.
It is the object of the invention to embody an intervertebral implant of this generic type in such a way that the minimum structural height is reduced, to make it easier to insert the intervertebral implant into the intervertebral space.
In an intervertebral implant of the type described at the outset, this object is attained in accordance with the invention in that it is proposed that the upper part and lower part each have protrusions and recesses aimed at the respectively other part, which are offset laterally from one another in such a way that when the upper part has been brought close to the lower part they mesh with one another; and that the engagement elements on the upper part and on the lower part are each disposed in protrusions of these parts in such a way that the engagement elements of the upper part and lower part are located side by side and at least partly overlap in the direction of the height of the intervertebral implant.
In such an embodiment, a minimal structural height of the two intervertebral implant parts resting on one another can be attained, since the engagement elements, which cannot fall below a minimal structural height, are each disposed in protrusions of the upper part and lower part, or in other words in the parts of the upper part and lower part that have the greatest structural height. These regions of great structural height are embodied as protrusions, next to which are respective recesses, into which the protrusions of the respectively other part can dip. As a result, on the one hand, the engagement elements for the manipulation instruments are located side by side, and on the other, they can at least partly overlap, so that the total structural height of the parts resting on one another of the intervertebral implant can be reduced markedly compared to conventional intervertebral implants. The result is accordingly an internested arrangement of the upper and lower parts, with maximal exploitation of the available material height.
It is favorable if the engagement elements are insertion openings for pinlike retaining elements of a manipulation instrument; because of the described construction, these insertion openings can have a relatively large diameter and can thus receive strong retaining pins, and nevertheless a relatively low structural height of the intervertebral implant with parts resting directly on one another is obtained.
It is advantageous if the insertion openings extend substantially parallel to the support faces; once again, this prevents an increase in the structural height of the intervertebral implant parts.
In a preferred embodiment, it is provided that the lower part has a central indentation, opposite the lower support face, which indentation is surrounded by a U-shaped edge. Thus with the lower part and upper part resting directly on one another, the indentation serves to receive a protrusion on the upper part.
It is advantageous if the upper part has a central protrusion that fits substantially in complimentary fashion into the indentation; that is, the total volume of the indentation is utilized for the protrusion.
It is also advantageous if the engagement elements of the lower part are disposed on the two ends of the U-shaped edge, or in other words are located on the outside.
Conversely, the engagement elements of the upper part can be disposed on the central protrusion of the upper part, or in other words are located farther inward than the engagement elements of the upper part.
In particular, the engagement elements of the upper part can be disposed near the lateral edges of the central protrusion, so that for the upper part as well, the spacing of the engagement elements can be selected to be relatively great; as a result, both the upper part and the lower part can be reliably secured against skewing.
It should already be noted here that the words “lower part” and “upper part” do not necessarily say anything about the installed position of the intervertebral implant in the spinal column; the part called the “lower part” could in fact be above in the spinal column. Therefore, these parts may also be referred to as first and second parts having outer and inner surfaces. What is essential is merely that the upper part and lower part define the intervertebral implant on opposite sides of the implant.
It is especially advantageous if the upper part and/or the lower part is embodied in substantially platelike fashion; these parts naturally, in accordance with the design of the invention, have protrusions and recesses that are oriented toward the respectively other part. The platelike embodiment, however, leads as a whole to a very low structural height of the intervertebral implant.
In a preferred embodiment, the lower part and the upper part each have a respective receptacle for a pivot insert. This pivot insert, which is placed between the upper part and lower part after the insertion of the intervertebral implant, supports the upper part and lower part against one another; it takes on a resilient function, for instance, and furthermore leads to a certain pivotability of the two parts of an intervertebral implant relative to one another, so that a pivotability of the adjacent vertebra is thus attainable as well.
In particular, it is advantageous if the pivot insert has at least one spherical support face, which engages the correspondingly spherically shaped receptacle.
It is favorable if the spherical receptacle is disposed in the central protrusion of the upper part.
It is also advantageous if the central indentation of the lower part forms the receptacle for the pivot insert.
According to a preferred embodiment of the invention, it is provided that the pivot insert can be inserted from the side into the receptacle, which has the engagement elements for a manipulation instrument. This is the side from which the upper part and lower part are introduced into the intervertebral space, and it is also from this side that the pivot insert can then be thrust between the already-inserted parts of the intervertebral implant.
It is favorable if the pivot insert is insertable into the receptacle along a guide.
In that the insert as well is preferably embodied substantially in platelike fashion.
An especially favorable design is obtained if the insert substantially completely fills up the central receptacle and with its spherical support face protrudes from the receptacle.
The ensuing description of preferred embodiments of the invention serves in conjunction with the drawing to provide further explanation. Shown are:
The intervertebral implant 1 shown in the drawing includes three parts, namely a platelike upper part 2, a platelike lower part 3, and a substantially platelike pivot insert 4.
The upper part 2 is embodied flat on its top, thus creating a support face 5, on which various kinds of protrusions 6, 7 are disposed which serve the purpose of anchoring the upper part 2 in a vertebra that rests, with its end face toward an intervertebral space, on the support face.
The upper part 2 is substantially rectangular in cross section; in the exemplary embodiment shown, a longitudinal edge 8 curves outward.
On the two short sides of this rectangle, the thickness of the platelike upper part 2 is less than in the central region, so that along the short sides of the upper part 2, downward-pointing recesses 9 each extending parallel to these edges are formed that are open toward the outside. The central region of the upper part 2 is located between the two recesses 9 and thus has a greater thickness or height and thus forms a downward-pointing protrusion 10 embodied between the two recesses 9. This protrusion is defined by an underside 11, which extends substantially parallel to the support face 5 and in which there is a spherical indentation 12, which forms a bearing plate for the pivot insert 4.
The lower part 3 of the intervertebral implant 1 is also platelike in embodiment and on its underside has a flat support face 13 with protrusions 14 and 15, which correspond to the protrusions 6 and 7 of the support face 5. On the side remote from the support face 13, the thickness of the lower part 3 is less in the central region than in an outer region. This outer region of greater thickness has the form of a U, with two parallel legs 16, 17, which extend parallel to the short edges of the lower part 3, which in cross section is embodied similarly to the upper part 2, and with a crosspiece 18 that connects the two legs 16 and 17 on one end. The region enclosed by the legs 16 and 17 and the crosspiece 18 forms a central indentation 19, whose area is substantially equivalent to the area of the central protrusion 10 of the upper part 2, while the disposition and length of the legs 16 and 17 correspond essentially to the disposition and length of the recesses 9 on the upper part 2. As a result, it is possible to place the upper 2 and lower part 3 on one another in such a way that the central protrusion 10 of the upper 2 dips into the central indentation 19, while the legs 16 and 17 of the lower part 3 dip into the recesses 9 of the upper part 2 (
The dimensions are selected such that the various recesses are essentially filled completely by the protrusions dipping into them.
Blind bores 20 and 21 are machined into the two legs 16 and 17 of the lower part 3, extending parallel to these legs 16, 17 from their free ends; the diameter of these bores is relatively great in proportion to the height of the legs 16, 17, and this diameter is in fact greater than the thickness or height of the lower part 3 in the region of the central indentation 19.
Blind bores 22 and 23, which extend parallel to the blind bores 20 and 21 in the lower part 3, are machined into the central protrusion 10 of the upper part 2, in the vicinity of its side edges. These blind bores 22 and 23 again have a relatively great diameter, which corresponds to a substantial portion of the height of the protrusion 10 and is greater than the thickness of the upper part 2 in the region of the recesses 9.
When the upper part 2 and lower part 3 rest tightly against one another in the manner described, the blind bores 20 and 21 of the lower part 3 and the blind bores 22 and 23 of the upper part 2 overlap at least partly in the direction of the height of the intervertebral implant 1, as is clearly shown in
The blind bores 20, 21, 22 and 23 serve as receptacles for pinlike extensions of a manipulation instrument, not shown in the drawing, and thus form engagement elements for this manipulation instrument, which in this way separately engages the upper part 2 and the lower part 3. With this manipulation instrument, it is possible to introduce the upper part 2 and the lower part 3 of the intervertebral implant 1 into an intervertebral space; the very low structural height of the intervertebral implant 1 facilitates this introduction, which can be done essentially without major widening of the intervertebral space.
After the introduction of the upper part 2 and lower part 3 in this way, the two parts of the intervertebral implant 1 can be spread apart; that is, their spacing is increased, for instance with the aid of the manipulation instrument that is holding the upper 2 and the lower part 3.
In this spread-open position of the upper part 2 and lower part 3, it is possible to thrust the pivot insert 4 between the upper part 2 and the lower part 3.
This pivot insert is constructed essentially in the shape of a plate, which has a flat underside 24 and a spherically upward-curved top side 25. The outer dimensions of the platelike pivot insert correspond to those of the central indentation 19 in the lower part 3, so that the pivot insert 4 can be thrust into this indentation, filling it up, specifically from the side toward which the blind bores 20, 21, 22, 23 open. Guide strips 26 on the side edges of the pivot insert 4 engage corresponding guide grooves 27 in the legs 16, 17, so that an insertion guide for the pivot insert 4 is formed that fixes it in the lower part 3 after its insertion. The inserted pivot insert 4, after insertion, fills up the indentation 19 and protrudes with its spherically curved top side 25 upward past the top side of the lower part 3; the spherical top side 25 dips in complimentary fashion into the spherically curved indentation 12 on the underside of the protrusion 10, where with the upper part 2 it forms a ball joint, which enables a certain pivotability of the upper part 2 relative to the lower part 3 (
The pivot insert 4 can have a detent protrusion 28 on its flat underside 24; when the pivot insert 4 is inserted into the lower part 3, this protrusion locks elastically into a detent recess 29 that is located on the bottom of the indentation 19; as a result, the pivot insert 4 is also fixed in the insertion direction in the indentation 19.
The upper part 2 and lower part 3 are preferably made of physiologically safe metal, such as titanium, while the pivot insert 4 preferably comprises a likewise physiologically safe plastic material, such as polyethylene. These support faces 5 and 13 can be embodied in an especially bone-compatible way; for instance, this surface can be roughened by a coating, so that optimal anchoring to the adjacent bone material is obtained.
The invention may also be described as follows, which description is the full equivalent of the preceding discussion. An upper part 2 has an upper surface 5 for engaging a vertebrae and a lower surface which comprises a downward pointing protrusion 10 between side recesses 9 and a rounded portion, preferably in the form of a concave spherical indentation 12. A lower part 3 has a lower surface 13 for engaging a vertebrae. A pivot insert 4, when joined to the lower part 3, as shown for example in
The lower part 3 and pivot insert 4 may, taken together, be described as a lower part formed in two pieces, namely the elements 3 and 4, wherein the element 3 may be referred to as a lower piece and the element 4 may be referred to as an upper piece.
The upper and lower parts include on their upper surface and lower surface, respectively, protrusions 7 and 14 which may also be referred to as anchors, which anchor the upper and lower parts, respectively, into the adjacent vertebrae that form the intervertebral space and rest against the respective upper and lower surfaces.
As shown in the figures, the anchors 6 and 14 each have a zigzag edge which comprise teeth. As best shown in
The lower part comprises three walls including parallel side walls 16 and 17 and a rear wall 18. These walls form between them a central indentation 19 which comprises a recess with a generally flat surface. The fourth side of the recess is open. The pivot insert 4 has a detent 28 that snap-fits into a detent recess 29 formed in the generally flat surface of recess 19.
As best shown in
To reach its final destination within an intervertebral space, the implant must of course be moved along a path from outside of the patient, into the patient, and then into the intervertebral space. In the illustrated embodiment, as described above, instruments would engage apertures 20, 21, 22 and 23 to move the implant along a path. The anchors 6 and 14 are parallel to this path. As a point of reference, lateral planes parallel to the direction of this path pass through opposed side surfaces of the parts. Thus, in the illustrated embodiment, the path would be parallel to the front to rear (anterior to posterior) direction, wherein, during insertion, the rear (posterior) of the implant would constitute the lead end and the front (anterior) thereof would constitute the trailing end.
Although the invention has been described in detail with respect to preferred embodiments thereof, it will be apparent that the invention is capable of numerous modifications and variations, apparent to those skilled in the art, without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/185,781 filed Jul. 21, 2005, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,974,530, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 10/018,402, filed Jun. 12, 2002, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,936,071, which is a national stage entry of PCT/EP99/04628 filed Jul. 2, 1999, the entire disclosure of which are incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
114816 | Heistand | May 1871 | 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 |
4805607 | Engelhardt et al. | Feb 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 |
4997432 | Keller | Mar 1991 | A |
5002576 | Fuhrmann et al. | Mar 1991 | A |
5004476 | Cook | Apr 1991 | A |
5022576 | Jenq | Jun 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 |
5171280 | Baumgartner | Dec 1992 | A |
5192327 | Brantigan | Mar 1993 | A |
5211645 | Baumgartner 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 |
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 Jimenez | Oct 1995 | A |
5484437 | Michelson | Jan 1996 | A |
5489307 | Kuslich et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5501654 | Failla 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 et al. | 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 | Wilhelmy | Mar 1998 | A |
5755798 | Papavero et al. | May 1998 | A |
5755811 | Tanamal et al. | May 1998 | A |
5769852 | Br.ang.nemark | Jun 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 |
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 |
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 |
6368351 | Glenn 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 |
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 | Zdeblick et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6599294 | Fuss et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6610065 | Branch et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6613091 | Zdeblick 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 |
6682562 | Viart | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6712819 | Zucherman et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6712825 | Aebi et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6733505 | Li | May 2004 | B2 |
6740118 | Eisermann | 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 | Bernard 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 |
7118580 | Beyersdorff 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 |
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 |
7803162 | Marnay et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7811325 | Cannon et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7837732 | Zucherman et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7857856 | Trieu | Dec 2010 | B2 |
8025684 | Garcia-Bengochea et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8092542 | Bryan et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8506634 | Marnay et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8795371 | Marnay et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
8882839 | Marnay | Nov 2014 | B2 |
8974530 | Marnay | Mar 2015 | 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 |
20030204261 | Eisermann | 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 |
20040097929 | Branch et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040117022 | Marnay et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040133278 | Marino et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040138750 | Mitchell | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040143332 | Krueger et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040172133 | Gerber et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040215198 | Marnay et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040225295 | Zubok 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 | Puna et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050203626 | Sears et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050228500 | Kim et al. | 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 |
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 |
20060074489 | Bryan | Apr 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 |
20060217809 | Albert et al. | 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 | 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 |
20070265707 | Marnay et al. | Nov 2007 | 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 |
20080234686 | Beaurain | Sep 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 |
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 |
20110118845 | Overes et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110172773 | Reichen et al. | Jul 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 |
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 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
624573 | 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 1893 | EP |
0317972 | May 1989 | EP |
0471821 | Feb 1992 | EP |
0333990 | Jul 1993 | EP |
0560141 | Sep 1993 | EP |
0770367 | May 1997 | EP |
0712607 | Feb 2002 | EP |
2718635 | Oct 1995 | FR |
2724108 | Mar 1996 | FR |
2737656 | Feb 1997 | FR |
2742653 | Jun 1997 | FR |
2795945 | Jan 2001 | FR |
2-261446 | Oct 1990 | JP |
2010-521244 | Jun 2010 | JP |
WO 8800951 | Feb 1988 | WO |
WO 9113598 | Sep 1991 | WO |
WO 9310725 | Jun 1993 | WO |
WO 9814142 | Apr 1998 | WO |
WO 9834552 | Aug 1998 | WO |
WO 0101893 | Jan 2001 | WO |
WO 0119295 | Mar 2001 | WO |
WO 02071986 | Sep 2002 | WO |
WO 03053290 | Jul 2003 | WO |
WO 2004019828 | Mar 2004 | WO |
WO 2004098380 | Nov 2004 | WO |
WO 2005051243 | Jun 2005 | WO |
WO 2005053580 | Jun 2005 | 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 |
Entry |
---|
“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. |
“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. |
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. |
“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. |
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. |
“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 Infringemenf (Dated Sep. 30, 2008, Doc. 318), 12 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 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. 6,936,071” (Dated Sep. 30, 2008, Doc. 313), 14 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 Interesf (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' 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. |
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 U.S. Appl. No. 10/070,823, filed Jul. 15, 2002 Notice of Allowance mailed Jul. 24, 2006. |
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in U.S. Appl. No. 10/070,823, filed Jul. 15, 2002, Examiner Interview Summary Record mailed Jul. 13, 2006. |
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in U.S. Appl. No. 10/070,823, filed Jul. 15, 2002, Final Rejection mailed Aug. 23, 2005. |
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in U.S. Appl. No. 10/070,823, filed Jul. 15, 2002, Non-Final Office Action, mailed Sep. 23, 2004. |
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in U.S. Appl. No. 10/318,078, filed Dec. 13, 2002, Issue Notice mailed Mar. 28, 2007. |
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in U.S. Appl. No. 10/318,078, filed Dec. 13, 2002, Notice of Allowance mailed Feb. 26, 2007. |
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in U.S. Appl. No. 10/318,078, filed Dec. 13, 2002, Final Rejection mailed Aug. 1, 2006. |
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in U.S. Appl. No. 10/318,078, filed Dec. 13, 2002, Final Rejection mailed Nov. 12, 2004. |
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in U.S. Appl. No. 10/318,078, filed Dec. 13, 2002, Non-Final Office Action mailed Apr. 21, 2004. |
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in U.S. Appl. No. 10/318,078, filed Dec. 13, 2002, Non-Final Office Action mailed Aug. 8, 2005. |
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in U.S. Appl. No. 10/622,535 filed Jul. 21, 2003: Non Final Office Action mailed Apr. 26, 2007. |
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in U.S. Appl. No. 10/622,535 filed Jul. 21, 2003: Non Final Office Action mailed Aug. 30, 2005. |
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in U.S. Appl. No. 10/622,535 filed Jul. 21, 2003: Final Office Action mailed Feb. 6, 2009. |
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in U.S. Appl. No. 10/622,535 filed Jul. 21, 2003: Non Final Office Action mailed Jan. 31, 2008. |
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in U.S. Appl. No. 10/622,535 filed Jul. 21, 2003: Non Final Office Action mailed Nov. 8, 2006. |
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in U.S. Appl. No. 10/622,535 filed Jul. 21, 2003: Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 12, 2007. |
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in U.S. Appl. No. 10/622,535 filed Jul. 21, 2003: Notice of Allowance mailed Jul. 20, 2009. |
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in U.S. Appl. No. 10/622,535 filed Jul. 21, 2003: Final Rejection mailed May 23, 2006. |
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in U.S. Appl. No. 10/622,535 filed Jul. 21,2003: Notice of Allowance mailed Nov. 17,2009. |
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in U.S. Appl. No. 11/512,327 filed Aug. 30, 2006: Notice of Allowance mailed Oct. 8, 2009. |
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in U.S. Appl. No. 11/512,327, filed Aug. 30, 2006, Final Rejection mailed Jun. 23, 2009. |
In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in U.S. Appl. No. 11/512,327, filed Aug. 30, 2006, Non Final Rejection mailed Oct. 6, 2008. |
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. |
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' Opening Markman Brief, Feb. 19, 2008. |
“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. |
“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-cv02175-JPM-dkv. |
“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-cv02175-JPM-dkv. |
“Memorandum in Support of Medtronic s Renewed Motion 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. |
“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. |
“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. |
“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. |
“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. |
Ahrens et al., “Normal Joint Mobility is Maintained With an Artificial Disc Prosthesis,” W LINK, 1999. |
Kenna et al., “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. |
Hoogland et al., 24th Annual ORS, Dallas, Texas, Feb. 21-23, 1978. |
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 2009, 36 pgs. |
Tooms, “Arthroplasty of ankle and knee,” Campbell's Operative Orthopaedics, Seventh Edition, vol. Two, ed. A.H. Crenshaw, (St. Louis, Washington, D.C., Toronto: The C.V. Mosby Company 1987), 1145-1152. |
Kenna et al., “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, Amended Answer and Counterclaims, Nov. 21, 2007. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 Suppl. Answers & Objections to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1-6, Oct. 15, 2007. |
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. |
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-cv02175-JPM, Expert Report of Charles A. Laff, Feb. 19, 2008. |
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-cv02175-JPM, Expert Report of Dr. Thomas A. Zdeblick, M.D., Nov. 21, 2007. |
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-cv02175-JPM, Expert Report of Mark E. Nusbaum, Nov. 21, 2007. |
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-cv02175-JPM, Expert Report of Stephen D. Cook, Ph.D., Nov. 21, 2007. |
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-cv02175-JPM, Order Following Markman Hearing, Jul. 2, 2008. |
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-cv02175-JPM, Plaintiff Spine Solutions' Responsive Markman Brief, Mar. 17, 2008. |
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-cv02175-JPM, Plaintiff Spine Solutions, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File a Response to Defendants' 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. |
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-cv02175-JPM, Plaintiff Spine Solutions, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File a Surreply to Defendants' Reply Markman Brief, Apr. 7, 2008. |
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-cv02175-JPM, Plaintiff Spine Solutions, Inc.'s Reply Markman Brief, Mar. 31, 2008. |
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-cv02175-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. |
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-cv02175-JPM, Plaintiff Spine Solutions, Inc.'s Response to Defendants' Motion to Amend Their Answer to Allege Inequitable Conduct, Dec. 7, 2007. |
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-cv02175-JPM, Plaintiff's Supplemental Response to Defendants' Interrogatory No. 2 (Relating to Conception, Reduction to Practice, First Sale), Oct. 29, 2007. |
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-cv02175-JPM, Plantiff Spine Solutions, Inc.'s Opening Markman Brief, Feb. 19, 2008. |
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-cv02175-JPM, Rebuttal Expert Report of Mark E. Nusbaum, Dec. 21, 2007. |
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-cv02175-JPM, Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiff Spine Solutions, Inc.'s Motion for Patial Summary Judgment Dismissing Medtronic's 35 U.S.C. § 112 Defenses, Mar. 31, 2008. |
Szpalski et al., “Spine arthroplasty: a historical review,” Eur Spine J., 2002, 11(Suppl. 2), S65-S84 DOI 10.1007/s00586-002-0474-y. |
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, “A New Tibia Plateau”, Jul. 1970, vol. 52-A, No. 5. |
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, “Here's a Good Skate”, Sep. 1971, vol. 53-A, No. 6. |
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. |
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. |
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-dkv. |
Transcript Page: 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-dkv. |
Viscogliosi Brothers, LLC, “Spine Arthroplasty”, Nov. 2001. |
Marnay, “L'Arthroplastie Intervertebrale Lombaire,” La Revue de Medicine Orthopedique, Jun.-Sep., 1991, No. 25; pp. 48-55 (with English translation, 24 pgs). |
European Patent Application No. EP 05795413: European Search Report dated Aug. 10, 2011, 7 pages. |
International Patent Application No. PCT/US2005/033007: 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. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20150142113 A1 | May 2015 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11185781 | Jul 2005 | US |
Child | 14605055 | US | |
Parent | 10018402 | US | |
Child | 11185781 | US |