The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P is the assignee of the '156 patent which details '[a] system and method for spinal fusion comprising a spinal fusion implant of non-bone construction releasably coupled to an insertion instrument dimensioned to introduce the spinal fusion implant into any of a variety of spinal target sites.' The PTAB instituted inter partes review to determine whether claims 1-14, 19-20, and 23-27 would have been obvious over, a Synthes Vertebral Spacer-PR brochure, a Telamon Verte-Stack PEEK Vertebral Body Spacer brochure, a Telamon Posterior Impacted Fusion Devices guide, and U.S. Patent Application Publication 'Baccelli.' The PTAB found obviousness on the stated claims and P appealed. P argues that the PTAB's Final Written Decision did not make adequately explained findings as to why a PHOSITA (person having ordinary skill in the [relevant] art) would have been motivated to combine the prior art references and place the radiopaque markers on the medial plane.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.