Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01672/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01672-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Medtronic, Inc.
Cross-Appellant
NuVasive, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE: NUVASIVE, INC.,

Appellant

______________________ 

2015-1672, 2015-1673

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 

IPR2013-00507, IPR2013-00508.

______________________ 

Decided: November 9, 2016

______________________ 

 MICHAEL T. ROSATO, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & 

Rosati, PC, Seattle, WA, argued for appellant. Also represented by ANDREW SWANSON BROWN; RICHARD TORCZON, 

Washington, DC; GRACE J. PAK, PAUL DAVID TRIPODI, II, 

Los Angeles, CA.

JOSEPH MATAL, Office of the Solicitor, United States 

Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for 

intervenor Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by THOMAS 

W. KRAUSE, SCOTT WEIDENFELLER. 

______________________ 

Before MOORE, WALLACH, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

TARANTO, Circuit Judge.

NuVasive, Inc. owns U.S. Patent No. 8,187,334, which 

describes and claims implants for spinal fusion surgery. 

Case: 15-1672 Document: 70-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/09/2016
2 IN RE: NUVASIVE, INC. 

Medtronic, Inc.—which settled with NuVasive and has 

withdrawn from the present appeals—filed two petitions 

for inter partes review with the Patent and Trademark 

Office, which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted as IPR2013-507 (IPR507) and IPR2013-508 (IPR508). 

The Board ultimately cancelled all but one of the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, finding in one priorart reference, i.e., Michelson’s U.S. Patent No. 5,860,973, 

a spinal fusion implant that meets two of the claim requirements of the ’334 patent—having a length both 

greater than 40 mm and at least 2.5 times its width. 

Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR2013-507, 2015 WL 

996353 (PTAB Feb. 11, 2015) (IPR507 Board Decision); 

Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR2013-508, 2015 WL 

996354 (PTAB Feb. 11, 2015) (IPR508 Board Decision).

On appeal, NuVasive contends that it did not receive 

adequate notice of or opportunity to address that reading 

of Michelson and its consequences for the overall obviousness analysis. We agree in part. In IPR507, Medtronic’s 

petition put NuVasive on notice that Medtronic was 

relying on particular portions of Michelson to teach the 

’334 patent’s claimed long-and-narrow implants. In that 

proceeding, we see neither procedural nor other error in 

the Board’s decision, and we therefore affirm. In IPR508, 

however, Medtronic’s petition did not notify NuVasive of 

the assertions about the pertinent portions of Michelson

that later became critical. In that proceeding, we conclude, the Board’s ultimate reliance on that material, 

together with its refusal to allow NuVasive to respond 

fully once that material was called out, violated NuVasive’s rights under the Administrative Procedure Act. 

Our affirmance in IPR507 resolves the unpatentability of 

the ’334 patent’s claims 1–5, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 19–28, but 

claims 16 and 17 are at issue only in IPR508. We vacate 

the Board’s IPR508 decision and remand for further 

proceedings on claims 16 and 17.

Case: 15-1672 Document: 70-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/09/2016
IN RE: NUVASIVE, INC. 3

I 

The spinal fusion implant of the ’334 patent is designed to be inserted between two vertebrae to replace a 

damaged or diseased intervertebral disc. ’334 patent, col. 

1, lines 29–36. The implant shares many features with 

prior-art implants, such as anti-migration teeth to hold 

the implant in place, id., col. 2, lines 40–52, vertical holes 

(fusion apertures) to allow bone to grow through the 

implant, id., col. 5, lines 36–40, and horizontal holes 

(visualization apertures) so that a doctor can see such 

bone growth, id., col. 5, lines 54–66. Although the patent 

itself does not limit the methods of inserting the implant, 

its long-and-thin design is particularly suited to an approach from the side, through the psoas muscle, rather 

than from the front or back of the patient. Id., col. 5, lines 

29–35. The focus of the obviousness issue now on appeal 

is certain dimensions of the claimed implant, specifically, 

a length that is both greater than 40 mm and at least 2.5 

times the maximum width. The relevant part of claim 1, 

the only independent claim, reads:

1. A spinal fusion implant of non-bone construction positionable within an interbody space between a first vertebra and a second vertebra . . . 

wherein said implant has a longitudinal length 

greater than 40 mm extending from a proximal 

end of said proximal wall to a distal end of said 

distal wall;

wherein a central region of said implant includes 

portions of the first and second sidewalls positioned generally centrally between the proximal 

wall and the distal wall, at least a portion of the 

central region defining a maximum lateral width 

of said implant extending from said first sidewall 

to said second sidewall, wherein said longitudinal length is at least two and half [sic] 

Case: 15-1672 Document: 70-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/09/2016
4 IN RE: NUVASIVE, INC. 

times greater than said maximum lateral 

width . . . . 

’334 patent, col. 12, line 32, through col. 13, line 4 (emphases added). 

NuVasive asserted the ’334 patent against Medtronic 

in Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., No. 3:12-cv02738-CAB-MDD (S.D. Cal.). Medtronic thereafter filed 

two separate petitions for inter partes review of the ’334 

patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319.1 

Medtronic’s petition in what became IPR507 relied 

primarily on U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 

2002/0165550 (published Nov. 7, 2002) (Frey), which 

teaches an implant whose length is at least 2.5 times the 

width. As relevant here, Medtronic argued that it would 

have been obvious to modify Frey to have a length greater 

than 40 mm, as taught by Michelson. But in one brief 

passage, Medtronic’s petition went further. In pointing 

out that Michelson also teaches many of the ’334 limitations, Medtronic stated that “[l]ike Frey, Michelson discloses example lateral fusion implants having an 

elongated shape” and “dimensions that are longer than 

wide,” citing Michelson, col. 10, line 6, through col. 11, 

line 15. J.A. 172. That cited range includes a discussion 

of Michelson’s Figure 18, which shows an “alternative 

embodiment . . . 1000 . . . similar to the spinal fusion 

implant 900, but [which] has a narrower width such that 

more than one spinal fusion implant 1000 may be combined in a modular fashion for insertion within the disc 

space D between the adjacent vertebrae.” Michelson, col. 

10, lines 48–55. 

1 Medtronic separately sought review of NuVasive’s

U.S. Patent No. 8,361,156. The Board decision in that 

review, IPR2013-506, is before this court in In re NuVasive, No. 2015-1670.

 

Case: 15-1672 Document: 70-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/09/2016
IN RE: NUVASIVE, INC. 5

Medtronic’s petition in what became IPR508 relied 

primarily on the Synthes Vertebral Spacer-PR Brochure, 

Synthes Spine 2002 (SVS-PR), and the Telamon VerteStack PEEK Vertebral Body Spacer Brochure and the 

accompanying Telamon Posterior Impacted Fusion Devices Guide 2003 (jointly, Telamon), which teach implants 

whose lengths are at least 2.5 times their widths. Medtronic argued that it would have been obvious to modify 

either SVS-PR or Telamon to have lengths greater than 

40 mm, as taught by Michelson. But in the SVSPR/Telamon petition, unlike the Frey petition, Medtronic 

did not include an assertion about or citation to material 

encompassing Michelson’s Figure 18.

In response to Medtronic’s petitions, the Board, exercising institution authority delegated by the PTO Director, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.4, 42.108, determined that there was 

a reasonable likelihood that Medtronic would establish, 

by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–5, 10, 

11, 14, 15, and 18–28 would have been obvious over Frey, 

in view of Michelson. On that basis, the Board instituted 

IPR507. The Board made comparable determinations as 

to claims 1–5, 10, 11, and 14–28 based on either SVS-PR 

or Telamon, in view of Michelson and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0028249 (published Feb. 6, 

2003) (Baccelli). On that basis, the Board instituted 

IPR508. The two proceedings involve all the same claims 

apart from claims 16 and 17, which are the subject of 

IPR508, but not IPR507.

When NuVasive filed its Patent Owner Responses, it 

argued that no single reference taught an implant that 

was both longer than 40 mm and had a length at least 2.5

times its width. NuVasive pointed to Michelson’s Figures 

16 (showing long-and-wide rectangular implant 900), 19 

(showing a plurality of “narrower” implants 1000 lined up 

in the disc space), and 20 (showing another long-and-wide 

rectangular implant), as evidence that a person of ordinary skill reading Michelson would size an implant to be 

Case: 15-1672 Document: 70-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/09/2016
6 IN RE: NUVASIVE, INC. 

both long and wide (not long and narrow) in order to 

maximize the surface area of contact with the vertebrae, 

as taught by Michelson. NuVasive further argued that 

there was no reason for a person of skill in the art to 

combine the length of Michelson with the length-to-width 

ratio of the primary references, because doing so would 

make the resulting implant an unsuitable size for the 

intended insertion path of the primary references, which 

NuVasive contends were inserted from the front or back, 

not the side.

In its replies, Medtronic pointed to Michelson’s Figure 18 specifically and argued that it disclosed an implant 

whose length was greater than 40 mm and at least 2.5

times its width.

NuVasive objected to Medtronic’s argument regarding

Michelson’s Figure 18, which it contended was a new 

ground of invalidity asserted for the first time on reply. It 

requested leave to file motions to strike or, alternatively, 

surreplies, which the Board denied. NuVasive also attempted to address the matter at oral argument, but the 

Board refused to allow NuVasive to make substantive 

arguments in response. When Medtronic made arguments relating to Michelson’s Figure 18 in its rebuttal 

time, NuVasive objected again, but the Board assured

NuVasive that it understood NuVasive’s position and 

would consider the propriety of Medtronic’s arguments

when making a final decision. 

The Board ultimately held, in IPR507, that claims 1–

5, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 19–28 would have been obvious over 

Frey and Michelson, but it upheld claim 18. In IPR508, 

the Board held that claims 1–5, 10, 11, 14–17, and 19–28 

would have been obvious over either SVS-PR or Telamon 

in view of Baccelli and Michelson, but it upheld claim 18. 

The Board’s decisions relied heavily on its findings 

that Michelson, by itself, discloses both disputed dimensional limitations in a single implant—one whose length 

Case: 15-1672 Document: 70-2 Page: 6 Filed: 11/09/2016
IN RE: NUVASIVE, INC. 7

is both greater than 40 mm and at least 2.5 times its 

width—so that no combining of references was needed to 

arrive at an implant that meets both requirements. Thus, 

in IPR507, the Board never found that Frey teaches an 

implant with a length at least 2.5 times the width. Rather, it found that if one combined (1) Michelson’s teaching that the preferred overall width of the implant was 

26 mm with (2) Michelson’s teaching that at least two 

“narrower” implants could be combined to fit that space, 

then at least one of the “narrower” implants would be at 

most 13 mm wide, which is less than the preferred length 

(42 mm) divided by 2.5. IPR507 Board Decision at *5. On 

that basis, the Board concluded that “it would have been 

obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided 

an implant with a length of greater than 40 mm (e.g., 

42 mm) and at least 2.5 times the width.” Id. at *6. 

Similarly, in IPR508, the Board did not find that SVSPR or Telamon discloses an implant whose length is at 

least 2.5 times its width. Rather it “credit[ed] the testimony [submitted along with Medtronic’s reply] of Petitioner’s Declarant (Dr. Richard A. Hynes) that Michelson 

discloses a spinal implant with a length that is greater 

than 40mm and at least 2.5 times the width,” made the 

same calculations it made in IPR507, and came to the 

same conclusion verbatim. IPR508 Board Decision at *4. 

NuVasive appeals. Medtronic had cross-appealed 

from the Board’s decisions regarding claim 18, but Medtronic later withdrew, and we dismissed, the crossappeals (Nos. 2015-1674, -1712). The Director of the PTO 

intervened to defend the Board’s rulings against NuVasive’s inadequate-process challenges. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

II

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, we must 

“hold unlawful and set aside agency action . . . not in 

accordance with law [or] . . . without observance of proceCase: 15-1672 Document: 70-2 Page: 7 Filed: 11/09/2016
8 IN RE: NUVASIVE, INC. 

dure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706. In the non-IPR 

setting, we have made clear that whether a ground the 

Board relied on was “new,” requiring a new opportunity to 

respond, is a question of law, subject to de novo review. 

See In re Stepan Co., 660 F.3d 1341, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 

No different standard of review is called for on the closely 

related issue in the IPR context. See Belden Inc. v. BerkTek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting 

similarity of issues). Obviousness is a question of law 

based on underlying determinations of fact. See, e.g., id. 

at 1073. We review the Board’s conclusions of law de 

novo and its findings of fact for substantial evidence. Id.

We first address NuVasive’s procedural challenges to 

the Board’s reliance on Michelson’s Figure 18 in the two 

IPRs. We then address NuVasive’s remaining challenges. 

A 

“A patent owner in [NuVasive’s] position is undoubtedly entitled to notice of and a fair opportunity to meet 

the grounds of rejection,” based on due-process and APA 

guarantees. Belden, 805 F.3d at 1080. “For a formal 

adjudication like the inter partes review considered here, 

the APA imposes particular requirements on the PTO. 

The agency must ‘timely inform[]’ the patent owner of ‘the 

matters of fact and law asserted,’ 5 U.S.C. § 554(b)(3), 

must provide ‘all interested parties opportunity for the 

submission and consideration of facts [and] arguments . . . 

[and] hearing and decision on notice,’ id. § 554(c), and 

must allow ‘a party . . . to submit rebuttal evidence . . . as 

may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts,’ 

id. § 556(d).” Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 818 F.3d 1293, 

1301 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (alterations in original). While “the 

rules and practices of the Board generally protect against 

loss of patent rights without the required notice and 

opportunity to respond,” Belden, 805 F.3d at 1080 (emphasis added), those rules and practices protect against 

such loss in a given case only when, upon a proper reCase: 15-1672 Document: 70-2 Page: 8 Filed: 11/09/2016
IN RE: NUVASIVE, INC. 9

quest, the PTO actually provides the opportunities required by the APA and due process. 

1 

Although the Board is not limited to citing only portions of the prior art specifically drawn to its attention, in 

this case it is clear that the Board treated Michelson’s 

Figure 18 as an essential part of its obviousness findings

identifying claim elements in the prior art. It relied on 

Michelson’s Figure 18 and nothing else for a prior-art 

disclosure of an implant having a length that is greater 

than 40 mm and at least 2.5 times its width. The Board 

made no findings that another reference disclosed an 

implant having both those characteristics. Nor did it find 

that such dimensions would have been obvious even if not 

found together in a single piece of prior art. Nor, indeed, 

did the Board find a prior-art implant having a length at 

least 2.5 times its width and then explain the obviousness 

of a combination of that limitation with the distinct 

requirement of sufficient length. 

We are in no position to treat the Board’s finding 

about Michelson’s Figure 18 as immaterial given the 

limited other findings so far made by the Board. Nor can 

this factual finding be analogized to others that merely 

reinforce the meaning of another prior-art disclosure. 

Thus, the Figure 18 finding did not “merely serve[ ] to 

describe the state of the art [at the time of the invention],” 

informing the understanding of another, separate priorart disclosure of a claim limitation. Genzyme Therapeutic 

Prods. Ltd. v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 

1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that the Board did not 

violate the APA by citing references not part of the combinations set forth in the institution decisions where those 

references “merely served to describe the state of the art 

[at the time of invention],” and were “not among the prior 

art references that the Board relied upon to establish any 

claim limitations”); Belden, 805 F.3d at 1079 (noting that 

Case: 15-1672 Document: 70-2 Page: 9 Filed: 11/09/2016
10 IN RE: NUVASIVE, INC. 

certain explanatory evidence was not “necessary to the 

prima facie case”).

Under the APA’s standards, NuVasive was entitled to 

an adequate opportunity to respond to this asserted fact 

about Michelson. And under the APA’s fact-specific 

standard, common sense, and this court’s precedent, that 

entitlement was not lessened in this case by virtue of the 

opportunity NuVasive had to respond to other factual

assertions about Michelson. In Dell, we held that an 

opportunity to respond was needed when the petitioner, to 

make its anticipation showing, newly pointed to a previously unmentioned portion of the allegedly anticipatory 

prior-art patent, even though it had earlier focused extensively on other portions of that prior-art patent. 818 F.3d 

at 1301. In the related, non-IPR context, we have relied 

on the APA’s requirements to find a “new ground” where 

“the thrust of the rejection” has changed, even when the 

new ground involved the same prior art as earlier asserted grounds of invalidity. In re Leithem, 661 F.3d 1316, 

1319 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, the assertion about Figure 18 on which the Board ultimately relied is sufficiently 

distinct from Medtronic’s other assertions about Michelson that NuVasive was entitled to the APA-required 

opportunity to respond to it. 

2 

In IPR507, NuVasive had that opportunity. There is 

no dispute that NuVasive’s Patent Owner Response was 

an adequate opportunity to respond if Medtronic’s petition put NuVasive on notice of the assertion about Figure 18. In IPR507, we conclude that the notice was at 

least minimally sufficient.

In IPR507, Medtronic’s petition cited the Michelson 

text that specifically discusses Figure 18 in addition to 

nearby figures in Michelson. The petition did so in asserting that the text shows “longer than wide” implants. J.A. 

172. The only limitation in the ’334 patent addressing a 

Case: 15-1672 Document: 70-2 Page: 10 Filed: 11/09/2016
IN RE: NUVASIVE, INC. 11

comparison of length to width is the one requiring length 

at least 2.5 times width. It is true that Medtronic did not 

make a clear or direct reference to that limitation or a 

clear or direct assertion that the 2.5 ratio is shown in 

Michelson, in Figure 18 or elsewhere. But we think that 

the citation of the text discussing Figure 18, plus the 

reference to “longer than wide” implants, should have put 

NuVasive on notice that it was obliged to use its Patent 

Owner Response to address Figure 18 and its relationship 

to the length/width ratio claim limitation. 

3 

IPR508 is different. In that proceeding, Medtronic did 

not include in its petition the same citations to or assertions about the Michelson passage that it included in the 

IPR507 petition. In IPR508, unlike IPR507, there was no 

notice of the Figure 18 point before NuVasive filed its 

Patent Owner Response. The opportunity to file that 

Response therefore did not provide the required opportunity to address the factual assertion about Figure 18 on 

which the Board ultimately relied.

Despite the consolidated hearing in the two proceedings, the Board treated each inter partes review as a 

separate, distinct proceeding, and it issued separate final 

written decisions, independently invalidating some of the 

same claims based on different mixes of prior art. The 

Director has furnished no persuasive basis on which we 

are prepared to hold that a (barely sufficient) notice in 

one proceeding constituted an obligation-triggering notice 

in the other proceeding in which a comparable notice was 

missing. Nor do we see a basis for concluding that the 

Board could rely on the Figure 18 point in IPR508, where 

no sufficient notice was given, just because NuVasive 

chose, in cut-and-paste fashion, to include highly similar 

discussions of Michelson in its Patent Owner Responses 

in the two proceedings. We note that neither of NuVasive’s Responses addresses Figure 18, even while they do 

Case: 15-1672 Document: 70-2 Page: 11 Filed: 11/09/2016
12 IN RE: NUVASIVE, INC. 

address some of the content of the Michelson passage 

cited by Medtronic in the IPR507 petition.2

Not until Medtronic’s Reply, after NuVasive’s Patent 

Owner Response, was NuVasive given fair notice in 

IPR508 of the Figure 18 factual assertion on which the 

Board eventually relied. But at no point after the Reply 

did the Board give NuVasive the required opportunity to 

respond to that point. Despite requests from NuVasive, 

the Board refused to permit NuVasive to file a surreply or 

even to address the matter during oral argument. 

The Director points out that, although NuVasive was 

prohibited from filing a motion to strike or a surreply, it 

was permitted to cross-examine Dr. Hynes, the relevant 

expert for Medtronic, and to file “observations” on the 

cross-examination. We have identified such observations 

as among the vehicles available to protect against APA 

violations, but we have not declared that vehicle always 

sufficient to ensure the required opportunity to respond. 

Belden, 805 F.3d at 1081. Here, the opportunity to file 

observations was not enough. “Observations” are not a 

vehicle for submitting new evidence, including new expert 

declarations, by the patent owner. Indeed, the permitted 

content and format of observations are tightly circumscribed, see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. 

2 What NuVasive said in its Responses was enough 

to allow the Board to conclude that Medtronic’s Reply 

assertions about Figure 18 came within the rule that “[a] 

reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, 

or patent owner response.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). But 

satisfying that rule does not mean that the pre-Response 

notice was sufficient. See In re Biedermann, 733 F.3d 

329, 338 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“A new ground of rejection is 

not negated by the fact that the Board is responding to an 

appellant’s argument.”).

 

Case: 15-1672 Document: 70-2 Page: 12 Filed: 11/09/2016
IN RE: NUVASIVE, INC. 13

Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012), and here the Board 

rejected portions of NuVasive’s observations for being too 

argumentative. We cannot view “observations” as a 

substitute for the opportunity to present arguments and 

evidence. 

B 

1 

Finding no procedural violation in IPR507, we consider NuVasive’s remaining arguments against the Board’s 

obviousness ruling in that IPR. NuVasive contends that 

the Board impermissibly relied on speculation to find that 

Michelson taught an implant whose length is 2.5 times its 

width and that the Board did not sufficiently find a reason to combine Michelson with the primary references. 

We reject those contentions.

As to what Michelson discloses: Far from relying on 

speculation, the Board had a solid basis in Medtronic’s 

argument and in Michelson itself for finding that Figure 18 disclosed an implant having both the length and 

width characteristics at issue. The Board “base[d] its 

decision on arguments that were advanced by a party,” In

re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. 

Cir. 2016), and, “[i]n the circumstances here,” could 

permissibly “rely on its own reading of [Michelson]—

supported by the Petition’s observations about it”—to find

that the claim-required implant characteristics were

disclosed, Belden, 805 F.3d at 1074. 

Medtronic pointed the Board to Figure 18 and the corresponding description as supporting the proposition that 

Michelson disclosed longer-than-wide implants. Michelson’s specification expressly states that the preferred 

length of embodiment 900 was 42 mm and the preferred 

width was 26 mm. Michelson, col. 10, lines 42–47. It 

then states that “spinal fusion implant 1000 is similar to 

the spinal fusion implant 900, but has a narrower width 

Case: 15-1672 Document: 70-2 Page: 13 Filed: 11/09/2016
14 IN RE: NUVASIVE, INC. 

such that more than one spinal fusion implant 1000 may 

be combined in a modular fashion for insertion within the 

disc space.” Id., col. 10, lines 50–55. Figure 18 shows 

implant 1000, and Figure 19 shows three implant 1000s 

lined up in the disk space. Id., Figures 18 & 19. Even if 

Figure 19 were taken as showing only two implants (its 

point is to show more than one), this is substantial, and 

anything but speculative, evidence from which to infer 

that at least one of the set of “narrower” implants must be 

at most 13 mm wide (at its maximum), which is less than 

the preferred length (42 mm) divided by 2.5 (16.8 mm). 

As to reasons to combine: The Board did not have to 

find a reason that a relevant artisan would combine the 

length of an implant from one prior-art reference with the 

length-to-width ratio of an implant from another reference, because it found that Michelson disclosed an implant meeting both limitations. Although the Board did 

not make findings as to whether any of the other claim 

limitations (such as fusion apertures or anti-migration 

teeth) are disclosed in the prior art, it did not have to: 

NuVasive did not present arguments about those limitations to the Board. 

NuVasive’s arguments before the Board focused only 

on the dimensions of the implant—(1) that it would not 

have been obvious to modify Frey to have a length greater 

than 40 mm because it would make Frey unsuitable for 

its intended path of insertion, (2) that it would not have 

been obvious to lengthen Frey to be longer than the intraannulus region in which Frey was intended to sit, and 

(3) that if a skilled artisan had undertaken to modify Frey 

according to Michelson, the resulting implant would have 

been long and wide (not long and narrow) because Michelson stresses the importance of maximizing surface-area

contact with the vertebrae. Substantial evidence supports 

the Board’s specific findings that (1) “a spinal implant 

measuring up to 45 mm in length” would not render Frey 

“inoperable” for its intended purpose, even if Frey were 

Case: 15-1672 Document: 70-2 Page: 14 Filed: 11/09/2016
IN RE: NUVASIVE, INC. 15

limited to use in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion 

(TLIF) procedures, IPR507 Board Decision at *4; (2) an 

implant could be longer than 40 mm and not violate the 

teaching of Frey that it fit within the inner-annulus 

region, id. at *4–5; and (3) Michelson in fact teaches the 

relevant long-and-narrow implants, id. at *5. This was 

sufficient to make an affirmative, supported case for the 

obviousness of the challenged ’334 claims, given the 

limited arguments presented by NuVasive. The Board, 

having found the only disputed limitations together in one 

reference, was not required to address undisputed matters.

In particular, NuVasive argues on appeal (1) that a 

skilled artisan would never have made a long-and-narrow 

implant for any use other than as a component to be 

assembled into a single, oversized, modular implant; (2) 

that, given the state of modular implants at the time of 

the invention, no one would have tried to make one; and

(3) that the boomerang-shaped Frey implant would not 

have been suitable to be modified to be modular. But

NuVasive did not present any meaningful argument to 

that effect to the Board. The Board cannot be faulted for 

not addressing such an argument where, as we have 

determined for IPR507, NuVasive was on notice, before it 

filed its Patent Owner Response, that Michelson’s Figure 18 could be used to disclose the dimensional limitations of the ’334 patent and therefore was on notice that 

those dimensions might be combined with other prior-art 

references. 

2 

In IPR508, we have found a procedural violation. 

That finding does not support reversal of the Board’s 

cancellations. Rather, it warrants a remand for further 

proceedings. 

NuVasive relies on the Board’s statements finding inadequate Medtronic’s showings with respect to claim 18, 

Case: 15-1672 Document: 70-2 Page: 15 Filed: 11/09/2016
16 IN RE: NUVASIVE, INC. 

which requires particular dimensions—namely, a length 

greater than 40 mm and a maximum width of 18 mm. See

IPR508 Board Decision at *8; see also IPR507 Board 

Decision at *6. But those statements do not entail a 

failure of proof of obviousness as to claims lacking the 

particular dimensional requirements of claim 18. They do 

not decide more generally that it would not have been 

obvious to combine “one dimension from one implant with 

a second dimension from another implant.” Resp. & 

Reply Br. 30–31; see id. at 39–40. Nor do they preclude 

the Board from considering the import of Michelson’s 

Figure 18 after giving NuVasive a full opportunity to 

submit additional evidence and arguments on that point. 

See In re Kumar, 418 F.3d 1361, 1367–69 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s final 

written decision in IPR2013-507, invalidating claims 1–5, 

10, 11, 14, 15, and 19–28 and upholding claim 18. We 

vacate the Board’s decision in IPR2013-508 and remand 

for further proceedings regarding claims 16 and 17 in 

accordance with this opinion.

No costs. 

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND 

REMANDED

Case: 15-1672 Document: 70-2 Page: 16 Filed: 11/09/2016