Opinion ID: 183656
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: We take a different view as to the remaining

Text: claims, and we affirm the court’s decision to deny Globus’s motion for JMOL with respect to claims 47 and 74 of the ’929 patent and claim 48 of the ’422 patent. Claim 47 depends on claim 45 and requires that “the instrument comprises a mechanical guide for directing the connecting element along a predetermined path.” ’929 patent, col. 18, ll. 55-58. The trial court explained that “the meaning of claim 47 is clear: the instrument includes an apparatus that can mechanically guide the connecting element along its path to its ultimate location rather than simply placing the connecting element in the predetermined location.” Claim 74 of the ’929 patent requires that the inserter be referenced to the anchors and that the inserter itself function to move the connecting element along a predetermined path. Similarly, method claim 48 of the ’422 patent requires “an insertion instrument referenced to the pair of anchors.” Those limitations clearly distinguish these three claims from the McAfee prior art procedure in which the surgeon, not the instrument, performs the critical referencing and guiding functions. Accord13 WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC v. GLOBUS MEDICAL ingly, the district court properly sustained the jury’s finding that claims 47 and 74 of the ’929 patent and claim 48 of the ’422 patent are not invalid. In sum, we reverse the judgment as to claim 45 of the ’929 patent and claim 42 of the ’422 patent. We affirm the judgment as to claims 47 and 74 of the ’929 patent and claim 48 of the ’422 patent. We remand this case to the district court to determine if the calculation of damages must be reevaluated in light of the modification of the judgment. Each party shall bear its own costs for this appeal. AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED