Stryker Corporation, Wright Medical Technology, Inc. v. OSTEOMED LLC, Cross-Appellant 2023-1925, 2023-1926, 2023-1928, 2023-1929, 2023-1979…

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
STRYKER CORPORATION, WRIGHT MEDICAL
TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Appellants
v.
OSTEOMED LLC,
Cross-Appellant
______________________
2023-1925, 2023-1926, 2023-1928, 2023-1929, 2023-1979
______________________
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2021-
01450, IPR2021-01451, IPR2021-01452, IPR2021-01453.
-------------------------------------------------
STRYKER CORPORATION, WRIGHT MEDICAL
TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Appellants
v.
OSTEOMED LLC,
Appellee
______________________
2023-2010, 2023-2011, 2023-2012
Case: 23-1925 Document: 66 Page: 1 Filed: 10/03/2025

-- 1 of 17 --

STRYKER CORPORATION v. OSTEOMED LLC 2
______________________
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2022-
00189, IPR2022-00190, IPR2022-00191.
______________________
Decided: October 3, 2025
______________________
SHARON A. HWANG, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.,
Chicago, IL, argued for appellants. Also represented by
SCOTT P. MCBRIDE, S EAN SPARROW , I, ROBERT A. SURRETTE .
D EVON C. BEANE, Alston & Bird LLP, Chicago, IL, ar-
gued for cross-appellant. Also represented by J ASON A.
ENGEL , K&L Gates LLP, Chicago, IL.
______________________
Before H UGHES , BRYSON, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
HUGHES , Circuit Judge.
This appeal arises from a series of IPRs challenging
four related patents owned by OsteoMed, each of which
claims a system for securing bones together across a joint
using bone plates. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board
found some of the challenged claims patentable and others
unpatentable. Stryker challenges holdings of patentability
in its appeal; OsteoMed challenges holdings of unpatenta-
bility in its cross-appeal. Regarding Stryker’s appeal, we
conclude that substantial evidence does not support the
Board’s finding that the Slater reference did not anticipate
the independent claims, reverse the Board’s finding of an-
ticipation as to the independent claims, and vacate and re-
mand for further proceedings to evaluate whether the
dependent claims are similarly anticipated by the cited
prior art grounds. Regarding OsteoMed’s cross-appeal,
Case: 23-1925 Document: 66 Page: 2 Filed: 10/03/2025

-- 2 of 17 --

STRYKER CORPORATION v. OSTEOMED LLC 3
because we agree with the Board’s relevant claim construc-
tions, we affirm.
I
This appeal concerns a set of four patents—U.S. Patent
Nos. 8,529,608; 9,351,776; 9,763,716; and 10,245,085
(Challenged Patents)—which share a specification1 and
claim a system for securing bones together across a joint
after a joint fusion surgery, including a bone plate with a
transfixation screw hole and a transfixation screw that can
be installed on the compression side of a joint while limit-
ing opening of the joint on the tension side.
Joint fusion is a surgical treatment option when
trauma to a joint or joint erosion causing cartilage wear
leads to painful motion. To achieve fusion, bone plates se-
cured by screws are used to hold the bones in alignment
and temporarily restrict use of the joint while it heals. See
J.A. 415 (1:12-18).
Each of the Challenged Patents’ claims recite a trans-
fixation screw configured to extend through the bone. This
configuration is especially important for use of the claimed
bone plates in the human foot because, while walking, the
bottom of the foot is in tension, and the Challenged Patents
claim absorbing this tensile load away from the joint bones
through the transfixation screw inserted into the bone
plate to increase stability and the chance of bone fusion.
J.A. 3509 (¶ 44).
The claimed system achieves this result using the lag
compression surgical technique, which is designed to create
and maintain compression across the area where the bone
1 Following the Appellant’s Opening Brief, we cite to
the ’608 patent when discussing the specification, which is
identical to the other patents’ specifications other than the
claims. Appellant’s Opening Br. 5 n.2.
Case: 23-1925 Document: 66 Page: 3 Filed: 10/03/2025

-- 3 of 17 --

STRYKER CORPORATION v. OSTEOMED LLC 4
needs to heal to stabilize the area. Lag compression typi-
cally requires a specialized screw that is partially
threaded2 only on the end furthest from the screw head to
draw the second bone, that is, the one further from the
screw head closer to the first, nearer bone across the joint.
As a result, typically only the second bone through which
the screw passes is threadably engaged to the transfixation
screw; the first bone typically interfaces with the smooth
portion of the screw and is slidably engaged with the screw.
J.A. 417–18 (6:64–7:12). The patents alternatively disclose
that, if the screw is threaded along its entire shaft, a larger
pilot hole can be drilled into the first bone to avoid threaded
engagement of the screw with the first hole. J.A. 418 (7:12–
17). In both instances, when the screw is advanced into the
second bone via threaded engagement, it draws the second
bone toward the first bone, compressing the joint—this re-
sults in what is called the “lag effect.” J.A. 415 (2:26–37).
The presence of the screw across the joint and its lag effect
are purported “technical advantages” that may “increase
the contact pressure on the bony interface of the joint, in-
creasing the probability of a positive fusion.” J.A. 415
(2:37–41).
The claimed bone plate also includes a spine and bridge
portion that spans across the joint. The Challenged Patents
further provide that the bridge portion of the plate may be
thicker than other portions of the plate to better absorb the
tensile load that the transfixation screw absorbs from the
second bone without undermining the integrity of the plate
(i.e., to prevent the plate from bending or breaking). J.A.
418 (8:7–11), J.A. 420 (cl. 1). The claimed plate has a spine
with three portions: a first end, a second end, and a bridge
2 Threading refers to the spiral pattern winding
around the surface of a screw that allows the screw to bet-
ter anchor itself with respect to the material with which
the screw engages.
Case: 23-1925 Document: 66 Page: 4 Filed: 10/03/2025

-- 4 of 17 --

STRYKER CORPORATION v. OSTEOMED LLC 5
portion that spans across the joint. The plate in some em-
bodiments has a hole at a fixed angle relative to the plate
designed to direct the screw trajectory to cross the neutral
bending axis of the joint, which allows for absorption of ten-
sion force from the joint. J.A. 417 (6:12–18).
The claims of the ’608, ’776, and ’716 patents are mate-
rially identical. See Appellant’s Opening Br. 11. Independ-
ent claim 11 of the ’608 patent is representative and
recites:
11. A plate for securing two discrete bones together
across an intermediate joint, comprising:
. . .
a transfixation screw hole disposed along the spine,
the transfixation screw hole comprising an inner
surface configured to direct a transfixation screw
through the transfixation screw hole such that the
transfixation screw extends alongside the bridge
portion at a trajectory configured to pass through a
first position on the first bone and a second position
on the second bone once the plate is placed across
the joint, enabling [Tensile Transfer Limita-
tion] said screw to absorb tensile load when
the second bone is loaded permitting transfer
of the tensile load through said screw into
said bridge, wherein at least a portion of said
bridge portion and said transfixation screw hole
has a thickness greater than at least a portion of
said first and second ends.
J.A. 421 (cl. 11) (emphasis added).3
3 The Tensile Transfer Limitations are recited in
claims 1 and 11 of the ’608 patent, claims 1 and 10 of the
’776 patent and claims 1, 10, and 16 of the ’716 patent. J.A.
435–36; 448–49.
Case: 23-1925 Document: 66 Page: 5 Filed: 10/03/2025

-- 5 of 17 --

STRYKER CORPORATION v. OSTEOMED LLC 6
The ’085 patent has similar claim language to the other
patents but does not include the Tensile Transfer Limita-
tions. Claim 1 recites:
1. A system for securing a first discrete bone and a
second discrete bone together across a joint between
the first discrete bone and the second discrete bone,
the system comprising:
a plate comprising:
. . .
an aperture defining [Bridge Limitation] a
transfixation screw hole disposed along
the spine at the thickened portion of the
bridge portion, the transfixation screw hole
comprising an inner surface configured to di-
rect a transfixation screw through the trans-
fixation screw hole such that the transfixation
screw extends at a trajectory configured to
pass through a first position on the first dis-
crete bone and a second position on the second
discrete bone once the plate is placed across
the joint.
J.A. 462 (cl. 1) (emphasis added). Dependent claim 8 of the
’085 patent further recites:
8. The system of claim 1, wherein:
a central axis of the inner surface of the trans-
fixation screw hole defines the trajectory; and
the trajectory is configured to cross a neutral
bending axis of the joint once the plate is placed
across the joint.
J.A. 463 (cl. 8) (emphasis added).
IPR Nos. 2021-01450, 2021-01451, 2021-01452, con-
cerned the ’608, ’776, and ’716, patents respectively. The
petitions for each IPR cited the same six grounds:
Case: 23-1925 Document: 66 Page: 6 Filed: 10/03/2025

-- 6 of 17 --

STRYKER CORPORATION v. OSTEOMED LLC 7
(1) Anticipation by Slater; (2) Obviousness over Slater in
view of Weaver; (3) Anticipation by Falkner; (4) Obvious-
ness over Falkner in view of Arnould; (5) Obviousness over
Arnould in View of Slater; and (6) Obviousness over Ar-
nould and Weaver.
IPR No. 2021-01453 concerned the ‘085 patent and the
petition cited nearly the same grounds as those referenced
above, with the exception to the sixth ground: “Obvious-
ness over Arnould in view of Slater and Weaver.” A second
set of petitions (IPR Nos. 2022-00189, 2022-00190, 2022-
00191) challenged dependent claims 15, 16, and 21 of the
’608, ’716, and ’776 Patents relying on two grounds: (1) An-
ticipation by Slater and (2) Obviousness over Falkner in
view of Duncan.
The relevant issues on appeal that we address in this
opinion concern the Slater reference. Slater, WO
2007/131287, is entitled “Ankle Fusion Plate” and is di-
rected to a bone plate for immobilizing a joint by fusion of
the adjacent bones in the ankle. J.A. 2491. The Slater bone
plate includes openings configured to allow a fixation screw
to pass through it and attach to various bones, allowing for
varying angles of advancing the fixation screw through the
plate. Depending on the orientation of the transfixation
screw, the Slater plate may be used to fuse one joint (where
the screw runs through the tibia and anchors to the talus
bone) or two joints (where the screw runs through the tibia
and talus before anchoring in the calcaneus bone). J.A.
2499–508 (8:27–29, 11:19–23, 12:3–5, 16:28–30, 17:3–5,
16:6–9), J.A. 2918 (¶ 122). Slater further teaches that por-
tion 20 of its plate includes a slotted opening 26 and for-
mation 27 configured to allow a screw 25 to be implanted
at an angle within a predetermined angular range, where
the surgeon chooses the particular orientation and re-
quired angle depending on the joints so as to achieve max-
imum compression of the fusion sites. J.A. 2502–03 (11:19–
22, 12:3–5); see also J.A. 3512–13 (¶ 56); J.A. 2515 (24:4–
Case: 23-1925 Document: 66 Page: 7 Filed: 10/03/2025

-- 7 of 17 --

STRYKER CORPORATION v. OSTEOMED LLC 8
8). Figure 1 of Slater shows an exemplary pathway through
the opening in which screw 25 engages only the tibia 4 and
talus 3 bones (to fuse the tibiotalar joint) and two exem-
plary pathways through the opening in which screw 25 en-
gages the tibia 4, talus 3, and calcaneus 28 bones (to fuse
both the tibiotalar joint and the subtalar (talocalcaneal)
joint). J.A. 2519. Slater also discloses that another embod-
iment of its screw, shown in Figure 4, is “adapted for inser-
tion in the plate of figures 1 and 2 . . . [It] has a longer
shank to increase depth of penetration and has an abbre-
viated threaded portion to allow the majority of the
shank to slide through aligned tibial and talus screw
holes finally anchoring in the calcaneus bone.” J.A.
2503–04 (12:32–13:3) (emphasis added).
J.A. 2519.
In its final written decisions, the Board concluded that
Stryker failed to demonstrate anticipation or obviousness
of the Tensile Transfer Limitations in all challenged claims
of the ’608, ’776, and ’716 patents. J.A. 25, 82, 144. With
respect to the ’085 patent, the Board held claims 1–7 un-
patentable, but further concluded that claims 8–9, which
include the Central Axis Limitation, were patentable. J.A.
177.
Case: 23-1925 Document: 66 Page: 8 Filed: 10/03/2025

-- 8 of 17 --

STRYKER CORPORATION v. OSTEOMED LLC 9
Stryker timely appealed, and OsteoMed timely cross-
appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(4)(A).
II
We review the Board’s claim constructions de novo and
its underlying factual determinations for substantial evi-
dence. See Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.
Ct. 831, 841 (2015). “Board findings establishing the scope
of the patented subject matter may fall within the ambit of
claim construction.” HTC Corp. v. Cellular Commc’ns
Equip., LLC, 877 F.3d 1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
“Anticipation is a question of fact reviewed for substan-
tial evidence.” In re Rambus, Inc., 753 F.3d 1253, 1256
(Fed. Cir. 2014). To anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102, a prior art reference “must not only disclose all ele-
ments of the claim within the four corners of the document,
but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the
claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation and quotation
marks omitted). The Board’s ultimate determination of ob-
viousness is a question of law reviewed de novo, with asso-
ciated factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence.
Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., 957 F.3d 1334, 1337
(Fed. Cir. 2020).
“The substantial evidence standard asks ‘whether a
reasonable fact finder could have arrived at the agency’s
decision,’ and ‘involves examination of the record as a
whole, taking into account evidence that both justifies and
detracts from an agency’s decision.’” OSI Pharms., LLC
v. Apotex Inc., 939 F.3d 1375, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
(quoting In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed. Cir.
2000)).
III
Stryker challenges the Board’s findings that Slater did
not anticipate the Tensile Transfer Limitations of the ’608,
Case: 23-1925 Document: 66 Page: 9 Filed: 10/03/2025

-- 9 of 17 --

STRYKER CORPORATION v. OSTEOMED LLC 10
’776, and ’716 patents and the Central Axis Limitation of
the ’085 patent. We address each in turn.
A
In its final written decision regarding the ’608 patent,
the Board found Stryker “ha[d] not established that Slater
expressly or inherently discloses the transfer of tensile load
limitations in claims 1 and 11 and therefore [did] not prove,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that Slater anticipates
either of claim 1 or 11.” J.A. 25.4 This finding was predi-
cated on the Board’s view that Slater does not disclose a
“vise configuration,” because Slater does not “disclose how
its lag screw threads interact with the first and second
bone,” and “does not state that the screw only engages in
the [terminal] bone.” J.A. 22. This reasoning was the
Board’s sole basis for finding the challenged independent
claims of the ’608, ’776, and ’716 patents were not antici-
pated by Slater nor rendered obvious by Slater in view of
Weaver. J.A. 21–27, 78–83, 140–45. Stryker contends this
holding should be reversed because the Board’s finding
that Slater did not anticipate the Tensile Transfer Limita-
tions is unsupported by substantial evidence. We agree.
The ’608, ’776, and ’716 patent claims specify that the
transfer of tensile load from the second bone through the
screw into the bridge portion of the bone plate occurs “when
4 OsteoMed argues that Stryker “did not advance an
inherency argument below and have waived such an argu-
ment on appeal.” OsteoMed Resp. Br. at 22. We disagree.
Not only did the Board consider inherency, see J.A. 25; see
also J.A. 21 (“The parties dispute whether Slater expressly
or inherently disclose[s] these limitations.”), it did so be-
cause this argument was adequately presented in Stryker’s
petition. See J.A. 521-22; see also J.A. 1107, 1121-24
(Stryker raising these arguments in reply brief before the
Board).
Case: 23-1925 Document: 66 Page: 10 Filed: 10/03/2025

-- 10 of 17 --

STRYKER CORPORATION v. OSTEOMED LLC 11
the second discrete bone is loaded.” J.A. 420–21 (12:28–31,
13:28–31). The shared specification explains that the na-
ture of the claimed transfixation screw and the way it is
screwed across the joint is what causes the transfer of ten-
sile forces:
[W]hen transfixation screw 150 is screwed across
joint 106 such that the head 152 of transfixation
screw 150 abuts the inner surface of transfixation
screw hole 102, the portion of transfixation screw
150 engaged with bone 104b [the second bone] will
pull against the head 152 of transfixation screw
150 when a load is applied to joint 106. Since the
head of transfixation screw 150 is braced against
the inner surface of transfixation screw hole 102, it
will absorb the tension forces transmitted up the
shaft of transfixation screw 150 . . . .
J.A. 417 (5:60–6:3). The specification further provides that
when the transfixation screw is a lag screw, it will tighten
the interface between the joint. J.A. 417 (6:50–58). The pa-
tents’ specifications never explicitly explain how the tensile
load is transferred from the second bone to the bridge por-
tion of the bone plate through the screw. See Appellant’s
Opening Br. 25.
The Board rejected Stryker’s argument that tensile
load was necessarily transferred to the bridge portion of
the bone plate when the transfixation screw is inserted
across the joint and the head of the transfixation screw
abuts the bone plate, explaining that Slater could only
meet the claimed “transfer of tensile load” language if its
lag screw included threads that interact with the bones in
a particular way; namely, engaging only the second bone
with no threads engaging any part of the first bone. J.A.
22–23. The Board admitted that Slater teaches, in a three-
bone joint, that “a second screw type 70” having “a longer
shank to increase depth of penetration and has an abbrevi-
ated threaded portion to allow the majority of the shank to
Case: 23-1925 Document: 66 Page: 11 Filed: 10/03/2025

-- 11 of 17 --

STRYKER CORPORATION v. OSTEOMED LLC 12
slide through aligned tibial and talus screw holes finally
anchoring in the calcaneus bone.” J.A. 22 (quoting Slater,
12:32–13:3). It noted that this description “does not state
that the screw only engages the third bone, the calcaneus
bone, and describes the ‘majority of the shank’ as ‘slid[ing]
through’ holes in the first two bones without stating that
none of the threads engage a portion of, for example, the
end of the second bone adjacent the third bone.” J.A. 22 (al-
teration in original). But no reasonable factfinder could
find that a skilled artisan would read “sliding” a screw
through a hole to suggest that the screw is threadably en-
gaged with the hole that it slides through. The Board’s find-
ing to the contrary lacks substantial evidence.
The Board also took an overly narrow view of anticipa-
tion inconsistent with our caselaw to conclude that Slater’s
disclosures regarding its three-bone embodiment were in-
applicable to its two-bone embodiment.5 The Board con-
cluded that “even if . . . Slater describes a three-bone
embodiment where the threads only engage the third bone,
5 Stryker characterizes the Board’s decision as cred-
iting OsteoMed’s argument that Slater’s disclosed lag
screw does not necessarily achieve the lag effect, see Appel-
lant’s Opening Br. 33–34; however, we do not read the
Board’s decision as saying that. Rather, its analysis seems
to hinge on the fact that Stryker’s cited disclosures discuss
the three-bone embodiment of Slater. See J.A. 22–24.
We recognize that the Board found OsteoMed’s expert’s
testimony “more credible and persuasive” than the testi-
mony of Stryker’s expert. J.A. 81. The Board stated that
the basis for this finding was the experts’ competing read-
ings of Slater. J.A. 81 (“We view the testimony of Mr. Som-
mers as more credible because it more accurately tracks
Slater’s disclosures.”). For all the reasons we have ex-
plained, however, the Board’s reading of Slater is not sup-
ported by substantial evidence.
Case: 23-1925 Document: 66 Page: 12 Filed: 10/03/2025

-- 12 of 17 --

STRYKER CORPORATION v. OSTEOMED LLC 13
Slater provides insufficient support for [Stryker’s] position
that the threads of screw type 70 only engage the second
bone in Slater’s two-bone embodiment.” J.A. 22. Notably,
this analysis is inconsistent with the Board’s analysis of
Slater in the IPR concerning the ’085 patent. In its Final
Written Decision concerning the ’085 patent, the Board in-
dicated that “any discussion” regarding the plate shown in
Slater Figure 1 “should be read as part of the two-bone em-
bodiment [that Stryker] relies on as well as the three-bone
embodiment,” J.A. 196, while for the other three challenged
patents the Board declined to consider Slater’s disclosures
made regarding its three-bone embodiment as applicable
to the two-bone embodiment, J.A. 22–23, 79–80, 141–42.
Indeed, in the final written decision for the ’085 patent, the
Board noted that “[t]he two-bone embodiment appears to
be an ‘alternate’ embodiment only insofar as it reflects an-
other angled pathway for the screw so it anchors in a sec-
ond and not a third bone” and “both the two-bone and
three-bone embodiments are depicted as alternatives
within the plate of Figure 1 itself.” Appellant’s Opening Br.
37–38 (alteration in original) (quoting J.A. 196).
OsteoMed cites Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) for the proposition
that an anticipatory reference must disclose elements “ar-
ranged as in the claim” to favor affirmance. Appellee’s
Opening Br. 1. However, we have distinguished Net Mon-
eyIN from cases where, as here, “[the prior art] explicitly
contemplates the combination of the disclosed functionali-
ties” and “expert testimony . . . support[s] [a] factual deter-
mination that one of skill in the art would read the
reference as disclosing the ability to combine the tools to
arrive at the invention recited in the . . . Patents.” See Blue
Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1343
(Fed. Cir. 2016).
Here, the Board does not point to a reason that Slater’s
disclosures regarding the three-bone embodiment would
not apply to the two-bone embodiment, since Slater
Case: 23-1925 Document: 66 Page: 13 Filed: 10/03/2025

-- 13 of 17 --

STRYKER CORPORATION v. OSTEOMED LLC 14
discloses that the screw would be used—albeit in different
lengths—to “allow for particular insertion points and spe-
cific characteristics (e.g. bone density) of [the] bone[s] at
points of fixation.” J.A. 2507 (16:30–32). The Board’s own
statements in the ’085 patent IPR proceeding establish
why disclosures regarding the three-bone embodiment
should be read to apply equally to the two-bone embodi-
ment. This case, then, like Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1343,
“is more akin to our decision in Kennametal[, Inc. v. Inger-
soll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)], where
we recognized that a reference can anticipate a claim even
if it does not expressly spell out all the limitations arranged
or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art,
reading the reference, would at once envisage the claimed
arrangement or combination.” The Board thus lacked sub-
stantial evidence support in concluding that the disclo-
sures made about Slater’s three-bone embodiment did not
apply to the two-bone embodiment as well.
OsteoMed’s efforts to characterize Stryker’s ground as
relying on a “mix-and-match of Slater’s various embodi-
ments and disclosures,” Appellee’s Opening Br. 28, is both
misleading and inconsistent with our precedent, which
clearly states that anticipation may still be found by dis-
parate disclosures in the same reference where the refer-
ence explicitly contemplates combining those disclosures.
See Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1341 (“[A] reference can an-
ticipate a claim even if it does not expressly spell out all the
limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a per-
son of skill in the art, reading the reference, would at once
envisage the claimed arrangement or combination.”
(cleaned up)).
The Board thus did not have substantial evidence sup-
port for its conclusion that Slater does not anticipate the
Tensile Transfer Limitations. We accordingly reverse the
Board’s holding that the independent claims of the ’608,
’776, and ’716 were not anticipated by Slater and vacate
Case: 23-1925 Document: 66 Page: 14 Filed: 10/03/2025

-- 14 of 17 --

STRYKER CORPORATION v. OSTEOMED LLC 15
and remand the Board’s determinations regarding antici-
pation or obviousness of the dependent claims for reconsid-
eration consistent with this opinion.
B
Stryker next challenges the Board’s finding that the
Central Axis Limitations of claims 8 and 9 of the ’085 pa-
tent were not anticipated by Slater. The Board found
Slater’s disclosure of a transfixation screw hole through
which the transfixation screws may be positioned at differ-
ent angles “lacks a central axis that defines a screw direc-
tory [sic, trajectory] as the claim requires.” J.A. 215. We
hold that this determination of fact was supported by sub-
stantial evidence.
Dependent claim 8 recites “a central axis of the inner
surface of the transfixation screw hole defines the trajec-
tory; and the trajectory is configured to cross a neutral
bending axis of the joint once the plate is placed across the
joint.” J.A. 463 (cl.8) (emphasis added). This claim thus
limits the trajectory of the screw claimed in claim 1, J.A.
462 (cl. 1), as being defined by the central axis of the screw
hole in the bone plate and being configured to cross a neu-
tral bending axis of the joint once the plate is placed across
the joint. However, the Board explained that “Slater knew
how to describe other holes as having a fixed angle but de-
liberately described transfixation hole 26 using different
language, making clear that ‘[o]pening 26 is meant to be a
variable angle hole.’” J.A. 215 (alteration in original). This
provides substantial evidence support for the Board’s con-
clusion that “[w]ithout any predetermined angle, hole 26
lacks a central axis that defines a screw directory as the
claim requires.” J.A. 215. The Board explained why it did
not credit Stryker’s expert testimony that the oblique hole
has a central axis that may define one of the possible screw
trajectories, since the very nature of this hole is that it ac-
commodates various angles such that the hole is not defin-
ing a single trajectory. See J.A. 215–16.
Case: 23-1925 Document: 66 Page: 15 Filed: 10/03/2025

-- 15 of 17 --

STRYKER CORPORATION v. OSTEOMED LLC 16
IV
In its cross-appeal, OsteoMed challenges two findings
of the Board related to the Bridge Limitation. Specifically,
OsteoMed contends the Board erred by (1) finding the lim-
itation that the hole be located “at” the bridge portion does
not encompass the hole being “adjacent to” the bridge por-
tion in view of the specification of the ’085 Patent, and
(2) ignoring that the claim limitation is “at the thickened
portion of the bridge portion” and not “at the bridge por-
tion.” Appellee’s Opening Br. 4. These are essentially chal-
lenges to the Board’s claim constructions and fail as they
are inconsistent with the plain reading of the claim terms
in view of the patent specification.
OsteoMed argues that the Board erred in construing
the limitation “‘at the bridge portion’ as at least encompass-
ing a hole adjacent to the bridge portion as the specification
describes.” Appellee’s Opening Br. 4 (quoting J.A. 205). But
in that same paragraph, the Board states “the ’085 patent
explains that the transfixation screw hole ‘may be included
in thickened section 136, adjacent to bridge portion 130.’”
J.A. 205 (quoting J.A. 460, 9:6–8). It elaborates that “[t]he
specification . . . undermines any reading of ‘at the bridge
portion’ to mean that the hole must be part of the bridge
portion because the specification describes the bridge por-
tion as free of voids and holes.” J.A. 205–06 (quoting J.A.
460, 8:32–41, 8:60–9:8). Indeed, the ’085 patent specifically
states that the bridge portion is “typically defined by an
unbroken section of spine 124 that is free of voids such as
positioning holes or screw holes that could potentially re-
duce the bending strength of bridge portion 130. Depending
upon design, bridge portion 130 may include a thickened
section 136 of bone plate 100” and that “[a]s an exam-
ple . . . , transfixation screw hole 102 may be disposed
along the center line 138 of spine 124, immediately adja-
cent to bridge portion 130.” J.A. 460, 8:32–41, 8:60–9:8.
This is sufficient support to find the Board did not err in its
construction, since the specification clearly provides that
Case: 23-1925 Document: 66 Page: 16 Filed: 10/03/2025

-- 16 of 17 --

STRYKER CORPORATION v. OSTEOMED LLC 17
the bridge portion is devoid of holes, and the thickened sec-
tion of bone plate is part of the bridge portion. OsteoMed’s
arguments to the contrary do not explain why the Board
was wrong to credit explicit disclosures in the specification.
The Board’s findings regarding the Central Axis Limitation
are supported by substantial evidence.
V
We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive.6 Regarding the ’608, ’776, and
’716 patents, we accordingly reverse the Board’s holding
that Slater does not anticipate the challenged independent
claims and vacate and remand for further proceedings to
evaluate whether the challenged dependent claims are
similarly anticipated or rendered obvious by the cited prior
art grounds in view of the analysis provided in this opinion.
Regarding the ’085 patent, we affirm the Board’s finding
that claims 1–7 are unpatentable as anticipated by Slater
and that claims 8–9 are not anticipated by Slater.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED AND REMANDED-
IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART
COSTS
Costs are awarded to Appellants.
6 Stryker also appealed the Board’s conclusion that
it failed to demonstrate anticipation or obviousness for
claims 1-6, 8-14, 16 and 17 of the ‘608 patent, 1-6, 8-13, and
15 of the ‘776 patent, claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-19, and 21 of the
‘716 patent, and claims 8-9 of the ‘085 patent in view of
Falkner, et al, but we find no reversible error in the Board’s
determinations on those grounds.
Case: 23-1925 Document: 66 Page: 17 Filed: 10/03/2025

-- 17 of 17 --