Stryker & Wright Medical v. OsteoMed — Federal Circuit Splits Patentability Ruling
Stryker Corporation and Wright Medical Technology challenged OsteoMed, LLC over US9351776B2, a patent covering a bone plate with a transfixation screw hole. The Federal Circuit issued a split decision — affirming, vacating, and reversing in part — after 843 days of appellate proceedings, signalling contested validity across multiple claim groups.
A fractured Federal Circuit ruling on orthopaedic bone plate validity
Stryker Corporation and Wright Medical Technology, Inc. filed this appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 13 June 2023, challenging an earlier patentability determination involving OsteoMed, LLC. The dispute centres on US9351776B2, which claims a bone plate incorporating a transfixation screw hole — a structural feature relevant to orthopaedic fracture fixation. The case was litigated through McAndrews, Held & Malloy for the plaintiffs and K&L Gates for OsteoMed.
The Federal Circuit closed the case on 3 October 2025 with a notably fragmented disposition: affirmed-in-part, vacated and remanded-in-part, and reversed-in-part — with a portion of the appeal also dismissed. This outcome suggests the court found different merits across distinct claim groupings or distinct issues on appeal. The vacatur and remand component means at least part of the underlying patentability determination was nullified and sent back for further proceedings, leaving OsteoMed’s patent in a state of partial uncertainty.
An 843-day appellate timeline is consistent with a substantively complex invalidity or cancellation proceeding — likely involving multiple patent claims with differing prior art analyses. The split outcome typically reflects the Federal Circuit’s granular, claim-by-claim approach to patentability challenges. The public record does not disclose which specific claims were affirmed, vacated, or reversed, nor the precise prior art grounds at issue, leaving both parties with continued strategic decisions to make regarding the remanded portions.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in Part in 843 days
843 days — longer than the median Federal Circuit patent appeal (~18 months)
Federal Circuit splits: what the affirmed, vacated, and reversed ruling means
A three-way split: affirmed, vacated-remanded, and reversed
A Federal Circuit decision that is simultaneously affirmed-in-part, vacated and remanded-in-part, and reversed-in-part reflects a claim-by-claim patentability analysis. ‘Affirmed’ means the lower tribunal’s finding stood on those claims. ‘Vacated and remanded’ nullifies the lower decision on other claims and returns them for reconsideration. ‘Reversed’ means the court reached the opposite conclusion on the remaining claims. Each disposition carries distinct consequences for enforceability.
Split appellate dispositionOsteoMed retains some claims but faces remand uncertainty
The affirmed-in-part component benefits OsteoMed as patent holder — those claims survived the appellate challenge and remain valid and enforceable. However, the vacatur and remand means other claims return to a lower tribunal for further patentability analysis, leaving enforceability incomplete. The reversed-in-part component represents a loss for OsteoMed on at least one claim grouping. The net position is partial patent survival pending remand resolution.
Partial enforceability retainedStryker and Wright Medical secure a partial win, with more to come
For Stryker and Wright Medical, the reversal-in-part is a meaningful appellate win — the Federal Circuit found reversible error in the lower body’s patentability assessment on at least some claims. The vacatur and remand creates a second opportunity to invalidate additional claims before the tribunal below. The affirmed-in-part component confirms that some claims were upheld despite the challenge. Overall, the challengers have meaningfully narrowed OsteoMed’s enforceable claim scope.
Partial invalidity securedBone plate freedom-to-operate remains unsettled pending remand
Companies designing or selling orthopaedic bone plates with transfixation screw hole features should monitor the remand proceedings closely. The affirmed claims remain active blocking rights. The reversed claims may now be unenforceable. Remanded claims are in legal limbo — products potentially covered by those claims occupy a grey zone until the lower tribunal issues a new determination. Prudent FTO analysis should map product features against all three claim categories separately.
Monitor remand proceedingsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Stryker Corporation | Company | Orthopaedic device companies — co-holders of challenge rights against US9351776B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Wright Medical Technology, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | OsteoMed, LLC | Company | OsteoMed, LLC — orthopaedic implant and fixation device company, patent owner of US9351776B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sharon Hwang | Attorney | Counsel for Stryker CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | McAndrews, Held & Malloy Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Stryker CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason Alexander Engel | Attorney | Counsel for OsteoMed, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | K&L Gates, LLP | Law Firm | Representing OsteoMed, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order — affirmed-in-part, vacated and remanded-in-part, reversed-in-part, with part of the appeal also dismissed — reflects a granular, claim-differentiated review under the applicable appellate standard. For patentability determinations, the Federal Circuit reviews legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. The tripartite disposition strongly suggests distinct prior art or claim construction issues applied across separate claim groupings, yielding different outcomes on each. Neither party achieved a full appellate victory: OsteoMed retains enforceable affirmed claims but faces remand exposure and the loss of reversed claims; Stryker and Wright Medical advanced their invalidity case but did not eliminate the patent entirely.
US9351776B2 — Bone plate with transfixation screw hole
US9351776B2, filed under application number US14/015900, protects a bone plate design featuring a transfixation screw hole — a structural element that permits a screw to pass through the plate and into bone at a specific trajectory to enhance fixation stability. This technology sits within orthopaedic trauma and extremity fixation, a segment where small mechanical differentiations in plate and screw geometry drive significant clinical and commercial competition. The patent was held by OsteoMed, LLC, a specialist in craniofacial and extremity fixation implants.
Bone plate patents occupy a strategically dense area of orthopaedic IP. Screw hole geometry — including transfixation configurations — is frequently the subject of validity challenges because prior art in surgical fixation is extensive and heavily documented. The Federal Circuit’s willingness to reverse at least part of the patentability determination suggests genuine prior art proximity on certain claim limitations. For competitors including major orthopaedic groups like Stryker, invalidating even a subset of claims in a competitor’s bone plate patent can unlock design freedom and alter competitive dynamics in extremity fixation product lines.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9351776B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing orthopaedic bone plates with transfixation or cross-screw hole configurations should treat this case as a direct FTO trigger. The affirmed claims in US9351776B2 remain active blocking rights today. The remanded claims are in legal limbo and could be reinstated or invalidated — a binary outcome that directly affects whether your product requires a design-around. R&D and regulatory teams should not assume the vacatur provides freedom; it does not, pending remand resolution.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s bone plate geometry against the affirmed, pending, and reversed claim sets in US9351776B2, flagging specific claim limitations that your design must clear. Eureka’s claim chart automation accelerates the process of distinguishing affirmed from remanded claim scope — a nuance that manual FTO often misses. Set up automated monitoring on the remand docket so your IP team receives real-time alerts when the lower tribunal issues its reconsidered determination.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9351776B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals on orthopaedic device patentability
These Federal Circuit cases involve comparable patentability challenges to orthopaedic fixation device patents, including bone plate and screw system claims.
What this case signals for the orthopaedic fixation IP landscape
A Federal Circuit split on bone plate patentability raises the stakes for every competitor in orthopaedic fixation device design.
Split Federal Circuit rulings signal claim drafting risk in device patents
When the Federal Circuit affirms, vacates, and reverses different portions of the same patentability decision, it consistently signals that the original claims were not drafted with uniform structural clarity. Device patent holders in orthopaedics should audit existing claim sets for differentiated vulnerability before asserting or defending them.
Remand creates a second validity battleground — competitors should track it
The vacated-and-remanded claims in US9351776B2 will return to a lower tribunal for reconsideration. Until that proceeding concludes, any company whose products feature transfixation screw hole geometry in bone plates faces residual infringement risk on those specific claims. Active monitoring of remand docket filings is commercially prudent.
Stryker v OsteoMed — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit issued a split decision: affirmed-in-part, vacated and remanded-in-part, and reversed-in-part, with part of the appeal also dismissed. This means different claim groupings of US9351776B2 received different patentability determinations. The case closed on 3 October 2025 after 843 days of appellate proceedings.
The case concerns US9351776B2 (application number US14/015900), held by OsteoMed, LLC. The patent covers a bone plate with a transfixation screw hole — an orthopaedic fracture fixation device. The validity of this patent was the subject of the invalidity and cancellation action appealed to the Federal Circuit.
The vacated-and-remanded-in-part disposition nullifies the lower tribunal’s patentability finding on the affected claims and returns them for reconsideration. Those claims are neither confirmed valid nor invalid — they are in procedural limbo. Companies whose bone plate products may be covered by those claims face residual infringement risk until the remand proceeding concludes.
The reversed-in-part component means the Federal Circuit found reversible error in the lower tribunal’s patentability determination on at least one claim grouping, effectively finding those claims invalid or otherwise unpatentable. OsteoMed cannot enforce reversed claims against competitors. The practical scope of the reversal depends on which specific claims were affected, information not fully detailed in the public docket.
Stryker Corporation and Wright Medical Technology, Inc. were represented by Sharon Hwang of McAndrews, Held & Malloy Ltd. OsteoMed, LLC was represented by Jason Alexander Engel of K&L Gates, LLP. Both firms are prominent in patent litigation before the Federal Circuit.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.