Stryker & Wright Medical v. OsteoMed: Federal Circuit Splits on Bone Plate Patent Validity
Stryker Corporation and Wright Medical Technology challenged OsteoMed, LLC over US9351776B2, a patent covering a bone plate with a transfixation screw hole. After 865 days before the Federal Circuit, the court issued a split ruling — affirming, reversing, and vacating-and-remanding portions of the patentability determination, signalling continued uncertainty for both parties.
A three-way Federal Circuit split reshapes orthopaedic fixation IP
Filed on 22 May 2023, Case No. 23-1926 brought Stryker Corporation and Wright Medical Technology, Inc. before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as appellants challenging a patentability determination involving US9351776B2. That patent, assigned application number US14/015900, protects a bone plate incorporating a transfixation screw hole — a structural innovation in orthopaedic fixation used in foot and ankle surgery. The respondent, OsteoMed, LLC, defended the patent’s validity across all contested grounds.
The Federal Circuit closed the case on 3 October 2025 with a notably fragmented outcome: portions of the lower tribunal’s patentability decision were affirmed, other portions were reversed outright, and still other portions were vacated and remanded for further proceedings. This split disposition means neither party achieved a definitive resolution — the affirmed portions stand as settled law between these parties, the reversed portions alter the validity landscape in Stryker and Wright Medical’s favour on specific claims or grounds, and the remanded portions remain live issues to be reconsidered below.
An 865-day appellate timeline is consistent with complex inter partes review or post-grant proceedings that involve multiple patent claims and contested obviousness or anticipation grounds. The partial dismissal noted in the basis of termination suggests certain appeal grounds were procedurally foreclosed before reaching the merits. The public record does not disclose the specific claim-by-claim breakdown, leaving open questions about which claims survive, which were cancelled, and the precise scope of the remand — all commercially material details for competitors operating in the bone plate and orthopaedic fixation space.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in Part in 865 days
865-day appellate proceeding — notably lengthy for a Federal Circuit patent validity appeal
Federal Circuit’s split ruling: what affirmed, reversed, and remanded each mean
A three-part verdict: affirmed, reversed, and remanded
The Federal Circuit’s split disposition is more complex than a simple affirmance or reversal. ‘Affirmed-in-part’ means the court found no reversible error in those portions of the lower decision — they stand. ‘Reversed-in-part’ means the appellate panel found legal or factual error requiring the opposite conclusion on specific issues. ‘Vacated and remanded-in-part’ nullifies those portions and sends them back to the lower tribunal for reconsideration under corrected legal standards. The appeal was also partially dismissed on procedural grounds.
Mixed appellate dispositionOsteoMed retains some claims; others are overturned or reopened
For OsteoMed as patent holder, the affirmed portions represent a meaningful validation — the Federal Circuit found no error in upholding those aspects of the patentability determination. However, the reversed portions represent a direct loss: the court found against OsteoMed on those specific issues, which likely affects the validity or scope of certain claims in US9351776B2. The remanded portions leave OsteoMed in continued uncertainty, with further proceedings required before those claim issues are finally resolved.
Partial patent survivalStryker and Wright Medical win on some grounds, face ongoing remand
Stryker and Wright Medical achieved a partial appellate success: the reversed-in-part disposition suggests the Federal Circuit agreed with their invalidity arguments on at least some claims or grounds, overturning the lower ruling in their favour. The vacated-and-remanded portions keep the door open for further wins below. However, the affirmed portions confirm that some aspects of OsteoMed’s patent survived their challenge intact. The partial dismissal suggests certain appeal grounds were not reached on the merits.
Partial challenger successBone plate IP landscape remains unsettled pending remand
For competitors and product teams working in orthopaedic fixation — particularly bone plates with transfixation screw technology — this outcome creates continued uncertainty. The reversed portions may narrow the enforceable scope of US9351776B2, reducing clearance risk on specific design approaches. But until remanded issues are resolved, the full claim scope of the patent remains contested. Companies evaluating freedom-to-operate in foot and ankle fixation hardware should monitor the remand proceedings closely before committing to product designs that could implicate surviving claims.
Monitor remand closelyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Stryker Corporation | Company | Orthopaedic medical device companies — appellants challenging validity of US9351776B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Wright Medical Technology, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | OsteoMed, LLC | Company | OsteoMed, LLC — orthopaedic implant manufacturer and patent holder defending 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 verdict phrase ‘AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED AND REMANDED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART’ reflects the Federal Circuit’s independent review of legal questions (de novo) and deference to factual findings (substantial evidence standard). Each disposition operates independently: affirmed portions close the appellate chapter on those issues; reversed portions end them in the challengers’ favour; vacated-and-remanded portions restart proceedings below under corrected guidance. The partial dismissal indicates some grounds never received merits consideration, likely for procedural or standing reasons. Neither party achieved a clean outcome.
US9351776B2 — Bone plate with transfixation screw hole
US9351776B2, filed under application number US14/015900, protects a bone plate design incorporating a transfixation screw hole — a structural feature that enables a screw to pass through the plate and into bone at a defined angle, providing enhanced fixation stability in orthopaedic procedures. This technology is particularly relevant in foot and ankle surgery, where precise screw placement across joint surfaces is critical to surgical outcomes. The patent sits within a highly competitive segment of orthopaedic implant design where incremental structural innovations attract significant commercial and litigation attention.
For competitors in the orthopaedic fixation market, US9351776B2 represents a potentially broad claim position over a specific plate-and-screw architecture used in podiatric and ankle procedures. OsteoMed’s ability to defend this patent through Federal Circuit proceedings — even partially — confirms its commercial value as an enforcement asset. The reversed portions suggest some claim scope has been narrowed or invalidated through this litigation, but the remanded issues mean the full enforceability picture remains unresolved. R&D teams developing bone plate systems should conduct fresh claim mapping against the post-appeal claim set before any new product launch.
Should you run an FTO against US9351776B2?
Any company designing or commercialising bone plates with integrated transfixation screw holes — particularly for foot, ankle, or small-bone applications — should treat US9351776B2 as a live FTO concern until the Federal Circuit remand is fully resolved. The partial affirmance confirms that at least some claims remain valid and enforceable as of the court’s October 2025 ruling. Given that both Stryker and OsteoMed are active enforcement participants in this space, the risk of claims being asserted against adjacent product designs is commercially material.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the current claim scope of US9351776B2 against your product specifications, flag design-around opportunities opened by the reversed claims, and monitor PTAB and Federal Circuit dockets for remand developments. For orthopaedic product teams operating under compressed development timelines, automated claim monitoring against this patent family provides an early-warning system before enforcement risk materialises.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9351776B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit orthopaedic implant patent validity appeals
Comparable Federal Circuit appeals involving orthopaedic fixation and bone plate patentability disputes, with similar mixed-disposition outcomes and PTAB post-grant review origins.
What this case signals for the orthopaedic fixation IP landscape
A Federal Circuit split ruling on bone plate patentability sends mixed signals to the orthopaedic implant sector — and raises the stakes for pending remand proceedings.
Split Federal Circuit rulings extend commercial uncertainty for competitors
When the Federal Circuit affirms, reverses, and remands different portions of a patentability decision, competitors face a fragmented legal landscape. Some claim scope is settled; other scope remains live. For product teams in bone plate and orthopaedic fixation, acting on incomplete FTO analysis before the remand resolves could create avoidable infringement risk on surviving claims.
Partial reversal signals vulnerability in OsteoMed’s original patentability defence
The Federal Circuit’s decision to reverse portions of the lower ruling — not merely remand — suggests the appellate panel identified clear legal or factual errors in how certain invalidity arguments were assessed. This is a higher bar than remand alone and typically signals that the reversed issues are unlikely to be resurrected in subsequent proceedings, offering some clearance signal to Stryker and Wright Medical on those specific grounds.
Stryker v OsteoMed — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit issued a split decision on 3 October 2025: affirming some portions of the lower patentability ruling, reversing others in Stryker and Wright Medical’s favour, and vacating-and-remanding remaining portions for further proceedings. The appeal was also partially dismissed. No single party achieved a complete win.
The patent at issue is US9351776B2 (application number US14/015900), which covers a bone plate with a transfixation screw hole — an orthopaedic fixation device used in foot and ankle surgery. The case raised invalidity and cancellation arguments across multiple patent claims.
Affirmed-in-part means some claims or findings survived the appeal unchanged. Reversed-in-part means the Federal Circuit found legal error and ruled against OsteoMed on specific issues, likely invalidating certain claims. Vacated-and-remanded-in-part nullifies those portions and requires the lower tribunal to reconsider them, leaving those claim issues unresolved pending further proceedings.
Partially. The affirmed portions of the Federal Circuit’s ruling confirm that at least some aspects of US9351776B2 remain valid and enforceable. However, reversed portions suggest certain claims were invalidated, and remanded portions remain unresolved. The full enforceability picture will not be clear until remand proceedings conclude.
Stryker Corporation and Wright Medical Technology were represented by attorney Sharon Hwang of McAndrews, Held & Malloy Ltd. OsteoMed, LLC was represented by Jason Alexander Engel of K&L Gates, LLP.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.