Stryker & Wright Medical v. OsteoMed: Federal Circuit Issues Split Ruling on Bone Plate Patents
Stryker Corporation and Wright Medical Technology brought a patentability challenge against OsteoMed LLC over two patents covering bone plates with transfixation screw holes. The Federal Circuit issued a nuanced split decision — affirming, reversing, and vacating in part — after 865 days of appellate proceedings, sending portions of the invalidity dispute back for further proceedings.
Federal Circuit splits the difference in orthopedic bone plate patent fight
Stryker Corporation and Wright Medical Technology, Inc. filed Appeal No. 23-1928 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 22 May 2023, challenging rulings related to the patentability of OsteoMed LLC’s US9763716 and US10245085B2 — both directed to bone plate technology incorporating transfixation screw holes used in orthopedic fixation procedures. The appeal arose from an invalidity and cancellation action, with McAndrews, Held & Malloy representing the plaintiffs and K&L Gates representing OsteoMed.
The Federal Circuit closed the case on 3 October 2025 with a three-part disposition: certain issues were affirmed, meaning the lower tribunal’s findings on those points stood without reversible error; other issues were reversed, meaning the appellate court disagreed with the lower findings and ruled in the opposing party’s favor; and a further portion was vacated and remanded, sending those specific questions back for reconsideration under corrected legal standards. The appeal was also dismissed in part, likely on procedural or jurisdictional grounds for those discrete sub-issues.
At 865 days, this appeal ran longer than many Federal Circuit patentability matters, suggesting the technical and legal complexity of multi-claim, multi-patent bone plate invalidity disputes. The split outcome means neither party achieved a complete appellate victory — OsteoMed retains some patent claims while others face further scrutiny on remand. The precise claim-by-claim allocation between affirmed, reversed, and vacated findings is not fully resolvable from the public docket without access to the full opinion.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in Part in 865 days
865-day appeal — above average for a Federal Circuit patentability dispute
Federal Circuit’s split ruling: what each part of the decision means
A three-way split: affirmed, reversed, and vacated-remanded
The Federal Circuit’s disposition is unusually granular. ‘Affirmed-in-part’ means the court found no reversible error on those specific issues and the lower ruling stands. ‘Reversed-in-part’ means the appellate court found clear legal error and substituted its own judgment. ‘Vacated and remanded-in-part’ nullifies the lower ruling on those issues and returns them for reconsideration — typically under a corrected legal standard. Dismissal-in-part likely reflects procedural or jurisdictional grounds on discrete sub-issues.
Multi-part Federal Circuit dispositionOsteoMed retains some claims but faces renewed scrutiny on remand
The affirmed portions represent a genuine win for OsteoMed: those patent claims or validity findings survive appellate challenge and are now more difficult to attack again. However, the reversed portions represent a direct loss — those rulings now go against OsteoMed. The vacated-and-remanded issues remain unresolved, exposing OsteoMed to continued uncertainty on affected claims. The net enforceability of the two bone plate patents depends on how the remand proceedings ultimately resolve.
Partial win, partial exposureStryker and Wright Medical win on some grounds, lose on others
The reversal-in-part is a meaningful appellate victory for Stryker and Wright Medical, establishing that the lower tribunal erred on at least one legally significant issue. The affirmed portions, however, confirm that some prior rulings against the challengers were correct and are now final at this level. The remanded issues keep the invalidity challenge alive for the affected claims, meaning Stryker and Wright Medical retain the opportunity to prevail on those questions in further proceedings.
Partial reversal — remand opportunity remainsOngoing claim uncertainty affects orthopedic device freedom-to-operate
For competitors and licensees in the orthopedic bone fixation market, the split decision creates a tiered risk landscape: claims that were affirmed carry strengthened enforceability, while claims on remand remain in legal limbo. Device manufacturers designing around OsteoMed’s transfixation screw hole technology should distinguish between affirmed, reversed, and remanded claim sets when conducting freedom-to-operate analysis. The remand proceedings will be a key watchpoint for IP teams in the orthopedic fixation sector.
Tiered FTO risk — monitor remandFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Stryker Corporation | Company | Orthopedic medical device companies — challengers of US9763716 and US10245085B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Wright Medical Technology, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | OsteoMed, LLC | Company | OsteoMed LLC — orthopedic implant company, holder of bone plate transfixation screw patentsSearch 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 disposition of ‘Affirmed-in-part, Vacated and Remanded-in-part, Reversed-in-part’ reflects a merits-level review of discrete claim or issue groups rather than a unitary ruling. At the appellate level, affirmance requires that no reversible error — legal or factual under the applicable standard of review — be found; reversal requires the court to identify clear legal error and substitute its judgment; vacatur with remand signals the lower tribunal applied an incorrect standard requiring fresh analysis. This granular outcome is consistent with complex multi-claim patentability disputes where different claims raise distinct legal questions.
US9763716 & US10245085B2 — Bone Plate with Transfixation Screw Hole Technology
US9763716 (application no. US15/147828) and US10245085B2 (application no. US15/707891) both protect bone plate technology incorporating transfixation screw holes — a structural feature enabling screws to pass through or across the plate at defined angles to secure fractured or osteotomized bone segments. This technology sits within the orthopedic internal fixation segment, covering implantable hardware used in foot, ankle, and extremity surgeries. The patents’ application numbers suggest filing dates in the 2016–2017 window, reflecting a period of active innovation in low-profile fixation plate design.
Transfixation screw hole geometry is a clinically significant differentiator in orthopedic plating systems — enabling surgeons to achieve multi-planar fixation without secondary hardware. OsteoMed’s patents in this space represent a competitive moat in the foot and ankle fixation market, where Stryker and Wright Medical are direct commercial competitors. The Federal Circuit appeal confirms that the validity of these patents is genuinely contested at the highest technical and legal levels, making freedom-to-operate analysis against this portfolio a live commercial priority for any device company active in orthopedic extremity fixation.
Should you run an FTO against US9763716 and US10245085B2?
Any medical device company designing or commercializing bone plates with transfixation or cross-screw hole configurations — particularly for foot, ankle, or extremity indications — should treat these two OsteoMed patents as active FTO concerns. The split Federal Circuit outcome means some claims are now affirmed and fully enforceable, while others remain in flux pending remand. A precise claim-by-claim FTO analysis is essential to distinguish which specific structural features carry infringement risk and which remain subject to ongoing invalidity proceedings.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map their bone plate designs against the specific claim language of US9763716 and US10245085B2 — identifying which claim elements are affirmed, which are reversed, and which are remanded. Eureka’s landscape analysis can also surface related OsteoMed continuation applications and competitor design-around patents, giving product teams a complete picture of the transfixation screw hole IP landscape before committing to a final device architecture.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9763716 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit patentability appeals in orthopedic device technology
Cases involving bone plate and orthopedic fixation patent invalidity appeals at the Federal Circuit, with comparable multi-claim split dispositions and remand proceedings.
What this case signals for the orthopedic device IP landscape
A split Federal Circuit ruling on bone plate patents creates differentiated risk across claim sets — and raises the stakes for remand proceedings.
Affirmed claims carry heightened enforceability post-appeal
Patent claims that survived the Federal Circuit’s review on the merits are now hardened against invalidity attack at the PTAB or in district court on the same grounds. Orthopedic device companies competing with OsteoMed’s bone plate portfolio should treat affirmed claims as high-risk targets for infringement exposure and prioritize design-around strategies accordingly.
Remand proceedings will reshape the effective claim scope of both patents
The vacated-and-remanded issues mean the final validity picture for US9763716 and US10245085B2 is not yet settled. IP teams monitoring this space should track the remand proceedings closely — the outcome will determine which claims remain in force and what design-around clearance is actually achievable for transfixation screw hole bone plate products.
Stryker v OsteoMed — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit issued a split decision: affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and vacated and remanded-in-part. The appeal was also dismissed in part. This means some validity findings from the lower tribunal were upheld, others were overturned, and remaining issues were sent back for reconsideration. Neither party achieved a complete victory.
The dispute centered on US9763716 (application no. US15/147828) and US10245085B2 (application no. US15/707891), both held by OsteoMed LLC and directed to bone plate technology incorporating transfixation screw holes used in orthopedic internal fixation procedures.
Vacated and remanded-in-part means the Federal Circuit nullified the lower tribunal’s ruling on specific issues and returned those questions for fresh analysis, typically because an incorrect legal standard was applied. For OsteoMed’s bone plate patents, the affected claims or issues are not yet finally resolved and remain subject to further proceedings.
The reversal-in-part indicates the Federal Circuit identified a legal error in the lower tribunal’s favor of OsteoMed on at least one issue, potentially invalidating or narrowing certain claims. Competitors designing bone plates with transfixation screw hole features should analyze which specific claims were reversed to understand the scope of their design freedom relative to OsteoMed’s remaining enforceable patent positions.
Appeal No. 23-1928 was filed on 22 May 2023 and closed on 3 October 2025, a duration of 865 days. This timeline is consistent with — and slightly above average for — complex multi-patent patentability appeals at the Federal Circuit involving technical invalidity arguments across multiple claim sets.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.