Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.

Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc. The Federal Circuit held that the claim term "complementary with one another" is broad enough to cover ramped portions with mirrored angles and is not limited to ramped portions that complete one another. Because Globus did not dispute obviousness under that construction, the court reversed the Board's no-unpatentability determination for claims 10-14. The decision reinforces that claim construction in IPR must account for disclosed embodiments and prosecution history, even where the disputed term's general dictionary meaning might point narrower. Reversed. The dispute turned entirely on construction of "complementary with one another" in claims directed to ramped portions of an expandable spinal implant. The Board construed the term to require the first and second ramped portions to "complete one another," and found Life Spine had not shown claims 10-14 unpatentable. The Federal Circuit held the intrinsic record supported Life Spine's broader construction because the specification's Figure 40 embodiment showed mirrored ramp angles that would be excluded under the Board's construction. The prosecution history also supported the broader reading: the examiner treated "complementary" as encompassing mirrored angles, and the applicant identified the Figure 40 embodiment as covered by the amended claims. The court rejected Globus's waiver argument, noting that new citations to intrinsic evidence may support an existing claim-construction position. § 103 claim construction waiver / forfeiture non-precedential § 103 claim construction waiver / forfeiture non-precedential § 103 claim construction