The provided text, A Patent's House of Cards Deconstructing the Invalidity Arguments that Led to the New Amsterdam v Medtronic Settlement, analyzes the settlement between New Amsterdam LLC and Medtronic plc regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,916,483 (the '483 Patent), arguing that the patent was likely invalid due to obviousness in light of prior art. The author explains that New Amsterdam sued Medtronic for infringement see New Amsterdam LLC v Medtronic plc et al related to its SINUVA® Sinus Implant. However, the article asserts that the '483 Patent's central claims, involving a drug-delivery module in a prosthesis recess, were not novel. Specifically, the text points to the Wilcox patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,681,289) as demonstrating the core concept of drug delivery with a prosthesis, and the Yi patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,656,488) for the idea of a mesh container. The author suggests that Medtronic's strong invalidity arguments, presented through an inter partes review (IPR) filing, compelled New Amsterdam to settle before a formal invalidity finding could be made, thus avoiding a public declaration that its patent was likely unpatentable. Ultimately, the article concludes that the settlement was a pragmatic outcome driven by the inherent weaknesses of the '483 Patent when compared to established prior art.