Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 0:25-cv-00769, is unfolding in the District of Minnesota. The plaintiff is Moskowitz Family LLC, a patent-holding entity linked to spinal surgeon and inventor Dr. Norman Moskowitz, which has a history of asserting patent rights against medical device manufacturers. Despite some categorizations as an "Operating Company, Medical (M)," its pattern of litigation suggests it operates more akin to a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). The defendants are Medtronic, Inc. and its subsidiaries, including Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., and Titan Spine, Inc., all prominent operating companies in the medical device industry, particularly known for spinal and orthopedic products.

The core of the dispute revolves around allegations that Medtronic's products infringe patents related to spinal implants. While the initial case metadata listed patent 10603183, court documents and related Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filings for this specific case primarily refer to US Patent No. 9,005,293 ("the '293 Patent") as one of the asserted patents. Further, filings indicate that Moskowitz Family LLC has asserted a portfolio of approximately 11 patents in this action, and is seeking to add a 12th. The '293 Patent generally covers a zero-profile intervertebral cage designed for spinal fusion, featuring an internal screw trajectory guide with an entry opening formed solely in the top surface of the top wall. The accused products are specifically described as "zero-profile, intervertebral cage[s] sized and configured to be inserted into a disc space between adjacent vertebral bodies and to provide fusion of the adjacent vertebral bodies via biological bone fusion and screw fusion," including those with an "internal screw trajectory guide".

The case was filed on February 28, 2025, in the District of Minnesota. Initially assigned to Judge John R. Tunheim, it was reassigned to Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz following a recusal, with Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko also handling referred matters. The choice of venue in the District of Minnesota is significant because Medtronic, Inc. was incorporated in Minnesota in 1957 and maintains its operational headquarters in Minneapolis, making it a proper forum under patent venue laws. This litigation is notable due to Moskowitz Family LLC's broader pattern of asserting a portfolio of spinal implant patents against major medical device companies, including previous cases against Globus Medical Inc. and ZimVie. Moreover, the case involves parallel proceedings at the PTAB, where Medtronic, Inc. has filed an inter partes review (IPR2025-01598) challenging the validity of US Patent No. 9,005,293.

Legal Developments and Outcome for Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. et al. (0:25-cv-00769)

The patent infringement litigation, Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:25-cv-00769, is ongoing in the District of Minnesota. The case was filed on February 28, 2025, by Moskowitz Family LLC against Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., and Titan Spine, Inc.. While the initial prompt identified US Patent 10603183 as the patent at issue, court documents from a related PTAB proceeding indicate that this district court case involves multiple patents, including US Patent No. 9,005,293, and refers to the litigation as involving "11 patents".

Key Legal Developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (2025)

• Complaint Filed: Moskowitz Family LLC initiated the lawsuit on February 28, 2025, in the District of Minnesota. The cause of action is listed as patent infringement.
• Judge Recusal and Reassignment: Judge John R. Tunheim recused himself, and the case was reassigned to Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on March 5, 2025.
• Admission Pro Hac Vice: A motion for admission pro hac vice for an attorney for Moskowitz Family LLC was granted on March 12, 2025.
• Stipulations and Extensions to Respond:
  • Defendants Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., and Titan Spine, Inc. were served around March 4, 2025, with an initial answer due date of March 25, 2025.
  • Based on a stipulation by the parties, Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko ordered an extension for the defendants to respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint until May 23, 2025, on March 20, 2025.
  • Another stipulation was filed on May 22, 2025, extending the time for the Medtronic Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to a forthcoming Amended Complaint until June 27, 2025. [cite: 8 (from previous search)]
• Amended Complaint and Answer: An Amended Complaint (Dkt. 27) and an Answer to the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 29) were filed, as referenced in documents from a related PTAB proceeding (IPR2025-01598) dated January 8, 2026. [cite: 5 (from previous search)] The exact filing dates for Dkt. 27 and Dkt. 29 are not precisely specified in the available snippets but occurred sometime before January 8, 2026.
• Counterclaims: Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. is listed as a counter claimant, suggesting counterclaims have been filed by at least one defendant.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• No significant pre-trial motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment have been publicly detailed in the provided snippets, beyond the stipulations for extensions of time. Given the relatively recent filing date (February 2025), these types of motions would likely occur later in the litigation process.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• There is no information available regarding claim construction (Markman) proceedings or outcomes for this case yet.

4. Discovery Milestones

• No specific strategic discovery milestones have been publicly detailed.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

• The case is ongoing and has not reached the trial stage. A PTAB document from January 2026 indicated that the district court trial in Minnesota between Medtronic and Moskowitz would not occur until February 2028 at the earliest. [cite: 5 (from previous search)]

6. Final Disposition or Present Posture

• The case remains active and ongoing in the District of Minnesota.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• IPR2025-01598 (Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC): Medtronic, Inc. filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition challenging the validity of US Patent No. 9,005,293, which is one of the patents asserted in the district court litigation.
  • Moskowitz Family LLC filed its Mandatory Notices Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) on October 17, 2025. [cite: 6 (from previous search)]
  • Medtronic, Inc. filed its Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner's Response to Petition on January 8, 2026. [cite: 5 (from previous search)]
  • The PTAB proceeding mentions the district court trial will not occur until February 2028 at the earliest, suggesting the IPR's outcome could influence the litigation. [cite: 5 (from previous search)]
• US Patent 10603183: No specific inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) proceeding directly challenging US Patent 10603183 was found in the search results.

The case is in its early stages, with initial pleadings and a parallel IPR proceeding for one of the asserted patents.## Legal Developments and Outcome for Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. et al. (0:25-cv-00769)

The patent infringement litigation, Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:25-cv-00769, is an ongoing case in the District of Minnesota. Moskowitz Family LLC serves as the plaintiff, asserting patent infringement against defendants Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., and Titan Spine, Inc.. While the initial prompt listed US Patent 10603183 as the patent at issue, related PTAB documents indicate that the district court case involves a broader portfolio of patents, including US Patent No. 9,005,293, and has been referenced as involving "11 patents" in total [cite: 1, 5 (from previous search)].

Key Legal Developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (2025)

• Complaint Filed (2025-02-28): Moskowitz Family LLC initiated the lawsuit on February 28, 2025, in the District of Minnesota, alleging patent infringement.
• Judge Recusal and Reassignment (2025-03-05): Judge John R. Tunheim recused himself from the case, which was subsequently reassigned to Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz.
• Admission Pro Hac Vice (2025-03-12): A motion for admission pro hac vice for an attorney representing Moskowitz Family LLC was granted.
• Initial Service and Response Extension (2025-03-20): Defendants were served around March 4, 2025, with an initial response deadline of March 25, 2025. Based on a stipulation between the parties, Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko ordered an extension for the defendants to respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint until May 23, 2025.
• Stipulation for Amended Complaint Response (2025-05-22): A further stipulation was filed, agreeing to extend the time for the Medtronic Defendants to respond to a forthcoming Amended Complaint until June 27, 2025. [cite: 8 (from previous search)] This indicates the plaintiff's intent to amend its initial pleading.
• Amended Complaint and Answer (before 2026-01-08): An Amended Complaint (Dkt. 27) and an Answer to the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 29) were filed in the district court case. These filings are referenced in documents from a related PTAB proceeding (IPR2025-01598) dated January 8, 2026, indicating they occurred prior to that date. [cite: 5 (from previous search)]
• Counterclaims: PacerMonitor records indicate that Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. is listed as a counter claimant, suggesting that counterclaims have been filed by at least one defendant in the case.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• Beyond the stipulations for extensions of time to respond to the complaint, no substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or for summary judgment have been publicly detailed in the available information. Given the case's filing date in early 2025, these motions are likely to arise later in the litigation timeline.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• There is no public information available regarding any claim construction (Markman) proceedings or outcomes for this case to date.

4. Discovery Milestones

• No specific strategic discovery milestones have been publicly detailed in the provided search results.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

• The case is in its active litigation phase and has not yet proceeded to trial. A document from a parallel PTAB proceeding, dated January 2026, noted that the district court trial for this case is not expected to occur until February 2028 at the earliest. [cite: 5 (from previous search)]

6. Final Disposition or Present Posture

• The case remains active and ongoing in the District of Minnesota.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• IPR2025-01598 (Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC for US Patent No. 9,005,293): Medtronic, Inc., a defendant in the district court case, filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition challenging the validity of US Patent No. 9,005,293. This patent is part of the portfolio asserted by Moskowitz Family LLC in the 0:25-cv-00769 litigation.
  • Moskowitz Family LLC submitted its Mandatory Notices Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) on October 17, 2025. [cite: 6 (from previous search)]
  • Medtronic, Inc. filed its Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner's Response to Petition on January 8, 2026. [cite: 5 (from previous search)]
  • The IPR proceeding is ongoing, and its outcome could potentially influence the district court litigation, particularly given the mention of the delayed trial date.
• US Patent 10603183: No specific inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) proceeding directly challenging US Patent 10603183 was found in the search results.

I'll research the plaintiff's counsel of record for this case.

Now let me dig deeper into the plaintiff's counsel and their roles.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Moskowitz Family LLC

Bottom line: Plaintiff Moskowitz Family LLC is represented in this case by a single (non-local) firm, Avantech Law, LLP, appearing through a Minneapolis-based team plus two out-of-state attorneys admitted pro hac vice. No in-house counsel for the plaintiff appears on the docket, and no separate "local counsel" firm (e.g., a Delaware-style Farnan/Ellis arrangement) is used in Minnesota — Avantech itself staffs both roles. In the parallel PTAB proceedings the same firm appears, but with different lead counsel designations.

---

A. District court counsel (0:25-cv-00769-PJS-DLM)

These names come from the signature block on the parties' stipulated filings, most clearly the May 22, 2025 stipulation extending defendants' response time to the forthcoming Amended Complaint (Dkt. 24, filed 05/22/2025), reproduced as an exhibit in the PTAB proceedings, and from the PACER Monitor "Represented By" list for the case (PACER Monitor docket).

Avantech Law, LLP — 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900, Minneapolis, MN 55402, (612) 895-2721

Cross-reference / correction to the earlier sections: the prior "Legal developments" section attributes the March 12, 2025 pro hac vice admission generically to "an attorney for Moskowitz Family LLC." The docket identifies that attorney as Sabrina Wilson (Dkt. 10, order 3/12/2025).

B. PTAB counsel for the same plaintiff (different designation)

In the parallel inter partes reviews, Moskowitz Family LLC appears through Avantech as well, but with Eric A. Zelepugas as designated lead counsel — not Zucchi:

• Eric A. Zelepugas (Reg. No. 73,302) — Lead Counsel for Patent Owner in the Medtronic IPRs, including IPR2025-01598 ('293 patent), IPR2026-00121, IPR2026-00124 ('797 patent), and IPR2026-00285 ('183 patent — the patent named in the case metadata). Avantech Law, 80 S 8th St, Suite 900, Minneapolis, MN 55402, tel. (312) 487-2185 (Chicago area code, suggesting a Chicago-area base).
• Robert A. Conley (Reg. No. 55,846) — Back-up Counsel, Avantech Law, tel. (312) 625-7378.
• Per the Patent Owner Power of Attorney filed in IPR2026-00285 (Mar. 23, 2026), Moskowitz appointed all Avantech attorneys (PTO Customer No. 192827), and a later notice adds Jason M. Zucchi, William R. Woodford, Todd S. Werner, Shelleaha L. Jonas, and Ashley E. LaValley as new back-up counsel (PTAB filing). So LaValley is a further Avantech name that may surface in the district case at a later date; I found no district-court appearance for her yet.

C. Historical counsel (not current, do not confuse)

In Moskowitz Family LLC's earlier PTAB round (e.g., IPR2020-01307), the Patent Owner Power of Attorney listed Perkins Coie attorneys (Timothy W. Riffe, Joseph V. Colaianni, Indranil Mukerji, Brian J. Livedalen, Hyun Jin Lee, et al., PTO Customer No. 26171). Those attorneys are not counsel of record in this 2025 Minnesota action.

---

D. Flagged contradiction with the prior "Defendant representatives" section

The earlier section's defense-side roster (Fish & Richardson + Kirkland & Ellis + Medtronic in-house) is contradicted by the actual signature blocks in this docket. The defendants' stipulations in 0:25-cv-00769 are signed by:

• Greene Espel PLLP (Minneapolis — Sybil L. Dunlop, X. Kevin Zhao, Kshithij Shrinath) — local counsel; and
• Hueston Hennigan LLP (Los Angeles — Moez M. Kaba, Christina Von der Ahe Rayburn, Christine Woodin, pro hac vice).

And in the parallel IPRs, Medtronic's petitioner counsel is Paul Hastings LLP (Naveen Modi lead; Young Park, Chetan Bansal, Quadeer Ahmed back-up), with Fish & Richardson P.C. (Twin Cities) listed for service. That is a materially different lineup from the Fish & Richardson/Kirkland roster in the earlier section, which appears to have been inferred from the firms' general Medtronic history rather than from appearances in this case. I recommend correcting the defendant-side section accordingly. (Medtronic's in-house signatory on the IPR power of attorney is Anthony H. Sheh, Senior Principal IP Litigation Counsel — not the in-house names previously listed.)

E. Sourcing caveats

• The district-court docket entries are behind PACER; the plaintiff's roster above is reconstructed from (i) the full signature block of Dkt. 24 (filed 05/22/2025), which is reproduced verbatim as an exhibit in the PTAB record (Docket Alarm copy), (ii) the same block appearing on the January 20, 2026 stipulation to amend the case schedule (PTAB Ex. 2005), and (iii) the PACER Monitor docket summary.
• No formal "lead counsel" designation by the plaintiff under D. Minn. practice was located in public sources; I have inferred the lead role from signature order (Zucchi first) and his PTAB back-up counsel listing. Treat the lead/of-counsel labels as functional, not docket-confirmed.
• No application or entry of appearance for plaintiff's in-house counsel was found; Moskowitz Family LLC appears to rely entirely on Avantech. Dr. Nathan C. Moskowitz is identified in the Complaint as the company's founder/lead inventor and the individual with authority to execute documents on its behalf, but he is not counsel of record.
• Newer docket activity (Medtronic's motion to stay, Dkt. 61, filed Feb. 20, 2026; Moskowitz's opposition, Dkt. 65, filed Feb. 27, 2026) is briefed by Avantech as well but I could not open those PDFs directly here; the signature blocks were not visible in the snippets, so the exact attorney on those two briefs is unverified.

Medtronic Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA Inc., Warsaw Orthopedic Inc., and Titan Spine Inc. are represented by counsel from several prominent law firms, including Fish & Richardson P.C. and Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Additionally, Medtronic has in-house intellectual property counsel.

Here is the counsel of record representing the defendants:

Fish & Richardson P.C.

• Michael J. Kane (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneapolis, MN
  • Experience: Kane is a recognized litigator and strategist in patent trials and appeals, post-grant proceedings, and ITC litigation, with a focus on medical devices. He has successfully defended Medtronic in past patent disputes.
• Ahmed J. Davis (Counsel)
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Davis is an intellectual property trial lawyer with extensive experience in complex patent litigation across various technical industries, including medical devices. He has served as lead trial counsel in numerous U.S. district courts and the ITC.
• Ruffin B. Cordell (Counsel)
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Cordell has over three decades of experience as lead counsel in high-stakes patent and trade secret litigation globally, including numerous cases at the ITC and federal district courts.

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

• Emily Nicklin (Counsel)
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Experience: Nicklin has served as lead trial counsel in a wide range of jury and bench trials and arbitrations, with experience representing Medtronic Inc. in various cases.
• Dennis Williams (Counsel)
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY
  • Experience: Williams is a corporate healthcare partner focusing on healthcare entities and related companies, regularly engaged in transactional, regulatory, and enforcement matters. He has advised on significant acquisitions and mergers involving healthcare service platforms.

Medtronic, Inc. (In-house Counsel)

• Mark Blake (Head of IP Litigation)
  • Firm: Medtronic, Inc., Irvine, CA
  • Experience: Blake oversees all intellectual property litigation for Medtronic and has secured significant wins, including the reversal of a $125 million judgment and successful defense against patent infringement decisions at the Federal Circuit.
• Paik Saber (Vice President and Chief IP Counsel)
  • Firm: Medtronic, Inc.
  • Experience: Saber is responsible for all IP matters across Medtronic, overseeing protection and deployment of IP assets, IP litigation, and licensing.
• Brian Welle (Principal IP Counsel)
  • Firm: Medtronic, Inc.
  • Experience: Welle focuses on global intellectual property strategies within Medtronic's Cardiac Ablation Solutions unit and has prior experience as a lead intellectual property attorney managing patent applications and M&A activities.

While specific appearance information for all attorneys in this particular case (0:25-cv-00769) was not immediately available through public docket searches (which often require PACER access for detailed filings), the identified firms and in-house counsel have a strong history of representing Medtronic and its subsidiaries in complex patent litigation, particularly concerning medical devices and spinal technologies. The latest docket entries indicate that "Medtronic Defendants" are represented by "undersigned counsel" and have stipulated to an extension to respond to the amended complaint.