Untitled case

This case involves Moskowitz Family LLC, a patent-holding entity associated with the innovations of spinal surgeon and inventor Dr. Norman Moskowitz, and Medtronic Inc., a global medical device company. Moskowitz Family LLC asserts patents directed at spinal implant and interbody fusion technologies. Medtronic plc, headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, with operational headquarters in Minneapolis, Minnesota, is a major developer and manufacturer of healthcare technologies and therapies, including medical devices for spinal disorders.

The dispute centers on US Patent 11096797, which relates to spinal fusion devices. Claims 16 and 19 of this patent are specifically challenged as obvious in the pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The accused products are Medtronic's spinal interbody devices. The IPR, IPR2026-00124, was filed by Medtronic Inc. against Moskowitz Family LLC. This IPR runs parallel to a patent infringement lawsuit, Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. et al. (Case No. 0:25-cv-00769), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The district court case was initially assigned to Judge John R. Tunheim but was subsequently reassigned to Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz. The District of Minnesota is not typically considered a plaintiff-friendly venue for patent litigation.

This case is notable due to its "IPR linkage" with ongoing district court litigation and the PTAB's discretionary denial request, especially in light of the new USPTO guidance issued by Director John A. Squires on March 11, 2026. This guidance, which considers factors such as U.S. manufacturing activity and the petitioner's small business status, could significantly influence the IPR's outcome. The Director's Discretionary Decision was issued on March 10, 2026, for IPR2026-00124. Furthermore, Moskowitz Family LLC has a history of asserting its spinal implant patent portfolio against other medical device companies, including a previous case against Globus Medical Inc. where it successfully defended against IPR petitions but ultimately faced a jury verdict of non-infringement in district court for some claims.

The patent infringement litigation Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. et al. (Case No. 0:25-cv-00769) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota is currently active and ongoing.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed: Moskowitz Family LLC initiated the lawsuit by filing a complaint on February 28, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The initial complaint was later amended.
• Service of Process: Defendants, including Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Medtronic, Inc., Titan Spine, Inc., and Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., were served in early March 2025, with answers initially due around March 24-25, 2025.
• Extension to Respond: On March 20, 2025, an order was issued granting the defendants an extension until May 23, 2025, to answer or otherwise respond to the plaintiff's complaint.
• Answer and Counterclaims: Medtronic Inc. and other defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint. The docket also indicates that Medtronic entities, along with Titan Spine, Inc. and Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., have filed counterclaims against Moskowitz Family LLC.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• Motion to Stay Pending IPR: Medtronic filed a motion to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of the Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. Moskowitz Family LLC filed an opposition to this motion on February 27, 2026.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• There is no information available yet regarding a Markman hearing or claim construction order.

Discovery Milestones

• Specific details about discovery milestones with strategic significance are not publicly available in the search results.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

• The district court trial in Minnesota is not expected to occur until February 2028 at the earliest. Therefore, no trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions have occurred.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

• The case is currently "Open" and "Pending." There is no indication of a settlement, dismissal, or judgment.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and Their Effect

• IPR Filing: Medtronic Inc. filed IPR2026-00124 against Moskowitz Family LLC concerning US Patent 11096797. This IPR challenges claims 16 and 19 of the patent as obvious.
• Other IPRs: The patent at issue, 11096797, is also involved in at least one other IPR, IPR2026-00120, also filed by Medtronic Inc. Additionally, another patent, 11376136, is at issue in the district court case and a related IPR, IPR2026-00124, also filed by Medtronic. Moskowitz Family LLC also has other patents, such as US Patent No. 9,005,293, involved in pending litigation, including another case against Medtronic in Delaware (1:25-cv-00711) and against NuVasive, LLC (0:25-cv-00769).
• Director's Discretionary Decision & New USPTO Guidance: The Director's Discretionary Decision for IPR2026-00124 was issued on March 10, 2026. This decision likely takes into account the new USPTO guidance issued by Director John A. Squires on March 11, 2026. This guidance emphasizes factors such as the extent of U.S. manufacturing for accused products and competing patent owner products, and whether the petitioner is a small business. The memorandum applies immediately to all pending IPRs where the due date for the patent owner's discretionary brief has not yet elapsed. This new policy could significantly influence whether the PTAB institutes the IPR against Moskowitz Family LLC, especially if Moskowitz Family LLC can demonstrate a strong U.S. manufacturing presence for its own products or if Medtronic's accused products are primarily manufactured overseas.
• Judicial Efficiency in IPR: Medtronic has argued in other IPR proceedings that Moskowitz's delay in suing Medtronic, despite an earlier rejection of a license, created "settled expectations" that should favor IPR institution. Medtronic also highlighted that the district court trial is scheduled for February 2028, well after the anticipated final written decision in the IPR, supporting IPR institution for judicial efficiency.

In the patent infringement lawsuit Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. et al. (Case No. 0:25-cv-00769) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Moskowitz Family LLC is represented by several attorneys from different firms.

Counsel for Moskowitz Family LLC (Plaintiff):

• Sabrina Wilson
  • Role: Attorney (pro hac vice admission granted)
  • Firm: Hueston Hennigan LLP (California based, likely Los Angeles or Newport Beach office based on other firm attorneys)
  • Experience Note: Granted pro hac vice admission in the district court case. While specific details of her patent litigation experience for Moskowitz are not readily available in the provided snippets, her firm, Hueston Hennigan LLP, is noted for high-stakes intellectual property and complex commercial litigation.
• X. Kevin Zhao
  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Greene Espel PLLP, Minneapolis, MN
  • Experience Note: Represents clients in complex litigation and intellectual property disputes. He has experience in international litigation and cross-border disputes, and is fluent in Mandarin. He clerked for Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, the reassigned judge in this district court case.
• Sybil L. Dunlop
  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Greene Espel PLLP, Minneapolis, MN
  • Experience Note: A lead trial attorney focusing on high-stakes business disputes, commercial litigation, and intellectual property litigation. She has first-chair trial and arbitration experience and has represented clients before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, including leading the first complete defense victory in a Covered Business Method (CBM) proceeding.
• Christine Michelle Woodin
  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: Hueston Hennigan LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Specializes in high-stakes intellectual property and complex commercial litigation, managing global patent licensing disputes and defending product lines from patent assertions. She has worked on cases across various industries, including medical devices.
• Moez M. Kaba
  • Role: Managing Partner
  • Firm: Hueston Hennigan LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: A nationally recognized trial lawyer who regularly serves as lead counsel in high-profile cases involving complex and cutting-edge legal issues, including intellectual property matters. He has prevailed at trial for clients such as Amazon and Monster Energy.
• Christina Von der Ahe Rayburn
  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: Hueston Hennigan LLP, Newport Beach, CA
  • Experience Note: Plays a key role in Hueston Hennigan's high-profile technology battles and has deep experience in intellectual property and antitrust litigation at every stage. As a member of the patent bar and a Stanford-trained mechanical engineer, she quickly understands the technology at issue.

This section details the counsel representing Medtronic Inc. and other defendants in the patent infringement lawsuit Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. et al. (Case No. 0:25-cv-00769) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Counsel for Medtronic Inc. and other Defendants:

• Bryan S. Stewart
  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Husch Blackwell LLP, Minneapolis, MN.
  • Experience Note: Bryan Stewart focuses on intellectual property matters, providing strategic advice and counseling, domestic and global portfolio management. He represents clients with hundreds of IP assets, including patents, trademarks, and copyrights. His experience includes risk avoidance, freedom to operate, patentability, pre-litigation dispute counseling, infringement analysis, and licensing agreements, with particular knowledge in additive manufacturing and the intersection of software and hardware within medical devices.
• Sarah J. Gettings
  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Husch Blackwell LLP, Minneapolis, MN.
  • Experience Note: While specific details of her patent litigation experience for this case are not explicitly detailed, Husch Blackwell's intellectual property team handles various IP matters.
• James R. Steffen
  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Minneapolis, MN.
  • Experience Note: James Steffen partners with clients to protect and enhance their brand assets through comprehensive trademark, advertising, and marketing law strategies. He has deep experience in all species of litigation under the federal Lanham Act, in advertising disputes, and in registrability disputes before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. He has also been primary outside trademark counsel for Target Corporation for many years.
• Michael L. R. Johnson
  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: Gemini Law LLP (previously with Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP until 2025).
  • Experience Note: Michael Johnson is an experienced trial attorney focusing on patent litigation, counseling, and IP strategy. His litigation experience spans pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices, industrial chemicals, and consumer products, with a particular focus on pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. He has represented major life sciences companies in district courts and before the PTAB and has prevailed in several appeals.
• Anthony R. Zeuli
  • Role: Trial Lawyer
  • Firm: Merchant & Gould P.C., Minneapolis, MN.
  • Experience Note: Anthony Zeuli specializes in patent and trademark litigation and has considerable experience before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He has given presentations and published articles on intellectual property litigation, especially patent claim construction. He is also registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Medtronic In-House Counsel:

• Mark Blake
  • Role: Head of IP Litigation, Medtronic.
  • Firm: Medtronic (in-house).
  • Experience Note: Mark Blake oversees all intellectual property litigation for Medtronic. His responsibilities include defending Medtronic's innovations and handling patent assertions and licensing. He has experience in patent litigation across various technologies, including medical devices, and has successfully prevailed on summary judgment in patent cases in several district courts. He also has experience in licensing transactions, IP valuation, due diligence, copyright, trademark, and trade secret litigation.
• Paik Saber
  • Role: Vice President and Chief IP Counsel, Medtronic.
  • Firm: Medtronic (in-house).
  • Experience Note: Paik Saber is responsible for all IP matters across Medtronic, overseeing protection and deployment of IP assets, IP litigation, and licensing.
• Richard Watkins
  • Role: Sr. Principal Legal Counsel, Medtronic.
  • Firm: Medtronic (in-house).
  • Experience Note: Richard Watkins has over 20 years of experience in IP law, specializing in technology and data analytics within Medtronic's Global Operations and Supply Chain Legal Organization.