Untitled case

Moskowitz Family LLC, identified as a well-funded non-practicing entity (NPE), initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against Medtronic Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Titan Spine Inc., and Warsaw Orthopedic Inc., all operating companies in the medical device industry. The lawsuit, filed on February 28, 2025, in the District of Minnesota, alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,864,755, and potentially other patents not explicitly detailed in the initial filings but hinted at by broader IPR discussions. The accused products are spinal interbody devices manufactured and sold by the Medtronic entities.

The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,864,755, generally relates to a disposable infant co-sleeper system and methods of its use, including a stand and a removable sleeping cavity designed for safe infant co-sleeping and ease of disposal. This technical area, focusing on infant care products, appears to diverge significantly from the accused spinal interbody devices, suggesting a potential broader portfolio of patents held by Moskowitz Family LLC or a strategic assertion that might encompass aspects of manufacturing or material science relevant to both domains. The case is assigned to Judge Jerry W. Blackwell and referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko, within the District of Minnesota, a venue that has seen significant patent litigation.

This case is notable due to Moskowitz Family LLC's classification as an NPE with a history of asserting patents against medical device companies. For instance, Moskowitz has previously sued Medtronic's competitors, such as Globus Medical and ZimVie, indicating a pattern of enforcement within the medical sector. While the current filing explicitly mentions patent 11864755, which technically covers infant co-sleepers, the accused product being spinal interbody devices points to a likely dispute over claim interpretation or the assertion of other, undisclosed patents within the same case, or a highly aggressive and broad interpretation of the listed patent's applicability. Furthermore, there is an indication of related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings against other patents asserted by Moskowitz Family LLC against Medtronic, though the specific IPR for 11864755 and its direct linkage to this case's asserted claims would require further detailed investigation. The district court trial in Minnesota is not expected to occur until February 2028 at the earliest.

This report details the key legal developments and current status of the patent infringement litigation identified by case number 0:25-cv-00769 in the Minnesota District Court. It also includes an independent search for parallel PTAB proceedings concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,864,755, as initially specified.

Important Note on Patent at Issue: Publicly available records for case 0:25-cv-00769 (Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic Inc. et al.) in the Minnesota District Court do not associate U.S. Patent No. 11,864,755 with this specific litigation. Instead, other patents (11096797 and 11376136) have been linked to this case in some litigation databases. Therefore, the following summary for the district court case pertains to the information found for 0:25-cv-00769, and a separate search was conducted for any PTAB activity related to U.S. Patent No. 11,864,755.

---

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Case 0:25-cv-00769 (Minnesota District Court)

Case Caption: Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek Inc., Titan Spine Inc., Warsaw Orthopedic Inc.
Case Number: 0:25-cv-00769
Court: Minnesota District Court
Status: Open litigation for patent infringement

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint Filed: On February 28, 2025, Moskowitz Family LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Medtronic Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek Inc., Titan Spine Inc., and Warsaw Orthopedic Inc. in the Minnesota District Court. The case is listed as active and open litigation for patent infringement.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance, Claim Construction, Discovery, Trial Events, Post-trial Motions, Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:
  As of May 29, 2026, the case is relatively new, having been filed in February 2025. Detailed docket entries regarding specific motions (to dismiss, transfer, stay, summary judgment), claim construction (Markman) outcomes, discovery milestones, trial events, verdicts, post-trial motions, or final disposition (settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal) are not yet readily available in public summaries. The case remains listed as "Open litigation for patent infringement."

---

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on U.S. Patent No. 11,864,755

A search was conducted for any Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings related to U.S. Patent No. 11,864,755 on the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) through the P-TACTS system.

• PTAB Status for U.S. Patent No. 11,864,755: As of May 29, 2026, no publicly accessible IPR or PGR proceedings for U.S. Patent No. 11,864,755 were found in the available search results. This indicates that there are no active or concluded PTAB challenges for this specific patent based on the searches conducted.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff, Moskowitz Family LLC, in the patent infringement case 0:25-cv-00769 in the Minnesota District Court:

Lead Counsel (Hueston Hennigan LLP)

• Moez M. Kaba
  • Role: Lead Counsel, Managing Partner.
  • Firm: Hueston Hennigan LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Newport Beach, CA; New York, NY.
  • Experience Note: Nationally recognized trial lawyer specializing in high-stakes intellectual property and complex commercial litigation, with significant trial victories including a $293 million verdict for Monster Energy in a trade secrets and false advertising case.
• Christina Von der Ahe Rayburn (also known as Christy V. Rayburn)
  • Role: Lead Counsel, Partner.
  • Firm: Hueston Hennigan LLP, Newport Beach, CA.
  • Experience Note: Litigates high-profile, high-stakes technology disputes with a depth of experience in patent, copyright, and trade secret litigation, and secured a $25 million trial victory for Acorn Technologies in a patent infringement case against Samsung.
• Christine Michelle Woodin
  • Role: Lead Counsel, Partner.
  • Firm: Hueston Hennigan LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Focuses on intellectual property and complex commercial litigation, previously handling patent infringement disputes involving standard essential patents and securing a favorable settlement for Amazon in a billion-dollar patent infringement case.

Local Counsel (Greene Espel PLLP)

• Kevin Y. Zhao
  • Role: Local Counsel.
  • Firm: Greene Espel PLLP, Minneapolis, MN.
  • Experience Note: Represents clients in complex disputes, including intellectual property and antitrust litigation, and has experience in federal civil litigation issues, including patent cases.

Other Counsel

• Sabrina Wilson
  • Role: Counsel (admitted pro hac vice).
  • Firm: Avantech Law, LLP.
  • Experience Note: No specific patent litigation experience or notable cases were readily available from the search results, beyond her admission pro hac vice for the plaintiff in this case.

I'll research the defense side of this docket. Let me run several searches in parallel.

Important: the primary-source docket documents I just found contradict the earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section. Let me verify further and pin down the defense team.

⚠️ Threshold correction — the prior "Plaintiff representatives" section is wrong

Before the defense roster, a material correction. Primary-source docket documents retrieved from the PTAB record (district court filings lodged as IPR exhibits) show that Hueston Hennigan LLP and Greene Espel PLLP represent the Defendants, not the plaintiff. The signature block of Defendants' Motion to Stay, ECF No. 59 (D. Minn. filed Feb. 20, 2026), reads:

"GREENE ESPEL PLLP — Sybil L. Dunlop, Reg. No. 0390186; X. Kevin Zhao, Reg. No. 0391302; Kshithij Shrinath, Reg. No. 0505164 … HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP — Moez M. Kaba; Christina V. Rayburn; Christine Woodin … Attorneys for Defendants Medtronic, Inc.; Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.; Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.; Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.; Titan Spine, Inc."
(Ex. 1047, IPR2026-00121)

This is corroborated by the early docket: ECF No. 12 (Notice of Appearance by Sybil L. Dunlop "on behalf of Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Medtronic, Inc., Titan Spine, Inc., Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc."), ECF No. 14 (Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement filed by Zhao for those same five entities), and ECF No. 15 (stipulation extending Defendants' response deadline, signed by Zhao). See Justia docket.

Three further corrections to the earlier sections, flagged per instructions:

---

Defense counsel of record — Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 0:25-cv-00769-PJS-DLM (D. Minn.)

Lead / trial counsel — Hueston Hennigan LLP (Los Angeles, CA)

All three appear in the ECF No. 59 signature block (Feb. 20, 2026) as counsel for all five Medtronic/Titan Spine/Warsaw entities.

Local counsel — Greene Espel PLLP (Minneapolis, MN)

Separate counsel for the parallel PTAB proceedings — Paul Hastings LLP

Not district-court counsel of record, but the Medtronic IPR team (relevant because the stay motion turns on the IPRs):

• Naveen Modi — Lead counsel (Petitioner), Paul Hastings LLP
• Young Park — Backup counsel
• Chetan Bansal — Backup counsel
• Service address: PH-Medtronic-Moskowitz-IPR@paulhastings.com

Source: Moskowitz's Power of Attorney certificate of service, IPR2026-00285 (Mar. 23, 2026), PTAB document.

---

What I could not verify

• Medtronic in-house counsel: No in-house attorney name appears in any document I could retrieve (no appearances, no Rule 26(f) report, no protective order signature block). Medtronic surely has in-house counsel supervising, but I found no record identifying anyone — none should be inferred.
• Complete current appearance list: PACER itself was not directly accessible; the Justia docket snapshot is current only through March 20, 2025, and the PacerMonitor snapshot only through Oct. 22, 2025. The Nov. 2025 – 2026 picture is reconstructed from documents lodged as PTAB exhibits (ECF Nos. 27, 29, 42, 59, 61, 65). Any additional appearances after ECF 59 are unconfirmed.
• Sealed material: The Rule 7.1 disclosure (ECF 14) content and any protective-order filings were not retrievable; no indication of sealed counsel designations, though.
• Stay motion outcome: Defendants moved to stay on Feb. 20, 2026 pending IPR resolution, with argument noticed for March 6, 2026 (ECF 59). I did not confirm the Court's ruling; note that the case appeared to remain active with claim construction deadlines reset to fall 2026, which suggests no indefinite stay was entered, but that inference is not documented.
• Name discrepancy: The prior section styled local counsel "Kevin Y. Zhao"; the docket and PTAB exhibits show X. Kevin Zhao. Use the latter.

One structural observation for the file

The prior sections have the two sides' counsel inverted. The actual plaintiff-side trial team visible in the record is Jason M. Zucchi, William R. Woodford, Todd S. Werner, and Shelleaha L. Jonas (the ECF 42 signature block in the plaintiff's own stipulation), plus Sabrina Wilson of Avantech Law LLP (pro hac vice, ECF 10–11) and Avantech's PTAB team (Eric A. Zelepugas, Reg. No. 73,302, lead; Robert A. Conley, Reg. No. 55,846, backup). That asymmetry — Moskowitz using a boutique prosecution shop plus regional litigators against Medtronic's Hueston Hennigan/Greene Espel trial team — is the more accurate framing and should be carried into the final report.