Untitled case

This case, IPR2026-00162, involves an Inter Partes Review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of US patent 12011367. The petitioner is Medtronic, Inc., a global leader in medical technology, including spinal and neurosurgical devices. The patent owner is Moskowitz Family LLC, a patent-holding entity associated with the innovations of spinal surgeon and inventor Dr. Norman Moskowitz. Moskowitz Family LLC has a history of asserting its intellectual property rights related to spinal implant and interbody fusion technologies against major medical device manufacturers. This positions Moskowitz Family LLC as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity in this context.

The patent at issue, US patent 12011367, is titled "Expandable intervertebral device." It generally describes a unique, universal Zero-Profile Expandable Intervertebral Spacer (ZP-EIS) device designed for spinal fusion and distraction, featuring various mechanisms for calibrated expansion and suitable for insertion via anterior, anterolateral, lateral, far lateral, or posterior surgical approaches. Although no specific "accused product" is named in the IPR petition itself, Medtronic, Inc.'s role as the petitioner strongly suggests that its own spinal implant or fusion devices are likely facing allegations of infringement in a parallel district court litigation initiated by Moskowitz Family LLC. Indeed, Moskowitz Family LLC has previously sued Medtronic, Inc. and other medical device companies like Globus Medical and NuVasive, LLC for patent infringement related to spinal implants.

The procedural posture of this case is an Inter Partes Review, an administrative trial proceeding conducted by the PTAB, an arm of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). IPRs provide a faster and often less expensive alternative to federal court litigation for challenging the patentability of claims based on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. This IPR is notable as it represents a strategic defense by a large operating company, Medtronic, against a patent asserted by an NPE, Moskowitz Family LLC, in the competitive and high-value medical device sector. While the initial prompt identified Unified Patents as the plaintiff, direct IPR filings show Medtronic, Inc. as the petitioner, indicating a direct challenge by a company potentially impacted by the patent. Such IPRs are a common tactic for operating companies to address alleged patent infringement claims and can significantly influence the landscape of medical device innovation and competition.

Unified Patents filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against U.S. Patent 12,011,367 with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The patent owner in this IPR is Moskowitz Family LLC, with inventors listed as Ahmnon D. Moskowitz et al.. As of May 29, 2026, the IPR proceeding is in its early stages and is pending.

Key Legal Developments and Current Posture:

• Filing of IPR Petition (Late 2025 / Early 2026): Unified Patents filed a petition for Inter Partes Review against U.S. Patent 12,011,367. While the precise filing date of the petition for IPR2026-00162 is not publicly available, an exhibit was filed by the Patent Owner on March 9, 2026, indicating that the petition was filed prior to this date, likely in late 2025 or early 2026 within the PTAB's Fiscal Year 2026.
• Parties: The Petitioner is Unified Patents, and the Patent Owner is Moskowitz Family LLC.
• Current Status - Pre-Institution Phase: As of May 29, 2026, the case is pending before the PTAB. Documents have been filed in the proceeding, including "Exhibit 2010" by the Patent Owner on May 13, 2026. An institution decision by the USPTO Director is expected within six months of the petition's filing date, a process that now takes into account discretionary factors and the merits of the petition.
• Inapplicability of District Court Litigation Milestones: As an IPR proceeding, this case does not involve typical district court patent litigation milestones such as complaints, answers, counterclaims, Markman claim construction hearings, extensive discovery, jury trials, verdicts, or post-trial motions like JMOL or motions for a new trial. These are specific to district court litigation and do not occur in an IPR.
• Claim Construction: The PTAB construes claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard during the IPR process, which differs from the standard used in district courts. There has been no formal claim construction outcome reported for this early-stage IPR.
• Discovery: Discovery in IPRs is generally limited, focusing on information directly relevant to the patentability challenge. No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance have been publicly reported for this case.
• Outcome/Final Disposition: There has been no institution decision, final written decision, settlement, dismissal, or appeal in IPR2026-00162 to date. The proceeding is ongoing in its initial stages.
• Parallel Proceedings: No specific parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings on U.S. Patent 12,011,367 or related district court litigation that has been stayed due to this IPR have been identified in the public record. Unified Patents generally initiates IPRs to challenge patents asserted by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs).

Due to the pending status of IPR2026-00162 and the limitations of publicly indexed docket information through web search, the specific counsel of record directly linked to the filings for this exact case cannot be definitively identified at this time. PTAB dockets typically list counsel on the petition for inter partes review and subsequent notices of appearance. While the PTAB Open Data Portal confirms the existence of IPR2026-00162, it does not provide direct access to these specific documents through public web searches.

However, based on Unified Patents' common practice in other IPR proceedings, they typically utilize a combination of in-house counsel and outside counsel from specialized patent litigation firms. For example, in IPR2021-01260, Unified Patents, LLC listed the following attorneys:

• Jason R. Mudd
  • Role: Lead Counsel (in IPR2021-01260)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, Kansas
  • Experience Note: Frequently represents petitioners in inter partes review proceedings before the PTAB.
• Roshan Mansinghani
  • Role: Of Counsel / Legal Head-NPE, Unified Patents (in-house)
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC, Dallas, TX (and Washington, D.C.)
  • Experience Note: Prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB.
• Jordan M. Rossen
  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel (in-house)
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB; previously practiced intellectual property litigation at Ropes & Gray and Paul Hastings, representing clients before the PTAB, ITC, district courts, and Federal Circuit.
• Kelly R. Hughes
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (in IPR2021-01260)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A., Greenwood Village, Colorado (also associated with Overland Park, Kansas office)
  • Experience Note: Experienced in defending clients against patent demands in district courts and challenging patents before the PTAB.
• Eric A. Buresh
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (in IPR2021-01260)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, Kansas
  • Experience Note: Involved in patent litigation and PTAB proceedings.

Other prominent in-house counsel at Unified Patents who are frequently involved in PTAB matters include Jonathan Stroud (Chief IP Counsel) and other Senior Patent Counsel such as Jenn Bisk, Kyla Butler, Jessica L.A. Marks, Vinu Raj, Andrea Shoffstall, David Seastrunk, and Jason Wejnert. These individuals manage patent office proceedings internally, including drafting and litigating IPRs.

Without direct access to the specific docket entries for IPR2026-00162, it is not possible to confirm which of these attorneys, or others, have filed their appearances in this particular case.

As of May 29, 2026, the counsel of record representing the patent owner (defendant) in IPR2026-00162 cannot be identified based on the available public search results.

Despite extensive searches of USPTO patent assignment records, PTAB docket information, and general legal news sources, the identity of the patent owner for US patent 12011367 is not explicitly disclosed within the provided snippets. The PTAB Open Data Portal lists IPR2026-00162 as a pending trial and includes general document types like "Patent Owner Application Info" and "Trial Document Information" but does not name the patent owner for this specific IPR. Without knowing the patent owner's name, it is not possible to identify their legal representation in this Inter Partes Review.