Defendant
4 cases as defendant.
I'll research this company to verify the profile details.
Globus Medical, Inc. (NYSE: GMED) is a publicly traded medical device company founded in 2003 and headquartered in Audubon, Pennsylvania, with manufacturing in Eagleville and Limerick, PA; West Carrollton, Ohio; San Antonio, Texas; and Methuen, Massachusetts. Press and financial data put headcount at roughly 6,000 and FY2025 net sales at about $2.94 billion, up ~16.7% year over year. It is an independent public company, not a subsidiary.
Products/operations. Globus describes itself as a global musculoskeletal company. Its Musculoskeletal Solutions segment sells spinal implants (pedicle screws, rods, interbody spacers, expandable and 3D-printed implants), orthopedic trauma products, hip and knee implants, biologics, and intraoperative neuromonitoring. Its Enabling Technologies segment sells robotic and navigational surgery systems — ExcelsiusGPS, ExcelsiusHub/Excelsius3D and the ExcelsiusXR headset — used alongside its implants. It acquired spine competitor NuVasive in 2023 (roughly $3.1 billion, all-stock) and neuromodulation company Nevro in April 2025 (about $252.5 million).
Litigation posture. Globus is an operating company and, in the tracked data, predominantly a target rather than an aggressor: one case as defendant (Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc.) and one PTAB proceeding as plaintiff/petitioner (Globus Medical, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC). Both stem from the same dispute — an operating company defending an infringement suit and countering with inter partes reviews.
Notable cases. Moskowitz Family LLC sued Globus in November 2019 in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division (6:19-cv-672, Judge Albright) — a notably plaintiff-friendly venue — asserting spinal implant and surgical tool patents. Globus moved successfully to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (No. 2:20-cv-03271) in July 2020, and filed concurrent IPR petitions on multiple Moskowitz patents. The dispute focused on "universal" intervertebral fusion spacers and expandable implants; the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment and a jury verdict of noninfringement on September 11, 2026. The case list is limited to tracked appearances and is not a complete record of Globus's litigation.
Moskowitz Family LLC sued Globus Medical, Inc. in W.D. Tex. (6:19-cv-672), asserting the '319 patent (claims 1, 8, 20) and other Moskowitz patents. The case transferred to E.D. Pa. as 2:20-cv-03271. The jury found no infringement and not invalid as to the '319 patent; JMOL and fee motions were denied; Moskowitz appealed.
Moskowitz asserted the '913 patent (Count I) against Globus's spinal devices. The court granted summary judgment of noninfringement as to the '913 and '022 patents and a jury later returned a defense verdict on the '319 patent; the Federal Circuit affirmed.
Moskowitz Family LLC sued Globus Medical, Inc. for patent infringement in W.D. Tex., case 6:19-cv-00672, filed Nov. 20, 2019; the case was transferred to E.D. Pa. as 2:20-cv-03271. The '643 patent was one of eight Moskowitz patents asserted in the case, including the '913, '022, '740, '268, '319, '367, and '386 patents, and an Aug. 25, 2021 Markman opinion construed terms across those patents. The case went to trial in Dec. 2023 on the '913, '022, and '319 patents, where the jury returned a non-infringement verdict for Globus; the Federal Circuit affirmed on Sept. 11, 2026. The final disposition of the '643-specific allegations is unclear.
Patent infringement suit brought by Moskowitz Family LLC against Globus Medical, Inc., originally filed in the Western District of Texas and transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The '268 patent is documented as part of the case via PTAB records, though the confirmed tried/appealed patents were the '913, '022, and '319. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement on the '913 and '022 patents, a December 2023 jury returned a defense verdict on the remaining asserted patents, and post-trial JMOL and attorneys' fees motions were denied.