Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc.

I'll research this case, starting with the core docket and party details.

Good foundation. Now let me verify the parties, the venue story, and any PTAB/parallel proceedings.

Now let me check PTAB proceedings and the post-trial fee motion.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. Moskowitz Family LLC is a Maryland limited liability company based in Rockville, formed by Dr. Nathan C. Moskowitz — a neurosurgeon who trained in general surgery and neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital (chief resident) and has been an assistant professor of neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins since 1992 — together with his two sons, Mosheh T. and Ahmnon D. Moskowitz, who are co-inventors on the portfolio. The LLC describes itself as created "for the purpose of developing human spine related devices, and for the protection and licensing of any resulting inventions," and by 2025 claimed "nearly one hundred United States patents and nine pending patent applications" in minimally invasive spinal fixation. It is a non-practicing entity in the strict sense — its own later complaint states it "has not practiced any of the Asserted Patents through commercial manufacture, sale, offer for sale, or importation," only research/demo prototypes — but it is inventor-founded and family-held rather than a patent-buying aggregator, and its complaints are built around a narrative of pre-suit disclosure to each defendant that was never licensed. Globus Medical, Inc. (NYSE: GMED) is a publicly traded spinal-implant manufacturer headquartered in Audubon, Pennsylvania, and one of the largest spine device companies in the world; it closed its acquisition of NuVasive in 2023, consolidating two of the top spinal players. Globus was represented by Susman Godfrey (John Lahad, Mark Hatch-Miller, Arun Subramanian, Chanler Langham, Steven Shepard) with Pietragallo Gordon and Weir & Partners as local counsel; Moskowitz by Fish & Richardson (Timothy Riffe, Joseph Colaianni, Ruffin Cordell, Brian Livedalen, Jason Zucchi).

The accused technology. Moskowitz accused roughly ten Globus spinal fusion product families — among them COALITION, INDEPENDENCE, MONUMENT, FORTIFY-IR, HEDRON, MAGNIFY-S, CORBEL, RISE, ELSA, XPAND and the Revere Anterior Staple System — spanning integrated plate/spacer cervical constructs, stand-alone interbody cages with integral screw guides, and expandable lumbar interbody devices. By trial the case had narrowed sharply: the '319 patent theories centered on the RISE, CALIBER and MAGNIFY-S expandable interbody systems and their inserters, and the '740 patent theories on COALITION MIS, INDEPENDENCE MIS, HEDRON and CORBEL. U.S. Patent No. 10,478,319 (issued Nov. 19, 2019, from a Feb. 20, 2019 application, tracing priority through continuations back to 2006–07 filings) is titled "System with Tool Assembly and Expandable Spinal Implant" and claims a combination of (i) an expandable intervertebral implant with an adjusting screw and tool-engagement indentations and (ii) a two-piece inserter in which an outer tool's prongs grip the implant while an inner adjusting tool passes through a passage in the outer tool to turn the expansion screw. Claims 1, 8 and 20 were asserted; only claim 1 reached the jury, and it turned on a single limitation — whether the inserter's gripper "cooperat[es] with the first handle." The companion patents were the '913 patent (an implant-positioning tool for a "universal" interbody spacer with first and second integral screw guides) and the '022 patent (a "universal" interbody combination internal screw guide and transvertebral-screw fixation apparatus); two additional patents tried to the jury ('268 and '740) dropped out of the appeal.

Posture and venue. Moskowitz filed on November 20, 2019 in W.D. Tex., Waco Division (6:19-cv-672), before Judge Alan D. Albright. Globus moved to dismiss or transfer on January 27, 2020, arguing no regular and established place of business in Texas and that both parties sit in the mid-Atlantic. On July 2, 2020, Judge Albright granted § 1404(a) transfer, having found that Globus's designers, documents and headquarters were in Pennsylvania and — notably — that "the EDPA has a faster time to trial than the District of Delaware." The case was docketed in E.D. Pa. on July 6, 2020 as 2:20-cv-03271 before Chief Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg. Venue is the throughline of the case: a plaintiff with no Texas connection sued a Pennsylvania defendant in the then-hottest patent venue in the country, and the transfer order is a concrete data point in the 2019–2022 rebalancing of patent venue. Parallel PTAB activity mattered too: Globus filed eight IPR petitions on July 21, 2020 against the '913, '022, '268, '740, '643 and '319 patents, and the Board denied institution on all eight between December 21, 2020 and February 5, 2021, leaving no estoppel and no cancelled claims. On the merits, the Markman opinion issued August 25, 2021 (2021 WL 3784243), construing "universal" broadly as to spinal region and approach; summary judgment of noninfringement on the '913 and '022 patents followed on December 22, 2022 (2022 WL 17876699) on the ground that the preambles containing "universal" were limiting. After an eight-day trial (Dec. 4–13, 2023), the jury returned a complete defense verdict on December 14, 2023 — no infringement of any asserted claim of the '319, '268 and '740 patents, and not invalid. The court denied Moskowitz's JMOL/new-trial motion on August 13, 2024 (2024 WL 3792390), and the Federal Circuit affirmed in full on September 11, 2026 in No. 2024-1696 (Prost, Schall and Stoll, JJ.), on a Moskowitz demand that had exceeded $86 million.

Why it is notable. Three things make this case worth studying. First, it is a clean, citable pair of claim-construction lessons: the Federal Circuit's Catalina preamble analysis (antecedent basis plus "universal" as a fundamental characteristic, not mere intended use) disposed of two patents on summary judgment, while the unconstrued term "cooperating" disposed of the third at trial — because neither side sought construction, Moskowitz could not recast its evidentiary loss as a claim-construction error after verdict, and the panel reviewed only for substantial evidence under Third Circuit law. Second, it illustrates the modern medtech NPE/PAE pattern in an unusually sympathetic register: an inventor-owned, ~100-patent family portfolio, no commercial product, serial suits against the largest spine OEMs, with the PTAB as the defendants' first line of defense (here, unsuccessfully). Third, the market and portfolio context is live: Globus's 2023 NuVasive acquisition means Moskowitz's later assertion activity circles back on the same defendant — it sued NuVasive, LLC in D. Del. (1:25-cv-00711, filed June 6, 2025, before Judge William C. Bryson) on a dozen-plus patents and Medtronic in D. Minn. (0:25-cv-769, filed Feb. 28, 2025), with Medtronic petitioning for IPR in 2025–26 (e.g., IPR2025-01598, IPR2026-00121). In other words, the Globus win is the template — both for Moskowitz's claim-construction risk and for how defendants in a highly consolidated, patent-dense spine market litigate.

Sourcing notes and confidence

High confidence: party identities and Dr. Moskowitz's background (Moskowitz complaints, D. Minn. 0:25-cv-769 and D. Del. 1:25-cv-00711, via PACER/CourtListener mirrors); Globus HQ/product list; the transfer order (W.D. Tex., July 2, 2020, quoted in Globus's IPR2020-01307 exhibit 1032); Markman, summary judgment, trial and JMOL dates and holdings (E.D. Pa. docs. 144, 399; 2021 WL 3784243; 2022 WL 17876699; 2024 WL 3792390); the eight denied IPRs (Fish & Richardson press release, Mar. 2, 2021; IPR2020-01307 Paper 7, Dec. 21, 2020); the Federal Circuit affirmance (No. 2024-1696, Sept. 11, 2026, slip op. at govinfo.gov); counsel of record (CourtListener parties page; Susman Godfrey and Fish & Richardson announcements).

Lower confidence / flagged: (1) I could not independently confirm the fee-motion disposition referenced in the case summary beyond the docket activity in mid-2024 — treat "fee motion denied" as unverified. (2) Secondary coverage (Spine Market Group) describes the September 11, 2026 opinion as precedential; I did not confirm the precedential designation on the Federal Circuit's own site, though the panel's treatment of preamble law reads that way. (3) The "$86 million" figure comes from Law360 and Susman Godfrey's announcement rather than the verdict form itself. (4) Globus revenue and spine-market-share figures are widely reported but I did not pull them from SEC filings for this summary, so I have kept the market characterization qualitative.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and appellate decision.

Good foundation. Now let me dig into the docket chronology, Markman order, and any PTAB proceedings.

Now let me pull the full docket and verify the pretrial motion history.

Procedural History & Outcome — Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc.

Posture as of 2026-10-25: Fully and finally resolved in Globus's favor at every stage. The district court case closed 2024-08-13; the Federal Circuit affirmed in a precedential opinion on 2026-09-11. No proceedings remain active on the '319 patent between these parties.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2019-11-20 → 2020)

The original complaint asserted eight patents in the same family (all claiming priority to a common 2005 provisional): the '913, '022, '740, '367, '643, '268, '386 and '319 patents. The '319 claims at issue were independent claims 1, 8, and 20. Accused products spanned roughly ten Globus spinal-fusion families — COALITION/COALITION MIS/COALITION AGX, INDEPENDENCE/INDEPENDENCE MIS, MONUMENT, FORTIFY-IR, HEDRON, MAGNIFY-S, CORBEL, RISE/RISE INTRALIF/RISE-L, ELSA/ELSA ATP, ALTERA, ARIEL, CALIBER/CALIBER-L, XPAND, SABLE and the Revere Anterior Staple System (RASS).

Equities set up early: Moskowitz's counsel sent Globus's GC a portfolio letter on 2015-06-03 identifying the '913 and the then-pending '022 application; Globus made a purchase offer in July 2015 that Moskowitz rejected as "very low," and Globus never responded thereafter. Moskowitz used that history to plead willfulness and to support enhanced damages. Globus answered and asserted counterclaims (it appears on the docket as a counterclaimant); the precise filing date is not verified in the materials I could reach, but the answer was due 2019-12-12.

2. Venue fight and transfer (2020)

• In early 2020 Globus filed a combined Motion to Change Venue / Motion to Dismiss / Motion to Transfer (W.D. Tex. Dkt. 22); reply filed 2020-02-21. This was the case-dispositive pretrial motion of the Waco phase — Globus was fighting Judge Albright's courtroom as much as the merits.
• 2020-07-02 — Judge Albright granted the transfer to E.D. Pa. (Dkt. 50). The case was docketed in Philadelphia on 2020-07-06 as No. 2:20-cv-03271 and assigned to Chief Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg. The motion-to-dismiss component was not reached/denied as moot; I found no ruling granting dismissal of any claim.

3. Parallel PTAB proceedings — the first major strategic battle (2020-07 → 2021-02)

Globus's real defensive play was a coordinated wave of eight IPR petitions filed 2020-07-21, roughly three weeks after transfer, covering six of the eight asserted patents. Two patents got duplicate petitions (with different primary references, expressly to hedge against § 325(d) discretionary denial). Trial counsel was Harness, Dickey & Pierce (George D. Moustakas, David P. Utykanski); expert was Dr. Jorge A. Ochoa.

Effect on the litigation: total defeat for Globus — 0 for 8. The Board found no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim. Because no IPR was instituted, there was never an IPR estoppel issue, no stay of the district court case ever ripened, and Moskowitz's patents emerged with an administrative clean bill of health. This is the single biggest inflection point that favored Moskowitz, and Fish & Richardson publicly touted it (press release 2021-03-02) as clearing the path to trial. Notably, no motion-to-stay-pending-IPR ruling appears in the record I could reach — consistent with the petitions being dispatched within six months of filing, before any stay motion could be meaningfully briefed.

One caveat on scope: the '367 and '386 patents do not appear among the six IPR-challenged patents, so eight petitions covered six patents, not all eight asserted.

4. First Amended Complaint (2021-04-14)

Moskowitz filed its First Amended Complaint on 2021-04-14, formally adding theories of direct infringement, inducement (§ 271(b)), contributory infringement, and willfulness across all eight patents. This is the operative pleading through trial.

5. Claim construction / Markman — the case-deciding ruling

• 2021-05-13 — opening claim construction briefs; ten disputed terms across seven of the eight patents.
• 2021-07-27 — Markman hearing before Judge Goldberg.
• 2021-08-25 — Claim construction opinion, Doc. 143, 18 pp., reported at Moskowitz Fam. LLC v. Globus Med., Inc., 2021 WL 3784243 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2021).

The pivotal construction: "universal" in the '913 and '022 patents = "an intervertebral bone fusion spacer designed to be inserted between [vertebrae/vertebral bodies] in any region of the spine, i.e., cervical, thoracic, or lumbar, using any approach, e.g., posterior, anterior, or lateral." This largely adopted Globus's proposal and was, functionally, a noninfringement ruling in disguise — Moskowitz conceded at summary judgment that no accused product is "universal" under that reading.

Moskowitz moved for clarification/reconsideration; the court denied it (J.A. 22–23), confirming that the construction requires a single device usable in any spinal region and through any approach. Moskowitz then made the tactical choice that sealed its fate: it withdrew claim 15 of the '913 (which recites "universal" in the claim body) but pressed claims 1 and 10 of the '913 and claim 47 of the '022, where "universal" appears only in the preamble — betting that the preambles were non-limiting. On appeal Moskowitz argued this construction demanded a physically impossible "one size fits none" device and proposed "stand-alone" as the correct meaning. The Federal Circuit rejected both arguments

I'll research the docket and related sources to identify plaintiff's counsel of record.

Good initial data. Now let me pin down roles, local counsel, and trial leadership.

Let me pull the actual docket sheets (E.D. Pa. and Fed. Cir.) to confirm designations and appearance dates.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Moskowitz Family LLC

Bottom line: Moskowitz was represented throughout by Fish & Richardson P.C. (a national IP boutique) as lead/appellate counsel, with a Philadelphia attorney, Daniel J. McGravey (Clark Hill PLC), entering his appearance as local counsel in E.D. Pa. No in-house counsel for Moskowitz appears of record — Moskowitz Family LLC is the Moskowitz family's holding company (Dr. Moskowitz and his sons), and no attorney-employee appears on the docket. I found no sealed attorney list or sealed appearance orders; the appearances below are from public docket entries.

Caveat up front: I could not retrieve a clean, single authoritative docket sheet for every appearance date. Appearance information is drawn from CourtListener's party/attorney records for No. 2:20-cv-03271 and No. 24-1696 (Fed. Cir.), the UniCourt docket mirror, PTAB mandatory notices in the parallel IPRs, and briefs signed in the case. Where I could not verify a specific role (lead vs. supporting), I say so rather than guess.

---

1. Lead / national counsel — Fish & Richardson P.C.

2. Local counsel — E.D. Pa.

3. Roles and posture notes

• Trial-stage leadership: Globus's side publicly identified Mark Hatch-Miller and John Lahad as its co-lead trial counsel (Susman Godfrey press releases), but I found no equally explicit public statement naming Moskowitz's trial lead. On the record I can verify, Cordell is the lead/noticed counsel of record and Colaianni was the principal handling district-court filings and the PTAB; treat "who argued for Moskowitz at trial" as unconfirmed absent the trial transcript.
• W.D. Tex. phase (6:19-cv-672): The Waco filings were signed by Fish's Austin team (Colaianni and Hoffman) plus PHV counsel from Washington, D.C. I did not find a separate non-Fish Texas local-counsel firm in the filings I reviewed; if one was designated, it is not reflected in the sources I could access.
• Parallel PTAB work: The same F&R team defended the '319 patent and five related patents in eight Globus IPRs (including IPR2020-01305, '319 patent); the Board denied institution of all eight — a useful data point on the team's post-grant track record in this very case.
• Appeal: Fed. Cir. No. 24-1696 (Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc.), affirmed; appellate roster included Cordell, Colaianni, Livedalen, Ballanco, Wilson, Rosefelt, Degnan, and Benedict.

4. What I could not verify

• Exact appearance dates and any internal "lead counsel" designation flags for each Fish attorney in E.D. Pa. (CourtListener's party page did not display the lead-attorney flag for the plaintiff side in the excerpt I retrieved; only Globus's Arun Subramanian was flagged "LEAD ATTORNEY").
• Whether any Moskowitz attorney appeared only in the W.D. Tex. case and never in E.D. Pa. or vice versa — the UniCourt plaintiff-attorney list appears to merge both dockets and is a 2020 snapshot, so it does not reflect later withdrawals (Mukerji, Hoffman) or later additions (Degnan/Benedict, appellate only).
• No sealed or in-house counsel identified; if Moskowitz had in-house or personal counsel advising Dr. Moskowitz, they did not appear of record.

Primary sources: CourtListener docket/parties pages for No. 2:20-cv-03271 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for Globus Medical in this case.

Counsel of Record for Globus Medical, Inc.

Bottom line: Globus was represented by Susman Godfrey LLP as national/trial counsel (New York, Houston, and Los Angeles offices), with Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti LLP and Weir & Partners LLP (both Philadelphia) appearing as local counsel in E.D. Pa. No in-house Globus attorney appears in the public docket. All appearances are public — I found no sealing of counsel-related filings. I could not pull the PACER docket directly; the lists below are drawn from the CourtListener docket/parties record for No. 2:20-cv-03271, docketed filings, firm press releases, and the Federal Circuit materials.

A. Counsel listed on the E.D. Pa. docket (CourtListener docket No. 17323786, "Defendant / Counter Claimant Globus Medical, Inc.")

B. Team members identified in firm/appellate materials but not necessarily on the district-court appearance list

• Daniel Simon — Susman Godfrey (New York), associate; authored Globus's Federal Circuit brief in No. 24-1696 (per firm release). Appellate-stage only.
• Chanler A. Langham — Susman Godfrey partner (Houston); "instrumental" trial-team member per the firm's victory release. No confirmed E.D. Pa. appearance in the sources retrieved.
• Steven M. Shepard — Susman Godfrey partner (Houston); same trial-team role per the firm release.
• Alicia Lai — listed on the Federal Circuit docket (No. 24-1696) as counsel for cross-appellant Globus Medical alongside Lahad. Her firm is not confirmed in the sources I retrieved (likely Susman Godfrey, but I will not state that as fact).

C. The W.D. Tex. phase (6:19-cv-672)

Globus's appearance in Waco was the same Susman Godfrey team: the June 1, 2020 filing in the W.D. Tex. case is signed by John P. Lahad (TX Bar No. 24068095, Houston), with Jacob Buchdahl, Arun Subramanian and Mark Hatch-Miller (New York, admitted pro hac vice) as "Attorneys for Defendant Globus Medical Inc." (document reproduced on PTAB/PTABCTS and RPX document repositories). I could not verify a separate Waco-area local counsel appearance for Globus; if one existed, it does not appear in the records I could access. Globus's successful motion to transfer the case to E.D. Pa. (granted July 2, 2020) was handled by this Susman team.

D. Role summary

• National/trial counsel: Susman Godfrey LLP (Lahad, Hatch-Miller as co-lead trial counsel; Subramanian as docketed lead attorney; Buchdahl, Krsulich, Jolly; Langham and Shepard on the trial team).
• Local counsel (E.D. Pa.): Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti LLP (Alfano, Gordon) and Weir & Partners LLP (Cianciulli).
• Appellate: Lahad (argument) and Daniel Simon (brief) of Susman Godfrey; Alicia Lai also on the Fed. Cir. docket.
• In-house: none identified on the public docket.

Sources

• CourtListener docket and parties page, Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-03271 (E.D. Pa.): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17323786/moskowitz-family-llc-v-globus-medical-inc/ and /parties/
• Docket entries cited: Doc. 83 (PHV motion for Krsulich, filed by Joseph L. Gordon, 8/17/2020); Doc. 84 (PHV granted 8/18/2020); Doc. 87 (Rule 12(b) letter by Lahad, 9/2/2020).
• Susman Godfrey, "Federal Circuit Affirms Complete Patent Victory for Globus Medical" (Lahad, Hatch-Miller, Simon, Langham, Shepard): https://www.susmangodfrey.com/wins/federal-circuit-affirms-complete-patent-victory-for-globus-medical/
• Susman Godfrey, "Susman Godfrey Secures Second-in-a-Row Complete Patent Trial Victory for Globus Medical": https://www.susmangodfrey.com/wins/susman-godfrey-secures-second-in-a-row-complete-patent-trial-victory-for-globus-medical/
• Moskowitz Fam. LLC v. Globus Med., Inc., No. 24-1696 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2026) (affirming); JMOL Opinion, 2024 WL 3792390 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 13, 2024); Markman Opinion, 2021 WL 3784243 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2021); Summary Judgment Opinion, 2022 WL 17876699 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2022).
• VitalLaw case report (Sept. 15, 2026) listing Mark Hatch-Miller (Susman Godfrey) for Globus and Lauren Ann Degnan (Fish & Richardson) for Moskowitz on appeal.

Caveats

1. No direct PACER access. Party/attorney lists come from CourtListener's mirrored docket and secondary aggregators (UniCourt listed nine Globus attorneys plus "3 more"), so a small number of appearances — particularly short-lived ones — may be missing.
2. Two Philadelphia firms (Pietragallo and Weir & Partners) both appear for Globus. I could not determine from the retrievable record whether one was substituted for the other or whether they split local-counsel duties; that specific point needs a PACER pull of the appearance entries.
3. In-house counsel: none appeared; Globus's Director of Product Development testified at trial, but as a witness, not counsel.
4. Alicia Lai's firm is unverified.