Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic Inc. et al.

Moskowitz Family LLC, identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) associated with inventor Randall Moskowitz, M.D., has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against medical device giant Medtronic Inc. and its related entities. The defendants include Medtronic Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Titan Spine, Inc., and Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. Medtronic is a global leader in medical technology, with its operational headquarters in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and its various subsidiaries focus on a wide range of medical products, particularly surgical implants and devices for spinal, neurological, and orthopedic procedures. Titan Spine, Inc., which Medtronic acquired in 2019, specializes in titanium interbody fusion devices featuring proprietary textured surface technologies designed to promote bone growth. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. is associated with a major orthopedic manufacturing hub in Warsaw, Indiana, where Medtronic also has a significant spinal implant facility. The core of the dispute revolves around Medtronic's spinal interbody devices, likely those incorporating Titan Spine's surface-enhanced technologies, which are accused of infringing U.S. Patent 11,376,136. While the specific technical details of patent 11,376,136 were not explicitly detailed in publicly available summaries, it is part of a portfolio of patents held by Moskowitz Family LLC directed to spinal implant and surgical instrumentation technologies.

The litigation is being heard in the District of Minnesota before Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz. This venue is particularly relevant as Medtronic's operational headquarters are located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, making it a fitting forum for patent disputes involving the company. The case is notable for several reasons, including the plaintiff being an NPE/PAE, Moskowitz Family LLC, which has a history of asserting its spinal implant patent portfolio against other major medical device companies such as Globus Medical and NuVasive. Medtronic has already initiated inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against at least two patents held by Moskowitz Family LLC (U.S. Patent 9,005,293 and 10,426,633), indicating a robust, multi-front defense strategy against Moskowitz's assertions. This litigation takes place within the dynamic and significant global spinal implant market, valued at over $11 billion in 2024 and projected to grow substantially, driven by an aging population and advancements in spinal fusion technologies. Medtronic remains a dominant force in this market, holding a substantial market share.

Moskowitz Family LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Medtronic Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Titan Spine, Inc., and Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. in the District Court for the District of Minnesota (Case No. 0:25-cv-00769). The case, originally listing U.S. Patent No. 11,376,136, also involves U.S. Patent No. 11,096,797 and U.S. Patent No. 9,005,293. The litigation is currently active, with a projected trial date no earlier than February 2028.

Here are the key legal developments in chronological order:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• February 28, 2025: Moskowitz Family LLC filed the patent infringement complaint against the Medtronic entities and other defendants.
• March 3-4, 2025: All defendants were served with the summons and complaint.
• March 5, 2025: Judge John R. Tunheim recused himself from the case, which was then reassigned to Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz for all further proceedings.
• March 12, 2025: The court granted Moskowitz Family LLC's motion for admission pro hac vice for attorney Sabrina Wilson.
• March 20, 2025: Based on a joint stipulation, the court ordered an extension for the defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, setting the new deadline as May 23, 2025.
• Prior to January 8, 2026: An Amended Complaint (Dkt. 27) and an Answer to the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 29) were filed in the district court, as referenced in a later PTAB filing.
• Prior to January 8, 2026: Defendants filed counterclaims, though specific details are not publicly available without subscription access to detailed docket entries. A "Sotera Stipulation" (Dkt. 38) was also filed, likely relating to parallel PTAB proceedings and potential stays.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• As of May 29, 2026, specific dispositive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or summary judgment have not been publicly detailed in the search results beyond the initial extensions of time to respond. Discussions within PTAB filings, however, indicate consideration of judicial efficiency due to parallel proceedings.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• No information on claim construction (Markman) outcomes is available at this stage of the litigation.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• Beyond the filing of an amended complaint and answer, no specific discovery milestones have been publicly identified.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• A trial has not yet occurred. PTAB filings indicate that the district court trial in Minnesota is not expected until "February 2028 at the earliest."

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case remains active and is proceeding as open litigation for patent infringement.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR2025-01598 (for U.S. Patent No. 9,005,293): Medtronic, Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,005,293. On January 8, 2026, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a Director Discretionary Decision, which notably cited Moskowitz's "decade-long failure to pursue negotiations or litigation against Medtronic" as a factor favoring institution of the IPR. The PTAB also acknowledged that the district court trial would not occur until February 2028 at the earliest, positioning the IPR to conclude before the district court trial.
• IPR2026-00124 (for U.S. Patent No. 11,096,797): Medtronic, Inc. filed another IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,096,797 B2 on November 10, 2025. This IPR is currently pending, and a Director Discretionary Decision was made on March 10, 2026.
• No IPR proceedings have been identified for U.S. Patent No. 11,376,136 as of the current date.

Here is the identified counsel of record representing the plaintiff, Moskowitz Family LLC, in Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic Inc. et al. (0:25-cv-00769 D. Minn.):

Sabrina Wilson

• Role: Attorney for Plaintiff (admitted pro hac vice)
• Firm: Not explicitly listed, appears to be a solo practitioner or operates under an unlisted firm name. Her Martindale.com profile lists an address in Armuchee, GA.
• Relevant patent litigation experience: Sabrina Wilson's practice areas include Intellectual Property. She was granted a motion for admission pro hac vice to represent Moskowitz Family LLC in this case.

As of the current search, specific Minnesota-based local counsel representing Moskowitz Family LLC has not been explicitly identified in the provided public docket summaries or search results. While Sabrina Wilson was admitted pro hac vice (requiring local counsel), the name(s) of the local attorney(s) who sponsored her admission or are otherwise entered as local counsel are not available in the snippets reviewed.

Defendants Represented by Robins Kaplan LLP in Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic Inc. et al.

Minneapolis, MN – Defendants Medtronic Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Titan Spine, Inc., and Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. are represented by counsel from Robins Kaplan LLP in the ongoing patent infringement case filed by Moskowitz Family LLC in the District of Minnesota.

The following attorney has filed a notice of appearance on behalf of the defendants:

• Sybil L. Dunlop - Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, MN
  • Note on experience: Robins Kaplan LLP has a prominent Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation Group known for its strong history of trial success in high-value patent disputes, representing both plaintiffs and defendants across various technologies including medical devices, biotechnology, and software. The firm's IP litigators have achieved significant courtroom victories and successfully defended hundreds of millions of dollars in technology and brand investment.