Litigation

Moskowitz Family LLC v. Nuvasive Inc.

Open litigation for patent infringement claims

1:25-cv-00711

Filed
2025-06-06

Patents at issue (1)

11376136PTAB challenge active

Defendants (1)

Summary

Moskowitz Family LLC filed a patent infringement suit against Nuvasive Inc. in the District of Delaware. An amended complaint was filed, indicating ongoing activity.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Moskowitz Family LLC, a patent-holding entity associated with the innovations of spinal surgeon and inventor Dr. Norman Moskowitz, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Nuvasive Inc., a medical devices company specializing in minimally invasive spine surgery. Nuvasive Inc. develops and markets a range of products including surgical planning software, access instruments, and implantable hardware used to treat various spinal conditions. The plaintiff, Moskowitz Family LLC, appears to operate as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), asserting its portfolio of patents related to spinal implant and interbody fusion technologies. The accused products in this litigation are NuVasive's spinal implant devices, which are a core part of the defendant's surgical offerings.

The central patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 11,376,136, titled "Expandable spinal implant and tool system." This patent broadly describes a self-drilling bone fusion screw apparatus. The apparatus includes at least two sliding boxes, each containing a self-drilling screw member with a tapered end and a threaded body, and an adjuster mechanism to modify the height of these sliding boxes. The patent also covers a tool assembly designed for manipulating such screw members and a lumbar facet staple for spinal fusion. While the prompt focuses on this single patent, some court records suggest the case may involve additional patents.

The case, 1:25-cv-00711, was filed on June 6, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and is presided over by Judge William C. Bryson. The District of Delaware is a highly significant venue for patent litigation, often chosen due to its judicial expertise, reliable docket, and well-established patent-specific precedent. Following the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision, which limited patent venue primarily to a defendant's state of incorporation, the District of Delaware became a mandatory forum for a substantial number of patent infringement suits, as many major corporations, including Nuvasive Inc., are incorporated there.

This litigation is notable within the medical device industry, particularly in the competitive spinal implant sector. Moskowitz Family LLC has a history of asserting its patent portfolio against major players in this market; for instance, it previously litigated against Globus Medical Inc., which subsequently merged with Nuvasive Inc. in September 2023. The prior litigation against Globus Medical saw a jury finding of non-infringement on some patents, though other asserted patents remained legally intact or were dismissed without prejudice, indicating a persistent assertion strategy by Moskowitz Family LLC. Furthermore, the ongoing litigation is linked to parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the USPTO, as evidenced by references to IPR2025-01598 in the case's scheduling order, highlighting a common pattern of defendants challenging patent validity at the PTAB alongside district court proceedings. Moskowitz Family LLC has also successfully defended some of its patents against IPR challenges in previous litigation.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

The patent infringement litigation Moskowitz Family LLC v. Nuvasive Inc., case number 1:25-cv-00711, commenced in the District of Delaware on June 6, 2025. The case is currently in its early stages of litigation, with a scheduling order issued and key deadlines for initial disclosures and contentions having passed or approaching.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

  • Complaint: Moskowitz Family LLC filed its initial complaint on June 6, 2025, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,376,136 and potentially nine other patents. The complaint was followed by summons issued to NuVasive, Inc. and NuVasive, LLC on the same day.
  • Initial Disclosures: Per the scheduling order, initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) were due within five days of the October 20, 2025, order, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
  • Infringement Contentions: Moskowitz Family LLC was ordered to serve a list of no more than 50 claims it intends to pursue by November 14, 2025, and then serve its Infringement Contentions on Nuvasive by December 12, 2025. These contentions must specifically identify each infringed claim, the accused products, and a chart detailing how each limitation of the asserted claims is found within the accused product.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

  • Motions to Stay Pending IPR: The scheduling order explicitly references parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, specifically IPR2025-01598. While a motion to stay pending this IPR is not explicitly listed as filed yet, the court has set a deadline for case-dispositive motions, which would likely include any motions to stay, for September 11, 2026.
    • IPR2025-01598: This IPR proceeding was filed by Medtronic, Inc. against Moskowitz Family LLC on September 28, 2025. The status of this specific IPR petition (e.g., whether it has been instituted or denied) will significantly impact the district court litigation.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

  • The scheduling order indicates that a claim construction hearing may be set if the court deems it useful after reviewing the parties' briefs. Following a claim construction order, Moskowitz Family LLC will be required to reduce the number of claims it intends to pursue at trial to no more than 25 within 14 days.

Discovery Milestones

  • Expert Testimony Disclosures: The initial disclosure of expert testimony for the party with the burden of proof is due on or before May 27, 2026. The opposing party's responsive disclosure is due on or before June 22, 2026.

Present Posture

The case is in active litigation and is proceeding through discovery, with key expert disclosures and the deadline for case-dispositive motions, including potentially motions to stay or for summary judgment, set for September 11, 2026. The outcome of the related IPR proceeding (IPR2025-01598) could significantly influence the district court's trajectory.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

The plaintiff, Moskowitz Family LLC, is represented by a team of attorneys from several law firms.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel of record:

  • Jeffrey T. Castellano

    • Role: Lead Counsel (has litigated patent cases as lead counsel for over 15 years, primarily in Delaware courts).
    • Firm: DLA Piper (previously with a nationally recognized boutique litigation firm in Delaware).
    • Location: DLA Piper operates globally, but Castellano's significant experience is in Delaware.
    • Experience Note: His practice spans various technologies including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and software. He has handled cases in multiple U.S. District Courts, including the Federal Circuit, and before federal administrative agencies like the ITC and USPTO. He is the past president of the Delaware Chapter of the Federal Bar Association. Castellano is also associated with Castellano PLLC, an intellectual property law firm specializing in patents, trademarks, IP litigation, IPRs, and Federal Circuit appeals, with offices in the Washington D.C. area.

  • Richard D. Kirk

    • Role: Local Counsel (a director at Bayard and head of the firm's Intellectual Property practice).
    • Firm: Bayard, P.A.
    • Location: Wilmington, Delaware.
    • Experience Note: Focuses on general business litigation and intellectual property litigation. He is a past president of the Delaware State Bar Association and former chair of its Intellectual Property Section. He also serves on the District of Delaware's Rules Advisory Committee.

  • Ryan J. McBeth

    • Role: Lead Counsel (a Principal at McKool Smith, focusing on technology-related litigation).
    • Firm: McKool Smith
    • Location: Houston, Texas.
    • Experience Note: Possesses extensive experience in patent, trade secret, and trademark matters, with cases involving a broad range of complex technologies such as medical devices, oil and gas tools, and computer systems. He has experience with appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the USPTO.

  • Robert A. Katz

    • Role: Lead Counsel (founder of Katz Law Firm, practicing intellectual property litigation).
    • Firm: Katz Law Firm (also associated with Banner Witcoff).
    • Location: Dallas, Texas (Katz Law Firm); Chicago, Illinois (Banner Witcoff).
    • Experience Note: Has almost 40 years of experience in intellectual property law, including serving as first chair in numerous patent, trademark, copyright, unfair competition, and trade secret cases, including jury trials. He has represented clients in patent litigation involving various technologies and has drafted and prosecuted numerous patents.

  • J. Michael Farren (This attorney's role or continued involvement in active litigation is questionable given past criminal conviction and disbarment).

    • Role: Historical association with Moskowitz Family LLC in prior litigation. It's highly unlikely he is actively representing the plaintiff in this current case.
    • Firm: Formerly general counsel for Xerox Corporation (2003-2007) and Deputy White House Counsel (2007-2009).
    • Experience Note: While he held significant legal roles in the past, he was disbarred in 2015 by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals following a conviction for attempted murder in 2014. His last known legal activities were appeals related to his criminal conviction and a civil judgment against him, where he represented himself for a period. Given his disbarment, he would not be able to act as counsel in this or any other active case.

  • Megan D. McIntyre

    • Role: Identified in some records as associated with litigation for Moskowitz Family LLC, though her specific role (e.g., local counsel) in this case is not explicitly detailed in publicly available information.
    • Firm: Her Martindale profile indicates general litigation practice.
    • Location: Wilmington, Delaware.
    • Experience Note: Her listed areas of practice include litigation, corporate, and securities.

It is important to note that Moskowitz Family LLC has previously worked with other firms in prior litigations, such as Fish & Richardson in IPR proceedings against Globus Medical Inc., where they successfully defended several patents. However, the current search focuses on the Moskowitz Family LLC v. Nuvasive Inc. case (1:25-cv-00711). Filings for this specific case are still relatively new (filed June 6, 2025), and detailed counsel information on public dockets may evolve.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll search for the defendant's counsel of record in this case.

I have the key names. Let me identify their firms and roles.

Now let me confirm the local Delaware counsel and the third PHV attorney.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — NuVasive, Inc. & NuVasive, LLC

Bottom line: The defense is being handled by a two-tier team: Susman Godfrey LLP as national/lead patent trial counsel (Houston and New York) and Jeffrey S. Cianciulli as Delaware local counsel. Three Susman Godfrey attorneys were admitted pro hac vice in August 2025. This is the same Susman Godfrey team that successfully defended Globus Medical—NuVasive's corporate parent since the late-2023 acquisition—against Moskowitz Family in Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc. (E.D. Pa.), which explains the retention.

Counsel table

Attorney Role Firm / office PHV / docket status Experience note
Jeffrey S. Cianciulli Delaware local counsel (only Delaware-bar attorney of record; signed the answer, counterclaim and all PHV papers) Weir Greenblatt Pierce LLP (formerly Weir & Partners LLP), 824 N. Market St., Suite 800, Wilmington, DE Delaware bar #4369; filed D.I. 11, 12, 13 Delaware patent/commercial litigator; served as Delaware counsel to Globus Medical in Globus Medical, Inc. v. Life Spine, Inc., 1:21-cv-01445 (D. Del.) — the same client now defending here
John P. Lahad Lead counsel (co-lead trial counsel) Susman Godfrey LLP, 1000 Louisiana St., Suite 5100, Houston, TX PHV granted by Judge Bryson 8/22/2025 (D.I. 14); added to CM/ECF noticing 9/8/2025 Represented Globus Medical as defendant in Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical (E.D. Pa.) — take-nothing defense verdict after an 8-day, $86M trial; argued the successful Federal Circuit appeal. Also Univ. of Texas ($42M verdict), Intellectual Ventures, PACT XPP, STC.UNM
Mark Hatch-Miller Co-lead trial counsel Susman Godfrey LLP, 1301 Ave. of the Americas, 32nd Fl., New York, NY PHV granted 8/22/2025 (D.I. 14); added to CM/ECF noticing 9/15/2025 Co-lead trial counsel for Globus in the Moskowitz E.D. Pa. trial (delivered opening statement); also won the Flexuspine v. Globus defense verdict and the $9.5M Globus v. Life Spine plaintiff's verdict in D. Del.
Amy V. Hall Appears as additional defense counsel (role on the team not further specified in public filings) Firm not confirmed from a primary source in my search; listed alongside Lahad and Hatch-Miller on NuVasive's PHV motion (D.I. 11) and granted PHV the same day (D.I. 14) PHV granted 8/22/2025; added to CM/ECF noticing 9/8/2025 Relevance/experience note could not be verified — treat as unconfirmed

Source basis / docket citations

Gaps and cautions

  1. Additional defendant-side attorneys likely exist. A UniCourt aggregate entry for this case lists "Defendant and Counter-Claimant Attorneys: John P. Lahad, Amy V. Hall, Jeffrey S. Cianciulli — 12 More Attorneys Available" (https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-casegue553e154b48d-[2126925](/patent/2126925)). I could not enumerate those additional names. Some are probably routine CM/ECF noticing entries for co-counsel; others could be additional Susman Godfrey lawyers appearing on later filings.
  2. Amy V. Hall's firm is unconfirmed. Her name appears with Lahad and Hatch-Miller on the joint PHV motion, which strongly suggests she is Susman Godfrey, but I did not obtain a firm page or appearance document naming her employer. Do not treat the Susman Godfrey attribution as established.
  3. Cianciulli's current firm. Weir Greenblatt Pierce LLP is confirmed for 2021–2022 filings; the firm has also appeared as "Weir & Partners LLP" historically. I did not retrieve a 2025 filing from this case bearing the letterhead, so the firm name should be verified against D.I. 13 itself.
  4. In-house counsel. No in-house attorney has entered