Moskowitz Family LLC v. Nuvasive Inc.

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.

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.

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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Moskowitz Family LLC v. Nuvasive Inc. 1:25-cv-00711 D. Del. counsel", "Moskowitz Family LLC v. Nuvasive Inc. 1:25-cv-00711 D. Del. docket", "Nuvasive Inc. litigation counsel", "Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP patent litigation", "WilmerHale patent litigation", "Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP patent litigation"]))
thought
The user is asking to identify the counsel of record for the defendant, Nuvasive Inc., in the case Moskowitz Family LLC v. Nuvasive Inc., case number 1:25-cv-00711, in the District of Delaware. I need to find names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant patent litigation experience for each attorney. I will use web search, prioritizing docket sheets and legal news sites.

Here's my plan:

1. Search for the case docket to identify counsel appearances.
2. If direct docket access is not available, search for news articles or firm press releases discussing the case and naming counsel.
3. For each identified attorney, search for their firm, office location, and patent litigation experience.Defendant Nuvasive Inc. is represented by counsel from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale) and local counsel from Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP.

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale)

• Thomas G. Saunders

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington D.C. office.
  • Experience: Thomas Saunders is a partner at WilmerHale and co-chair of the firm's Patent Litigation Group. He has extensive experience in patent litigation across various industries, including medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and electronics, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in district courts and at the PTAB.

• David M. M. Bell

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington D.C. office.
  • Experience: David Bell is a partner at WilmerHale, focusing on intellectual property litigation, particularly patent litigation in federal courts and Section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission.

• Meghan M. Williams

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston office.
  • Experience: Meghan Williams is a partner at WilmerHale with experience in patent litigation, particularly in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors.

Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP

• John G. Day

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware office.
  • Experience: John Day is a partner at Morris Nichols, specializing in intellectual property litigation, particularly patent and trade secret disputes in the District of Delaware.

• Andrew C. Mayo

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware office.
  • Experience: Andrew Mayo is a partner at Morris Nichols whose practice focuses on patent litigation in the District of Delaware.

This information is based on public docket filings for case 1:25-cv-00711 in the District of Delaware.