Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting. Let me start with several searches.

Now let me dig into the key details: the Federal Circuit 24-1696 opinion, PTAB activity, the corporate history, and other Moskowitz cases.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. Moskowitz Family LLC is a Maryland limited liability company based in Rockville, founded by Dr. Nathan (N.A.) Moskowitz — a practicing neurosurgeon (Johns Hopkins, Montgomery General) and prolific spine inventor — expressly "to develop human spine related devices and protect and license any resulting inventions and intellectual property." Compl. ¶¶ 4–7 (D.I. 1). It is therefore best characterized as an inventor-controlled patent-holding/licensing entity rather than an operating company or university: it does not appear to make or sell implants, and it holds a portfolio of "nearly one hundred" U.S. patents in minimally invasive spinal fixation. That distinguishes it from a classic PAE in one respect (the patents are homegrown and the inventor is the moving force) but places it in the same enforcement posture — serial, portfolio-wide licensing demands followed by suit. Defendants NuVasive, LLC and NuVasive, Inc. are the San Diego–based spine implant business that was, per the complaint, the third-largest global spine player before being acquired by Globus Medical in late 2023 (announced February 2023, closed September 2023); NuVasive, Inc. converted into NuVasive, LLC under Delaware law in February 2024, and Moskowitz pleads successor liability against both entities. Compl. ¶¶ 11–13. That corporate fact is the hinge for this case: NuVasive is now a Globus subsidiary, and Globus is Moskowitz's principal prior litigation adversary.

The accused technology. The complaint targets eight commercial NuVasive product families spanning the breadth of the spine franchise: the BASE Interfixed System, Brigade System, and CoRoent Small Interlock System (zero-profile/stand-alone interbody cages with integrated, often bi-directional, vertebral-body screws); the TLX Interbody System, MOD-EX PL, and MOD-EX XLIF expandable interbody devices (in-situ height expansion via an adjusting screw); the Simplify Cervical Disc (cervical arthroplasty); and the X-CORE Expandable VBR (corpectomy/vertebral body replacement). Compl. ¶ 13. The asserted patents, with one-line sketches: U.S. Patent No. 7,972,363 — stand-alone intervertebral cage with internal screw guides, first and second transvertebral screws, and a screw-locking mechanism to prevent back-out (asserted chiefly against BASE and CoRoent); U.S. Patent No. 9,005,293 — self-drilling bone-fusion screw apparatus with first and second sliding boxes and an adjuster to change height (asserted against BASE, Brigade, CoRoent); U.S. Patent No. 9,301,854 — a continuation in the same bi-directional screw/stand-alone spacer family, asserted through indirect infringement theories against the same cage products; U.S. Patent No. 9,924,940 — expandable spinal implant family (asserted against X-CORE); U.S. Patent No. 10,016,284 and U.S. Patent No. 10,426,633 — later-issued continuations directed to expandable/interbody implant and tool-assembly subject matter. The complaint pleads willfulness and both induced and contributory infringement on a notice theory: 2010–2011 technology presentations to NuVasive's New Technology Review Committee and Chief Patent Counsel, a 2015 counsel letter identifying 30+ patents and applications by number, and NuVasive's own later citations to Moskowitz family members during prosecution. Compl. ¶¶ 31–39. Damages are claimed from 2019 forward.

Procedural posture and why it matters. Filed June 6, 2025 in the District of Delaware (1:25-cv-00711) and assigned to Judge William C. Bryson of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. Venue is essentially unassailable: both defendants are Delaware entities, so they "reside" there under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) — the same fact pattern that has kept Delaware the default patent venue post-TC Heartland. NuVasive answered with affirmative defenses and counterclaims on August 22, 2025 (D.I. 13), and Moskowitz filed an amended complaint (D.I. 37, redacted at D.I. 39, February 4, 2026) that secondary-source summaries indicate adds at least U.S. Patent No. 11,747,743 and No. 12,491,088 — a point I could not fully verify and that should be checked against the operative pleading. Claim construction is fully briefed (D.I. 42 chart; 46–47, 54, 58, 62), with the chart showing live disputes over "universal," "stand-alone," "shell," "turning mechanism," "interconnected," and "bendable and reusable," plus indefiniteness and § 112(f) theories; the parties filed a joint status report on claim construction on April 7, 2026 (D.I. 67), and the court entered further scheduling orders in June 2026. Fact and expert discovery ran through 2026 (NuVasive served its invalidity expert report of Michael Sherman on August 27, 2026, D.I. 103, and expert depositions closed October 23, 2026, D.I. 100), and the September 9, 2026 revised scheduling order set dispositive motions for December 18, 2026, with briefing into January 2027 (D.I. 107); the October 2025 scheduling order had set a five-day jury trial for February 8, 2027 before Judge Bryson (D.I. 17).

What makes this case notable is its position at the intersection of three enforcement fronts. First, *the Federal Circuit's September 11, 2026 precedential decision in Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 24-1696* (Prost, Schall, Stoll, JJ.), affirming noninfringement on the '913, '022, and '319 patents after holding "universal" preambles limiting — and NuVasive promptly filed it as supplemental authority here on September 15, 2026 (D.I. 108), a strong signal it intends to use the "universal"/preamble holdings against the overlapping Moskowitz family claims at issue in this case. Second, PTAB linkage: Medtronic filed IPR2025-01598 against the '293 patent on September 29, 2025, and Moskowitz responded with a discretionary-denial request invoking the Fintiv-style overlap with this Delaware case and the parallel Medtronic action (1:25-cv-00769) — so the validity of at least one asserted patent is being fought on two tracks, and I found no NuVasive-filed IPR against the six asserted patents (a notable absence given the litigation-heavy docket). Third, market context: this is a portfolio campaign against the largest remaining spine players — Globus/NuVasive (EDPA and now D. Del.), Medtronic (D. Del.), and ZimVie (22-cv-1632) — targeting high-revenue product lines (stand-alone interbodies, expandable interbodies, cervical discs, VBR), which makes exposure and any licensed outcome potentially significant for the post-consolidation spine market.

Sourcing note: docket entries above are from the CourtListener/Justia/UniCourt docket for 1:25-cv-00711; the Federal Circuit decision is at Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Med., Inc., No. 2024-1696 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2026), https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/09-11-2026-24-1696-moskowitz-family-llc-v-globus-medical-inc-opinion-24-1696-opinion-9-11-2026_2754043/. I did not independently verify: the issue dates/titles of the '854, '284, and '633 patents; the exact patent list in the operative amended complaint; whether the February 2027 trial date survives the September 2026 revisions; or the specific Globus–NuVasive transaction value. Those should be confirmed against PACER and USPTO records before use.

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

Rich docket available. Let me pull the full docket and dig into the Markman, PTAB, and Federal Circuit threads.

Moskowitz Family LLC v. NuVasive, LLC — Litigation Timeline & Posture

1:25-cv-00711-WCB (D. Del.), Judge William C. Bryson (Fed. Cir. judge sitting by designation; case reassigned to him 2025-06-25)

Note: the sections already generated cover the pleadings, products accused, and the fact that dispositive motions are due 2026-12-18. Below I fill in the docket-level chronology, the claim-construction record, the discovery/PTAB threads, and the parallel appellate decision that now hangs over this case.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

Strategic content of the complaint worth carrying forward: Moskowitz pleads willfulness and willful blindness built on a 2010–2011 series of contacts with NuVasive's New Technology Review Committee (spine specialist Jason Pfeiffer, sales director Dennis Farrell, and Chief Patent Counsel Jonathan Spangler, who requested an NDA), plus a June 2015 notice letter from Moskowitz's counsel identifying 30+ patents/applications. Moskowitz also pleads that NuVasive's own prosecution counsel encountered Moskowitz family members (e.g., the '903 patent) in 2017. Damages are pleaded from 2019 forward. (D.I. 1 ¶¶ 31–33, 121–126, 184–188, 255–257.) This is the backbone of any enhanced-damages case under § 284 and will be the focus of the pending invalidity/notice-of-knowledge discovery fight.

Note on the patent count: your case metadata lists six patents; the complaint as filed asserted ten, and the Amended Complaint (D.I. 39) added the newly issued U.S. Patent No. 12,491,088 ("Expandable spinal spacer device," issued 2025-12-09), asserted against the TLX, MOD-EX PL and MOD-EX XLIF systems. That rolling-issuance strategy (suing on a patent that issued six months after the complaint) is itself a notable development — it is the classic setup for a follow-on IPR petition and for a renewed § 315(b) timing argument.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• No motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay has been filed. I found no Rule 12(b) motion, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, and — importantly — no motion to stay pending IPR in this docket. Given the Delaware/California posture and NuVasive's Delaware incorporation (and the Globus acquisition), a transfer motion was unlikely; the absence of a stay motion is consistent with no NuVasive IPR having been filed against these patents.
• Summary judgment has not yet been briefed. Under the original schedule it was due 2026-09-11; by the Revised Scheduling Order (D.I. 107, 2026-09-09) dispositive motions are now due 2026-12-18, answering briefs 2027-01-08, replies 2027-01-15. This ~3-month slip is the single most consequential procedural change in the case and signals that discovery did not close cleanly.
• Discovery disputes have been handled by letter brief, not formal motion — see §4.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

The schedule (D.I. 17) set a compressed, Bryson-style process: simultaneous term lists 2026-01-21 → proposed constructions 2026-01-28 → meet-and-confer 2026-02-04 → joint notice of disputed/undisputed terms to the court 2026-02-06 → opening brief 2026-02-26 → answering 2026-03-13 → reply 2026-03-20 → sur-reply 2026-03-27 → post-briefing meet-and-confer 2026-04-02, with a hearing only if the court finds one useful ("the court strongly discourages the use of PowerPoints").

D.I. 42 (filed 2026-02-06) — Claim Construction Chart. Disputed terms and the parties' positions:

Unopposed issues in the same chart include a mutual agreement that a claim in the '363 patent contains an obvious error correctable as a matter of law ("a first screw locking mechanism that prevents the first screw member and/or the second screw…"), and an agreed construction of the "second screw lock" limitation.

Two observations with real strategic weight:

1. NuVasive went straight at § 112. Three indefiniteness theories plus a § 112(f) means-plus-function theory is an unusually aggressive invalidity posture at Markman — it front-loads invalidity rather than deferring it to summary judgment.
2. "Universal" is the term that already killed Moskowitz once. It was the disputed term in Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., and the Federal Circuit's affirmance issued 2026-09-11 — six days before NuVasive filed its Notice of Supplemental Authority (D.I. 108, 2026-09-15) attaching that opinion. That letter is a direct shot across the bow: NuVasive is telling Judge Bryson that the Federal Circuit has now endorsed a narrow, preamble-limiting construction of "universal" in this same patent family.

**I could not verify a Markman

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Moskowitz Family LLC

Plaintiff is represented by a two-firm team: Avantech Law, LLP (Minneapolis, MN — the patent-litigation lead firm, appearing pro hac vice) and Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE — Delaware local counsel, which files all papers under D. Del. Local Rule 83.5(d)). All five Avantech attorneys were brought in by a single pro hac vice motion filed June 18, 2025 (D.I. 7), with the $250 PHV fee paid the same day (receipt ADEDC-4714106). Source: CourtListener docket, 1:25-cv-00711; Justia docket.

Avantech Law, LLP — 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900, Minneapolis, MN 55402

Corroboration that this is the stable Moskowitz trial team: the same Avantech quartet (Woodford, Werner, Zucchi, Jonas) plus Thomsen signed Moskowitz's interrogatory responses in the related litigation and appear in the PTAB mandatory notices for IPR2026-00124 (Moskowitz as patent owner), with Avantech listed at the Minneapolis address (PTAB filing). The Avantech Delaware practice is also reflected in Judge Bryson's opinion in D. Del. No. 24-1327, which lists "William R. Woodford, Todd S. Werner, Jason M. Zucchi, and Shelleaha L. Jonas, Avantech Law, LLP, of Minneapolis, MN."

Farnan LLP — 919 North Market Street, 12th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801

Both Farnans use bfarnan@farnanlaw.com / mfarnan@farnanlaw.com. The D.I. 42 signature block is styled "AVANTECH LAW, LLP … /s/ Michael J. Farnan," which is the standard D. Del. convention in which the PHV firm is listed "of counsel" and the Delaware firm signs.

Points to flag

• No in-house counsel has appeared. Moskowitz Family LLC is Dr. Nathan Moskowitz's Maryland patent-holding LLC (Rockville, MD); Dr. Moskowitz is a neurosurgeon/inventor, not counsel of record, and no Moskowitz employee-attorney appears on the docket.
• No order granting D.I. 7 was located in the free sources I checked — I confirmed the motion, the fee payment, and the attorneys' subsequent filings (including the Feb. 6, 2026 claim construction chart listing them as "pro hac vice"), but not the specific PHV grant order. Defense PHV grants (Lahad, Hatch-Miller, Hall) were entered as D.I. 14 on 8/22/2025.
• Attorneys who appear for Moskowitz elsewhere but not here: Sabrina Wilson (Avantech, Atlanta) and Ashley E. LaValley appear in Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic (D. Minn. No. 0:25-cv-00769) and in the IPR notices, but neither has entered an appearance in the NuVasive Delaware case based on the docket records reviewed.
• Scope note: the complaint (D.I. 1) asserted ten patents and the amended complaint (D.I. 39) added the '743 and '088 patents; the case metadata's six-patent list is narrower than the operative pleadings — worth reconciling if you rely on the patent list for anything counsel-related.
• Counsel changes / any withdrawal: none observed through the most recent entries I could access (D.I. 108, Sept. 15, 2026, a defense notice of supplemental authority).

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

Good initial hits. Let me confirm each attorney's firm and role.

Counsel of Record for Defendants NuVasive, LLC and NuVasive, Inc.

Bottom line: Defendants appear through a two-tier structure typical in D. Del.: a Wilmington local counsel (who signs and files everything) and a Susman Godfrey LLP trial team admitted pro hac vice. No in-house counsel has entered an appearance on the docket in the records I could retrieve.

The team

Docket grounding

• D.I. 11 — Defendants' MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of John P. Lahad, Mark Hatch-Miller and Amy Hall; granted by D.I. 14, Order signed by Judge William C. Bryson on 08/22/2025 (entered 08/25/2025).
• D.I. 13 — ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses and COUNTERCLAIM against Moskowitz Family LLC, filed 08/22/2025 by Cianciulli on behalf of NuVasive, LLC and NuVasive, Inc.
• Docket remarks dated 09/08/2025 add Lahad and Hall as pro hac vice attorneys for electronic noticing; 09/15/2025 adds Hatch-Miller (per LR 83.5(d), Delaware counsel must be the CM/ECF filer of record).
• Cianciulli continues as the sole signatory on Defendants' later filings, e.g., D.I. 101, 103, 105, and 108 (2026 letters and invalidity expert notice).
• Docket sheet source: Justia docket for 1:25-cv-00711 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2025cv00711/89445) and CourtListener docket 70476467 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70476467/moskowitz-family-llc-v-nuvasive-llc/).

What I could not confirm

• In-house counsel. No NuVasive/Globus Medical in-house attorney has a notice of appearance on this docket in the records retrieved. The third-party aggregator UniCourt lists "12 More Attorneys Available" beyond the four above, but its list is paywalled and I did not enumerate or verify those names, so I am not naming them.
• Firm attribution for Cianciulli. The Justia/CourtListener entries show only his name; the Potter Anderson affiliation comes from firm directory and signature-block practice rather than a docket text field I retrieved directly. It is well established but worth flagging as second-hand.
• No sealed appearances were identified; nothing on this docket suggests counsel is appearing under seal.

Practical read

This is a defense team with unusually direct familiarity with the adverse party: Lahad and Hatch-Miller already tried and won a full defense verdict for Globus against this same plaintiff (Moskowitz Family LLC) on a parallel spinal-implant patent set in E.D. Pa., and Cianciulli is Globus's standard Delaware counsel. Expect that prior verdict and its record to be central to Defendants' invalidity/non-infringement strategy here — and note Defendants already filed a notice of supplemental authority citing a Federal Circuit opinion (Appeal No. 24-1696) at D.I. 108.