Unified Patents v. Moskowitz Family LLC

Unified Patents has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Moskowitz Family LLC, challenging the validity of US patent 10603183. Unified Patents is a member-based organization dedicated to deterring unsubstantiated patent assertions by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) through various means, including filing IPR petitions against patents they deem to be of poor quality. Moskowitz Family LLC is a patent-holding entity associated with the innovations of spinal surgeon and inventor Dr. Norman Moskowitz (or Randall Moskowitz, M.D.), whose primary activity is monetizing patents, classifying them as an NPE. The patent at issue, US 10603183, pertains to spinal implant technology, a field in which Moskowitz Family LLC holds a broader portfolio of patents. A specific one-line technical sketch for patent 10603183 was not directly available in the provided search results, but the general context places it within spinal implant and interbody fusion technologies.

The case, IPR2026-00285, is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The PTAB serves as an administrative forum for reviewing the patentability of issued patents, often providing a faster and less expensive alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity. This venue is crucial because IPRs are a core component of Unified Patents' strategy to combat NPE litigation by directly challenging the validity of asserted patents.

This IPR is notable as it reflects Unified Patents' ongoing efforts to scrutinize patents held by NPEs in various technology sectors. Moskowitz Family LLC has a history of asserting its spinal implant patents against operating companies, such as Globus Medical, and has previously faced IPR challenges to its portfolio, with some petitions being denied institution by the PTAB. The filing of this IPR against patent 10603183 highlights the persistent focus on patent quality and the validity of patents within the medical device industry, particularly those involved in spinal surgery and interbody fusion.

The legal developments regarding US Patent 10,603,183 primarily involve a pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00285, filed by Unified Patents against Moskowitz Family LLC, and a related patent infringement lawsuit, Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic Inc., in which this patent is asserted. Moskowitz Family LLC has a history of patent litigation, notably a case against Globus Medical Inc. involving other patents, which concluded recently.

Here are the key legal developments in chronological order:

I. Related Patent Infringement Litigation (Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic Inc.)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (Complaint, Answer, Counterclaims):
  • On February 28, 2025, Moskowitz Family LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Medtronic Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek Inc., Titan Spine Inc., and Warsaw Orthopedic Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The case is docketed as 0:25-cv-00769. The complaint alleges infringement of US Patent 10,603,183 B2, among others.
  • On March 20, 2025, the court granted a stipulation by the parties, extending the defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until May 23, 2025. The case status is currently "Open".

II. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding (Unified Patents v. Moskowitz Family LLC)

• Filing of IPR Petition:
  • Unified Patents filed an Inter Partes Review petition, IPR2026-00285, challenging US Patent 10,603,183. Given the IPR number and the current date (May 29, 2026), the petition was likely filed in early 2026. This IPR is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Specific details regarding the filing date of the petition or subsequent docket events for IPR2026-00285 are not publicly available in the provided search results beyond its status as "Pending" and the parties involved.

III. Contextual Information: Moskowitz Family LLC's Prior Litigation

While not directly involving US Patent 10,603,183, Moskowitz Family LLC previously engaged in significant patent infringement litigation against Globus Medical Inc. and faced IPR challenges on other patents.

• District Court Filing (Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical Inc.):
  • Moskowitz Family LLC filed suit against Globus Medical Inc. for patent infringement, initially in November 2019 in the Western District of Texas (case number 6:19-cv-00672). The case was later transferred and proceeded in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (case number 2:20-cv-03271) from July 6, 2020.
  • The litigation involved a portfolio of eight patents related to spinal implant and interbody fusion technologies, specifically mentioning US Patent Nos. 10,307,268, 10,478,319, and 10,028,740, among others. Notably, US Patent 10,603,183 was not asserted in this case.
• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (Globus Medical Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC):
  • In response to the infringement lawsuit, Globus Medical Inc. filed eight IPR petitions challenging various claims in six of the asserted patents (US Patent Nos. 8,353,913, 9,889,022, 10,028,740, 10,251,643, 10,307,268, and 10,478,319).
  • The PTAB denied all eight of Globus's IPR petitions, finding that Globus failed to meet its burden to prove the challenged claims unpatentable. The final denial was issued on February 5, 2021.
• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:
  • After an eight-day trial, a jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a verdict on December 13, 2023, finding that Globus Medical Inc. did not infringe the asserted claims of the three patents (US Patent Nos. 10,307,268, 10,478,319, and 10,028,740). The jury also found that Globus Medical had not proven those claims invalid.
  • Moskowitz Family LLC had sought over $86 million in damages.
  • Chief Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg entered final judgment on February 27, 2024, confirming the non-infringement findings and ruling that the patents were not proven invalid. Moskowitz Family LLC's motion for a new trial was denied.
• Appeal and Final Disposition:
  • Moskowitz Family LLC appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (case number 24-1696).
  • On April 24, 2025, the Federal Circuit entered a voluntary dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs. No damages award, injunctive relief, or declaratory judgment was recorded.

Unified Patents typically leverages its in-house legal team for Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While specific counsel filings for IPR2026-00285 were not directly found in public docket searches, Unified Patents' operational model indicates that its Senior Patent Counsel focused on post-grant proceedings would be representing the organization.

The following in-house attorneys at Unified Patents are known to prepare and litigate post-grant proceedings before the PTAB:

• Jordan Rossen

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel, in-house
  • Firm: Unified Patents, with attorneys often based in or near Washington, DC.
  • Experience Note: Prior to joining Unified Patents, Jordan Rossen practiced in the intellectual property litigation departments at Ropes & Gray and Paul Hastings for eleven years, representing clients before the PTAB, International Trade Commission, district courts, and the Federal Circuit. His experience covers various industries, including medical devices.

• David Seastrunk

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel, in-house
  • Firm: Unified Patents.
  • Experience Note: David Seastrunk previously practiced at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, where he was involved in all phases of post-grant proceedings, district court cases, and International Trade Commission investigations. He also has experience in patent prosecution and client counseling.

• Michelle Callaghan (formerly Michelle Aspen)

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel, in-house
  • Firm: Unified Patents.
  • Experience Note: Before joining Unified Patents, Michelle Callaghan practiced at Erise IP, defending clients against patent demands in district courts and challenging patents before the PTAB. Her experience spans various technologies, including communication networks, video coding, and mobile devices.

• Jonathan Stroud

  • Role: Chief IP Counsel, in-house
  • Firm: Unified Patents.
  • Experience Note: As Chief IP Counsel, Jonathan Stroud likely oversees the strategies and work of the in-house team handling IPRs for Unified Patents. He has participated in webinars discussing improving the quality of issued US patents.

Unified Patents explicitly states it is not a law firm and does not have an attorney-client relationship with its members, acting independently to challenge patents it deems of low quality. Their legal department is continuously growing and seeks experienced patent attorneys for internal litigation and prosecution of matters.

I'll research counsel for the defendant/patent owner side. Let me start with several targeted searches.

I found a significant discrepancy with the case metadata. Let me dig deeper on both sides.

Now let me pin down the district court defense team and the Avantech team details.

Counsel of record — defendant / patent-owner side

⚠️ Threshold correction to the case metadata (please flag upstream)

Before the substantive answer: the case as docketed is not Unified Patents v. Moskowitz Family LLC. Every PTAB source I retrieved shows IPR2026-00285 is captioned Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC, filed March 2, 2026 (notice according filing date Mar. 5, 2026), on U.S. Patent 10,603,183, tech center 3700 / art unit 3773.

• Petitioner's Power of Attorney (Paper 2, Mar. 2, 2026) appoints Paul Hastings LLP and is executed by Anthony H. Sheh, Senior Principal IP Litigation Counsel, Medtronic, Inc. (docket copy)
• Docket Alarm and GreyB both list Petitioner = Medtronic, Inc.; Patent Owner = Moskowitz Family LLC (Docket Alarm, GreyB/ipverse)
• The AI-lab case page likewise shows "Medtronic Inc v. Moskowitz Family LLC," filed 03/02/26, status pending (link)

So: the previously generated "Plaintiff representatives" section (Unified Patents in-house counsel — Rossen, Seastrunk, Callaghan, Stroud) does not appear to be counsel in IPR2026-00285 at all. I found no record of Unified Patents in this proceeding. I'm flagging this rather than silently harmonizing it, per your instructions.

Because the prompt says "defendant(s) in this patent infringement case," I've covered both plausible readings below: (A) the respondent/patent owner in the IPR (the party opposing the petitioner), and (B) the defendants in the co-pending D. Minn. infringement action.

---

A. Patent Owner in IPR2026-00285 — Moskowitz Family LLC (the "defendant" side in the IPR)

Source: Patent Owner Power of Attorney (Paper 4, filed Mar. 23, 2026) and Mandatory Notices (Paper 5, filed Mar. 23, 2026), both available via the PTAB docket; the PO Power of Attorney text is also mirrored on PTACTS.

• Service/notice emails of record: zelepugas@avantechlaw.com, conley@avantechlaw.com, moskowitz-post-grant@avantechlaw.com (Mandatory Notices § IV).
• The PO Power of Attorney additionally designates "all attorneys at Avantech Law, LLP for whom a Notice of Intent to Designate a Previously Recognized PTAB Attorney or a Motion to Appear pro hac vice is filed." As of the PTAB docket snapshot I reviewed, no such notice or pro hac vice motion appears of record — so do not assume additional pro hac vice counsel have been admitted. If any appear, the firm roster includes William Woodford, Todd Werner, Jason Zucchi, Justin Singh, Shelleaha Jonas, Kate Quisenberry, Julie Thomsen, Ph.D., Sabrina Wilson, and others (sitemap) — but their appearance here is not confirmed.
• The certificate of service in the PO Power of Attorney also references "FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (TC), PO Box 1022, Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022" as a service "address of record." This appears to be the patent's prosecution correspondence address (Moskowitz's 2016 prosecution counsel per the district court briefing), not an appearance in the IPR. Treat it as a service address only.

---

B. Defendants in the co-pending infringement suit — Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. et al., No. 0:25-cv-00769 (D. Minn., filed Feb. 28, 2025)

This is the "patent infringement case" in the family; the '183 patent is one of twelve asserted patents (Compl. ¶ 29, Dkt. 1) and is identified as a related matter in the PO's IPR Mandatory Notices.

Defendants: Medtronic, Inc.; Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.; Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.; Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.; Titan Spine, Inc.

Outside counsel of record (appearances filed Mar. 14, 2025)

Greene Espel signs the defendants' filings jointly — the Answer/declaratory-judgment counterclaims (Mar. 19, 2025) and the Motion to Stay (served Feb. 20, 2026; noticed for Mar. 6, 2026), both under the signature block "GREENE ESPEL PLLP / Sybil L. Dunlop / X. Kevin Zhao / Kshithij Shrinath, Attorneys for Defendants." Docket mirror: Justia docket 0:25-cv-00769.

Medtronic in-house

IPR counsel for Medtronic (Paul Hastings LLP) — for cross-reference

These are Petitioner-side counsel, not defendant-side, but they matter because the D. Minn. stay motion is premised on this IPR series (IPR2025-01598 on the '293 patent; IPR2026-00121, -00124, -00285, etc.):

• Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224) — Lead counsel, Paul Hastings LLP, 875 15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20005
• Young Park (Reg. No. 51,114) — Back-up counsel, Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Ave., New York, NY 10166
• Chetan R. Bansal (Reg. No. 81,590) — Back-up counsel, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC
• Service: PH-Medtronic-Moskowitz-IPR@paulhastings.com (Petitioner's POA)

Plaintiff-side counsel in D. Minn. (same firm as the IPR patent-owner counsel)

Moskowitz Family LLC is represented in the district court by Avantech Law, LLP: Jason M. Zucchi (filed the complaint, Dkt. 1, Feb. 28, 2025), William R. Woodford, Todd Stephen Werner, Shelleaha L. Jonas, and Sabrina Wilson (pro hac vice granted Mar. 12, 2025, Dkt. 11; motion Dkt. 10) (PacerMonitor docket).

---

Sourcing gaps and cautions

1. Sealed/not-yet-filed: I found no pro hac vice motions, no notices of intent to designate, and no additional counsel appearances in IPR2026-00285 beyond Papers 2, 4 and 5. I cannot rule out later-filed appearances that post-date the docket snapshots I retrieved.
2. National/co-counsel in D. Minn.: The public docket entries I retrieved show only Greene Espel appearing for the five Medtronic defendants. I did not find a separate national trial firm on the district court docket; given the twelve-patent scope this would be unusual but I will not speculate — treat Greene Espel as counsel of record unless a later appearance shows otherwise.
3. Metadata conflict (repeated for emphasis): The authoritative-case-metadata rule in my instructions says to prefer the prompt for party names. I am flagging — not overriding — that the prompt's plaintiff ("Unified Patents") conflicts with every PTAB/PACER-derived source, which uniformly name Medtronic, Inc. as petitioner. Both the case-summary section and the prior "Plaintiff representatives" section should be reconciled with that.
4. Prior section cross-check: its statement that the petition "was likely filed in early 2026" is now confirmed — filed Mar. 2, 2026. Its statement that "specific details" of IPR2026-00285 were unavailable is now superseded; Papers 2–5 and petitioner exhibits 1001–1063 are on the docket.