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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Moskowitz Family LLC IPR2026-00285 counsel", "Moskowitz Family LLC patent litigation counsel", "Fay Sharpe patent litigation", "Neal & McDevitt patent litigation"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record for the defendant, Moskowitz Family LLC, in IPR2026-00285. I need to use web search to identify these attorneys and then for each, provide their name, role, firm, office location, and a brief note on their relevant experience.

Given that this is an IPR, the "defendant" is referred to as the "Patent Owner" in PTAB proceedings.

I will start by searching for "Moskowitz Family LLC IPR2026-00285 counsel" and "Moskowitz Family LLC patent litigation counsel" to find attorneys who have represented them in similar cases. I will then expand to firm websites and legal news sites if initial searches don't yield enough specific information.Moskowitz Family LLC, the Patent Owner in IPR2026-00285, is expected to be represented by counsel with significant experience in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings. While specific counsel for the pending IPR2026-00285 has not been explicitly identified in the available public records as of May 29, 2026, their past representation in similar PTAB challenges offers strong indications.

Moskowitz Family LLC has previously relied on Fish & Richardson P.C. for defense in Inter Partes Review proceedings. Notably, Fish & Richardson successfully defended Moskowitz Family LLC against eight IPR petitions filed by Globus Medical Inc. in 2021, challenging patents related to spinal surgery. The PTAB denied all of Globus Medical's petitions in that instance.

Based on this precedent, the following attorneys from Fish & Richardson P.C., who were part of the team that secured the prior IPR victories for Moskowitz Family LLC, are strong candidates for representing them in IPR2026-00285:

• Timothy Riffe

  • Role: Principal Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Note on experience: Led the Fish & Richardson team that secured the denial of eight IPR petitions against Moskowitz Family LLC's spinal surgery patents.

• Joseph Colaianni

  • Role: Principal Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Note on experience: Part of the Fish & Richardson team that successfully defended Moskowitz Family LLC's patents in IPRs against Globus Medical.

• Kenneth Darby

  • Role: Principal Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Note on experience: Involved in the successful defense of Moskowitz Family LLC's patents in IPRs initiated by Globus Medical.

• Craig Deutsch

  • Role: Principal Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Note on experience: Member of the Fish & Richardson team that achieved favorable outcomes for Moskowitz Family LLC in prior IPR proceedings.

• Hyun Jin In

  • Role: Principal Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Note on experience: Contributed to the successful defense of Moskowitz Family LLC against IPR challenges from Globus Medical.

• Brian Livedalen

  • Role: Principal Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Note on experience: Part of the legal team that obtained denials of IPR petitions for Moskowitz Family LLC.

• Stuart Nelson

  • Role: Principal Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Note on experience: Involved in defending Moskowitz Family LLC's patent portfolio in prior PTAB cases.

• Jason Zucchi

  • Role: Principal Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Note on experience: Served on the Fish & Richardson team that secured victories for Moskowitz Family LLC in IPR proceedings.

Moskowitz Family LLC has also been involved in other IPRs, such as IPR2025-01598 with Medtronic, Inc. as the petitioner, demonstrating their ongoing engagement with PTAB proceedings.

As of the current date, specific docket information confirming the appearance of counsel for IPR2026-00285 is not yet publicly detailed in the provided search results. Therefore, the above attorneys are identified based on their strong history of representing Moskowitz Family LLC in similar PTAB matters.