Unified Patents v. Moskowtiz Nathan C et al.

This inter partes review (IPR) case, IPR2025-01598, pits Unified Patents against Moskowitz Nathan C and Moskowitz Family LLC, challenging US Patent 9005293. Unified Patents is a member-based defensive patent organization that strategically challenges patents, particularly those asserted by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) or "patent trolls," through IPRs at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to deter frivolous litigation and promote innovation. The respondents, Nathan C. Moskowitz and Moskowitz Family LLC, are the owners of the patent. Nathan C. Moskowitz is identified as an inventor associated with medical device innovations. Moskowitz Family LLC functions as a patent-holding entity, often acting as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) by asserting its portfolio of spinal implant and surgical instrumentation technologies against operating companies in the medical device sector. While there is no "accused product" in an IPR, the underlying technology typically involved in the Moskowitz Family LLC's assertions, and thus related to the challenged patent, pertains to spinal interbody fusion devices designed to stabilize and support the vertebral column during and after surgery, including expandable designs for minimally invasive approaches.

The patent at issue, US 9005293, is titled "Artificial total lumbar disc for unilateral safe and simple posterior placement in the lumbar spine, and removable bifunctional screw which drives vertical sliding expansile plate expansion, and interplate widening, and angled traction spikes." It broadly covers a total artificial expansile lumbar disc and a method for its posterior insertion, featuring parallel plates designed to move apart to occupy the space between vertebral endplates. The case is currently pending at the PTAB and has been instituted, meaning the Board has found sufficient grounds to proceed with a review of the patent's claims.

The procedural posture at the PTAB is significant because it offers a centralized, administrative forum for challenging patent validity, often serving as a more efficient and less costly alternative to traditional district court litigation. This IPR is notable as it aligns with Unified Patents' documented strategy of targeting patents held by alleged NPEs or PAEs. Moskowitz Family LLC has a history of engaging in substantial patent infringement litigation in the spinal implant market, including a recent jury trial against Globus Medical Inc. concerning their patent portfolio. Therefore, the outcome of this IPR could have implications for the enforceability of US 9005293 and potentially influence future patent assertion strategies within the medical device industry, particularly concerning spinal surgery technologies.

The case in question, IPR2025-01598, is an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a district court patent infringement litigation. As such, the procedural steps and terminology differ from those of traditional litigation.

Important Note on Discrepancy:
The provided case metadata identifies Unified Patents as the Petitioner (Plaintiff) and Moskowtiz Nathan C and Moskowitz Family LLC as the Patent Owners (Defendants) for IPR2025-01598 challenging US Patent 9,005,293. However, public records for IPR2025-01598 consistently indicate that Medtronic, Inc. is the Petitioner and Moskowitz Family LLC is the Patent Owner, with the petition filed on September 28, 2025, concerning the same patent, 9,005,293.

Per the operating rules to "Treat the case metadata in this prompt as authoritative; if web search contradicts it, prefer the metadata for party names, court, case number, and patents at issue," this summary will proceed based on Unified Patents being the Petitioner and Moskowtiz Nathan C and Moskowitz Family LLC being the Patent Owners, acknowledging that specific public docket details for this exact party configuration under IPR2025-01598 were not found. The status "Pending - Instituted" is also taken as authoritative from the prompt.

Given this, the following outlines the general IPR process and what can be inferred based on the provided "Pending - Instituted" status:

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for IPR2025-01598

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (Petition for IPR and Preliminary Response):

• Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR): Unified Patents, as the Petitioner, would have filed a petition initiating IPR2025-01598 against U.S. Patent 9,005,293. This petition would detail grounds for unpatentability, typically under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (novelty) and/or 103 (obviousness), based on prior art in patents or printed publications. The filing date for an IPR case number IPR2025-01598 would typically fall in late 2024 or early 2025.
• Patent Owner's Preliminary Response: Moskowtiz Nathan C and Moskowitz Family LLC, as the Patent Owners, would have had an opportunity to file a preliminary response. This response aims to persuade the PTAB not to institute review, typically by arguing that the petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance (Institution Decision):

• Institution Decision: The PTAB determines whether to institute an IPR. The prompt states the case is "Pending - Instituted," which means the PTAB found that the petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim of U.S. Patent 9,005,293 is unpatentable. An institution decision would have been issued by the PTAB approximately six months after the petition was filed. The institution decision sets the scope of the trial, identifying the claims and grounds for review that will proceed.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• In IPR proceedings, the PTAB construes claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard in view of the patent record, unless the patent will expire during the proceeding, in which case the Phillips-type standard used by district courts applies. The claim construction analysis is typically detailed within the institution decision and will guide the remainder of the IPR trial. Since the case is instituted, claim construction positions would have been presented in the petition and preliminary response, and the PTAB would have made an initial ruling on claim scope as part of its institution decision.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• IPR proceedings involve limited discovery compared to district court litigation. Standard discovery includes mandatory initial disclosures, production of exhibit lists, and cross-examination of declarants on their affidavits/declarations. Any significant discovery disputes or motions, while possible, are less common and typically relate to the scope of permitted testimony or production of underlying data.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• Since the case is "Pending - Instituted," the trial phase is ongoing. This phase involves the submission of Patent Owner Responses, Petitioner Replies, oral hearings (if requested), and ultimately, a Final Written Decision by the PTAB. These events would occur after institution.
• Oral Hearing: An optional oral hearing allows parties to present arguments directly to the PTAB panel.
• Final Written Decision (FWD): If the IPR proceeds to a FWD, the Board will issue a decision determining the patentability of the challenged claims. This decision usually occurs within 12 months of institution.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The current posture is "Pending - Instituted," meaning the IPR trial is ongoing and has not reached a final judgment, settlement, or dismissal. Following a Final Written Decision, either party could appeal the PTAB's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on the Asserted Patents and Their Effect:

• While the prompt focuses on IPR2025-01598 with Unified Patents as petitioner, Moskowitz Family LLC has been involved in other patent validity challenges. For example, Moskowitz Family LLC patents were the subject of eight IPR petitions filed by Globus Medical Inc. (challenging patents 8,353,913, 9,889,022, 10,028,740, 10,251,643, 10,307,268, and 10,478,319) in 2020-2021, all of which were denied institution by the PTAB. This indicates a history of defending its patent portfolio against validity challenges.
• Additionally, Moskowitz Family LLC was involved in district court patent infringement litigation against Globus Medical, Inc. (Case No. 2:20-cv-03271 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania), which resulted in a jury verdict of non-infringement on December 13, 2023, for asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,307,268, 10,478,319, and 10,028,740. There was also an appeal in that case which ended in voluntary dismissal at the Federal Circuit on May 26, 2026.
• Another district court case, Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic Inc, Case No. 0:25-cv-00769, was filed on February 28, 2025, in the District of Minnesota.
• The fact that Unified Patents is the petitioner suggests a potential interest from its members in challenging the patent, as Unified Patents is known to file IPRs to deter Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) and protect its members from patent litigation. The USPTO Director's discretion in instituting IPRs, particularly concerning real parties in interest, can be a significant factor in such cases. The increasing trend of discretionary denials at the PTAB, particularly in 2025, has influenced IPR strategies.

Unified Patents is typically represented in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings by a combination of in-house counsel and outside counsel from firms specializing in post-grant patent challenges. While specific attorney appearances for IPR2025-01598 were not directly identified in the public search results, the following individuals and their firms are frequently noted as representing Unified Patents in their IPR challenges, indicating they are likely to be involved in this case or similar matters.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Unified Patents:

• Jonathan Stroud

  • Role: COO & Chief Legal Officer (General Counsel)
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (In-house)
  • Office Location: Chevy Chase, MD (Unified Patents headquarters)
  • Relevant Experience: Oversees Unified Patents' legal and corporate operations, including patent reviews, appeals, and risk management. He frequently teaches, speaks, and writes on patent and administrative law, and has a background as a patent litigator at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP and as a patent examiner at the USPTO.

• Roshan Mansinghani

  • Role: Legal Head - NPE / Head of Operations
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (In-house)
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C. (or Dallas, TX, based on an older filing, but more recent sources point to the D.C. area for Unified Patents' in-house counsel)
  • Relevant Experience: Leads Unified Patents' efforts in deterring the assertion of low-quality patents by non-practicing entities, overseeing numerous USPTO invalidation proceedings annually. He has over a decade of experience in patent litigation and trials, including previous practice at Baker Botts L.L.P.

• Jordan M. Rossen

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (In-house)
  • Office Location: Washington, DC
  • Relevant Experience: Prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. Prior to joining Unified Patents, he practiced intellectual property litigation at Ropes & Gray and Paul Hastings, representing clients before the PTAB, International Trade Commission, district courts, and the Federal Circuit.

• Eric A. Buresh

  • Role: Lead Counsel (for IPR petitions filed by Erise IP on behalf of Unified Patents)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A.
  • Office Location: Overland Park, Kansas and Greenwood Village, Colorado
  • Relevant Experience: A founding member of Erise IP, he is a patent litigator with extensive experience in district courts, Federal Circuit appeals, and PTAB IPR proceedings, having filed over 115 IPRs. He is recognized for securing defense verdicts in patent infringement matters and for Erise IP's high success rate in IPRs.

• Kelly R. Hughes

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (In-house); formerly with Erise IP, P.A.
  • Office Location: Likely Washington, D.C. (as in-house counsel for Unified Patents)
  • Relevant Experience: Handles PTAB filings, including IPRs and ex parte reexaminations for Unified Patents. Before joining Unified, she was a patent litigator with Erise IP, focusing on patent litigation, particularly in software and electronics. She was part of the Erise team that achieved success in PTAB proceedings for a technology client.

Based on extensive prior representation in similar inter partes review (IPR) proceedings and patent litigation, Fish & Richardson P.C. is likely representing the defendants, Moskowitz Nathan C and Moskowitz Family LLC, in IPR2025-01598. While direct counsel information for this specific IPR could not be definitively confirmed from publicly accessible docket sheets, Fish & Richardson has a well-documented history of representing Moskowitz Family LLC in PTAB matters, including securing denials of IPR petitions.

Notable attorneys from Fish & Richardson P.C. who have previously represented Moskowitz Family LLC in IPR proceedings include:

• Timothy Riffe - Principal, Fish & Richardson P.C. (Office location not specified in immediate search results, but Fish & Richardson has offices in Atlanta, Austin, Dallas, Delaware, and Minneapolis, among others).
  • Experience: Lead counsel in securing the denial of eight IPR petitions filed by Globus Medical Inc. against Moskowitz Family LLC's spinal surgery patents.
• Joseph Colaianni - Principal, Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Experience: Part of the Fish & Richardson team that successfully defended Moskowitz Family LLC against IPR challenges from Globus Medical Inc.
• Kenneth Darby - Principal, Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Experience: Member of the Fish & Richardson team that achieved denials of IPR petitions for Moskowitz Family LLC.
• Craig Deutsch - Principal, Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Experience: Contributed to the successful defense of Moskowitz Family LLC's patents in IPRs.
• Hyun Jin In - Principal, Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Experience: Part of the legal team that secured IPR denials for Moskowitz Family LLC.
• Brian Livedalen - Principal, Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Experience: Member of the Fish & Richardson team in IPR victories for Moskowitz Family LLC.
• Stuart Nelson - Principal, Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Experience: Assisted in the successful IPR defense for Moskowitz Family LLC.
• Jason Zucchi - Principal, Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Experience: Played a role in the Fish & Richardson team that won IPRs for Moskowitz Family LLC.
• Michael Ballanco - Associate, Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Experience: Associate on the Fish & Richardson team that secured IPR denials for Moskowitz Family LLC.
• Laura Whitworth - Associate, Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Experience: Associate counsel in the successful IPR defense for Moskowitz Family LLC.
• Jack Wilson - Associate, Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Experience: Associate on the Fish & Richardson team that helped defeat IPR challenges for Moskowitz Family LLC.

Fish & Richardson is a highly regarded intellectual property law firm with a strong and active post-grant practice, handling a significant number of proceedings at the PTAB for both petitioners and patent owners. This expertise and history of representing Moskowitz Family LLC makes them the most likely counsel for the current IPR. Nathan C. Moskowitz is listed as an inventor on patents assigned to Moskowitz Family LLC.