The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled against Moskowitz Family LLC in its patent dispute with Globus Medical, Inc., affirming a lower court's decision that Globus did not infringe on Moskowitz's patents related to spinal implant technology. This ruling, issued on September 11, 2026, impacts the legal landscape for patent claims in the medical device industry, particularly in spinal surgery innovations.
The case (docket number 24-1696) arose from a lawsuit filed by Moskowitz in November 2019, alleging that Globus's products infringed on three of its patents: U.S. Patent No. 8,353,913, U.S. Patent No. 9,889,022, and U.S. Patent No. 10,478,319. The dispute centered on the interpretation of the term “universal” within these patents and whether Globus's products met the requirements outlined in the claims.
Moskowitz Family LLC is a company that develops medical devices, particularly spinal implants designed to assist in spinal fusion surgeries. Globus Medical, Inc. is a well-known manufacturer of medical devices, including spinal implants and related surgical products. The conflict began when Moskowitz accused Globus of infringing on its patents with several of its products, which Moskowitz referred to as the “Accused Products.”
The case reached the Federal Circuit after the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Globus's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement and denied Moskowitz's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) regarding infringement. The district court had previously construed the term “universal” to mean an intervertebral bone fusion spacer designed to be inserted between vertebrae in any region of the spine, using various surgical approaches.
The court ruled that the preambles of the claims in question were limiting, stating, “the preamble at issue furnishes essential meaning to the claim.” The court explained that the claims could not be fully understood without considering the preamble, which described the essential characteristics of the inventions. The court affirmed the lower court's interpretation of the term “universal,” rejecting Moskowitz's argument that it should not impose a one-size-fits-all requirement on the devices.
The ruling clarified that the patents required a specific design that could be adapted for various spinal regions and surgical approaches, which the court found to be a fundamental aspect of the claimed inventions. The court noted, “the patents unambiguously describe the device as being adaptable across spinal regions and usable with multiple surgical approaches.” This interpretation was crucial in the court's decision to uphold the summary judgment of noninfringement.
In addition to the summary judgment regarding the '913 and '022 patents, the court also addressed Moskowitz's appeal concerning the '319 patent. The jury had found that Globus's products did not meet the claim's requirement for a “cooperating” gripper and handle mechanism. The Federal Circuit agreed with the lower court's denial of Moskowitz's JMOL motion, stating that substantial evidence supported the jury's finding of noninfringement.
This ruling has significant implications for Moskowitz and potentially for other companies in the medical device industry. It underscores the importance of precise language in patent claims and the necessity for patent holders to clearly define the scope of their inventions. The outcome may influence how future patent disputes are approached, particularly in the context of medical device patents.
Moving forward, Moskowitz may consider whether to appeal the Federal Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, although the likelihood of such an appeal depends on various factors, including the potential for establishing a significant legal precedent. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or further actions by either party.