Globus Medical vs. Moskowitz Family LLC: Spinal Implant Patent Dispute Ends in Voluntary Dismissal
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Globus Medical, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family, LLC |
| Case Number | 24-1753 (Fed. Cir.) |
| Court | Federal Circuit, Appeal from District of Columbia |
| Duration | Apr 30, 2024 – Apr 24, 2025 11 months 25 days |
| Outcome | Voluntary Dismissal |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Globus Medical products: COALITION, INDEPENDENCE, HEDRON, RISE, MONUMENT, ELSA, LATIS, CALIBER, ALTERA, AERIAL, RASS, MAGNIFY-S, etc. |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Publicly traded musculoskeletal implant company headquartered in Audubon, Pennsylvania, with a substantial patent portfolio covering spine surgery technologies.
🛡️ Defendant
IP holding entity associated with inventor Randall Moskowitz, M.D., who holds patents directed to spinal implant and surgical instrumentation technologies.
The Patents at Issue
This litigation involved eight issued U.S. patents spanning a range of spinal implant design and instrumentation claims:
- • US10076367B2
- • US10307268B2
- • US9889022B2
- • US10028740B2
- • US10376386B2
- • US8353913B2
- • US10478319B2
- • US10251643B2
Developing a spinal implant product?
Check if your design might infringe these or related patents.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Federal Circuit entered a **voluntary dismissal** pursuant to **Fed. R. App. P. 42(b)** on April 24, 2025. The order provides that each side shall bear its own costs — a standard provision in agreed dismissals that signals neither party extracted a financial concession as a condition of termination. No damages award, injunctive relief, or declaratory judgment is recorded.
Verdict Cause Analysis
The case was classified as an infringement action. Several strategic factors commonly precipitate appellate-stage voluntary dismissals in multi-patent, multi-product orthopedic cases, including:
- Claim construction uncertainty, which can radically alter damages calculations.
- Patent validity exposure, especially from parallel Inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.
- Commercial considerations, such as the desire to mitigate continued litigation risk and injunctive relief exposure for core product lines.
Legal Significance
Because the CAFC issued no merits opinion, this case establishes **no binding precedent** on claim construction, infringement standards, or validity of the asserted patents. However, the case record contributes to the broader dataset of multi-patent orthopedic IP disputes resolved at the appellate stage without judicial resolution.
Strategic Takeaways
For patent holders: Assertion strategies involving large patent families and extensive accused product lists can generate substantial settlement leverage but also create prolonged, expensive litigation. Portfolio-based assertion is most effective when paired with a defined resolution timeline.
For accused infringers: When facing broad infringement claims across core product lines, appellate-stage dismissal may reflect successful reframing of invalidity or non-infringement arguments rather than capitulation. Design-around investment during litigation can improve settlement posture.
Filing a spinal implant patent?
Learn from this case. Use AI to draft stronger claims that can withstand litigation.
Power Your Patent Strategy with Eureka IP
From novelty searches to patent drafting, Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.
⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in spinal implant design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all 8 patents involved in this case
- See which companies are most active in spinal implant patents
- Understand claim construction patterns for interbody devices
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Spinal fusion devices and instrumentation
8 Patents at Issue
In spinal implant design space
Design-Around Options
Available for many claims
✅ Key Takeaways
For Patent Attorneys & Litigators
Voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) at the CAFC stage with no cost-shifting suggests a negotiated resolution — terms likely involved confidential licensing or covenants.
Search related case law →Eight-patent assertions across 22+ products create claim construction complexity that can become unmanageable and expensive at the appellate level.
Explore precedents →No merits opinion means no citable precedent — monitor for related PTAB proceedings on the eight asserted patent numbers.
View PTAB data →Fish & Richardson’s defense posture and Susman Godfrey’s plaintiff representation reflect the premium litigation resources deployed in high-value orthopedic IP disputes.
Analyze law firm performance →For IP Professionals
Track USPTO assignment and continuation activity for the Moskowitz Family patent portfolio — residual assertion risk exists for third parties in the spinal implant space.
Explore related portfolios →Conduct FTO audits against US8353913B2, US9889022B2, and related continuation patents if commercializing interbody fusion instrumentation.
Start FTO analysis for my product →For R&D Leaders
Design teams developing spinal fusion devices should prioritize FTO clearance on minimally invasive and expandable interbody systems, where Moskowitz-family claims overlap with widespread commercial designs.
Try AI patent drafting →Internal patent prosecution investment in design-around documentation creates defensible records that improve litigation posture if assertion occurs.
Explore patent drafting strategies →Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join thousands of IP professionals using Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.