After more than three and a half years of litigation, 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 three spinal implant patents held by Moskowitz Family LLC — U.S. Patent Nos. 10,307,268, 10,478,319, and 10,028,740. Chief Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg entered final judgment on February 27, 2024, confirming the noninfringement findings while simultaneously ruling that the patents-in-suit were not proven invalid, and dismissing all remaining claims without prejudice.

This case carries significant weight for IP practitioners operating in the crowded spinal surgery and interbody fusion device space. The court’s detailed treatment of claim narrowing procedures — and its refusal to convert procedural narrowing into a with-prejudice dismissal of un-litigated claims — offers critical strategic guidance for plaintiffs managing large multi-patent portfolios in district court. Both patent litigation attorneys and in-house IP teams at medical device companies should study this outcome closely.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patents at Issue

The patents-in-suit — including U.S. Patent Nos. 10,307,268, 10,478,319, 10,028,740, 10,076,367, 9,889,022, 10,376,386, 8,353,913, and 10,251,643 — generally cover spinal interbody fusion devices used to stabilize and support the vertebral column during and after surgery. These patents claim specific structural and functional features of implantable cages inserted between vertebrae, including expandable or specialized geometry designs intended for minimally invasive approaches such as lateral, transforaminal, and posterior lumbar interbody fusion. The real-world application is in common spinal surgeries performed to treat degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis, and related conditions.

• • US10076367B2
• • US10307268B2
• • US9889022B2
• • US10028740B2
• • US10376386B2
• • US8353913B2
• • US10478319B2
• • US10251643B2

Legal Representation

Plaintiff Counsel: Clark Hill, PLC; Fish & Richardson, PC (lead: Ahmed J. Davis)
Defendant Counsel: Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP; Susman Godfrey, LLP; Weir Greenblatt Pierce (lead: Arun Subramanian)

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

Moskowitz Family LLC filed suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 6, 2020, a strategic venue choice given that defendant Globus Medical is headquartered in Audubon, Pennsylvania, making the district a legally and logistically natural forum. The case proceeded as a standard first-instance district court matter before Chief Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg, with no interlocutory ITC or PTAB proceedings referenced in the final judgment record. The litigation involved a large portfolio of eight asserted patents and over two dozen accused Globus Medical products, positioning it as a high-complexity patent dispute requiring extensive claim construction, expert discovery, and case management.

The case ran for 1,331 days — nearly 44 months — from filing to final judgment, reflecting the scope of the multi-patent, multi-product dispute and the substantial pretrial narrowing required by the court’s scheduling orders. The matter was ultimately resolved on the merits following a full jury trial, with the jury rendering its verdict on December 13, 2023. Judge Goldberg then addressed the significant post-trial dispute over the scope of the verdict and the proper disposition of narrowed-out claims before entering final judgment on February 27, 2024, dismissing un-litigated claims without prejudice and denying Globus Medical’s bid for a with-prejudice judgment on all asserted patents.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The jury returned a verdict of noninfringement on December 13, 2023, finding that Moskowitz Family LLC had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus Medical’s accused spinal implant products infringed claim 1 of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,307,268, 10,478,319, or 10,028,740. The jury simultaneously found that Globus Medical had not proven those claims invalid, leaving all three patents legally intact. No damages were awarded, no injunctive relief was granted, and remaining un-litigated claims across the broader eight-patent portfolio were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Moskowitz Family LLC’s right to refile.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The judgment rests on both the jury’s factual infringement findings and a significant post-trial legal ruling on the scope of claim narrowing and its preclusive effect.

• The jury found no infringement of claim 1 of the ‘268, ‘319, and ‘740 Patents across the specific accused Globus Medical products presented at trial, applying the preponderance of the evidence standard in favor of Globus Medical.
• Globus Medical’s invalidity counterclaims failed on all three tried patents, meaning the ‘268, ‘319, and ‘740 Patents remain valid and enforceable — preserving future litigation options for Moskowitz Family LLC.
• Judge Goldberg held that Plaintiff’s repeated, documented reservation of rights during court-ordered claim narrowing prevented the jury verdict from operating as a with-prejudice bar on the remaining five asserted patents and their claims.
• Globus Medical’s own pretrial narrowing conduct — limiting its invalidity counterclaims in its pretrial memorandum to only the patents actually tried — was found to constitute an implicit withdrawal of broader counterclaims, foreclosing its argument for comprehensive with-prejudice judgment.

Legal Significance

1. 1. This case affirms that in large multi-patent district court litigation, plaintiffs can protect un-litigated patent claims from preclusive effect by consistently and explicitly reserving rights in every narrowing submission made pursuant to scheduling orders.
2. 2. The decision highlights a tension in Federal Circuit precedent between Nuance Communications (representative patent trials can bind all patents) and Alcon (narrowing without prejudice protects un-tried claims) — and demonstrates that the factual record of how narrowing occurred is dispositive.
3. 3. Defendants who seek a broadside with-prejudice judgment on all asserted claims must be careful not to undermine that argument through their own implicit abandonment of counterclaims during pretrial narrowing, as Globus Medical’s experience illustrates.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Attorneys:

• Always include explicit, written reservations of rights in every claim-narrowing submission made under court scheduling orders — this case confirms that such reservations are the key factual element distinguishing Alcon-protected narrowing from Nuance-style representative elections.
• When representing defendants, ensure that invalidity and noninfringement counterclaims are expressly maintained in pretrial memoranda for all asserted patent claims — implicit abandonment through omission can forfeit the right to a comprehensive with-prejudice judgment.
• Analyze post-trial briefing strategy carefully: the post-verdict dispute over claim scope and preclusion was outcome-determinative for five of eight patents, and failing to brief this issue rigorously could result in significant loss of rights on either side.
• Consider 35 U.S.C. § 285 fee motions carefully given the mixed record: Globus Medical prevailed on infringement but failed on invalidity, and the court’s without-prejudice dismissal of remaining claims may complicate any exceptional case argument.

For IP Professionals:

• Monitor the Moskowitz Family LLC patent portfolio closely — the without-prejudice dismissal of five patent’s claims means the LLC can refile against Globus Medical or other competitors, and in-house teams at spinal device companies should assess exposure to U.S. Patent Nos. 10,076,367, 9,889,022, 10,376,386, 8,353,913, and 10,251,643 specifically.
• Use this case as a benchmarking event to audit your company’s spinal interbody fusion product line against the surviving Moskowitz patents — the jury verdict of noninfringement is product-specific and does not provide industry-wide safe harbor.

For R&D Teams:

• Globus Medical’s product wins at trial were narrowly scoped: the noninfringement finding applies only to specific products and specific claim limitations presented to the jury, meaning redesigned or next-generation interbody fusion devices from any manufacturer still require independent FTO clearance against the Moskowitz patent family.
• The validity of all three tried patents was upheld, confirming that the claim scope covering spinal interbody fusion device geometry and minimally invasive surgical features remains legally robust — engineering teams developing competing products should design around these claims with active legal guidance.