Moskowitz Family LLC v. ZimVie — Voluntary Dismissal After 56 Days
Moskowitz Family LLC filed a six-patent infringement action against ZimVie Inc. in Delaware District Court, asserting patents covering artificial disc systems, spinal fusion devices, and intervertebral implants. The case was voluntarily dismissed before ZimVie filed any answer or summary judgment motion, with each party bearing its own costs and fees.
Six-Patent Spinal Implant Suit Dropped Before ZimVie Responded
On 23 December 2022, Moskowitz Family LLC filed a patent infringement action against ZimVie Inc. in the Delaware District Court before Judge Christopher J. Burke. The complaint asserted six United States patents — US10238383B2, US9622875B2, US11135072B2, US10610371B2, US11083591B2, and US10952723B2 — covering a range of spinal surgery technologies including artificial cervical and lumbar disc systems, bi-directional fixating transvertebral body screws, intervertebral cage constructs, and posterior spinal fusion devices.
The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Moskowitz Family LLC dismissed the action with prejudice against ZimVie, noting that neither an answer nor a motion for summary judgment had been filed. The notice provided that each party would bear its own costs and fees.
The case closed on 17 February 2023 — just 56 days after filing and before ZimVie formally appeared with responsive pleadings. The pre-answer timeline is consistent with cases where parties reach an understanding quickly, though the specific terms driving the resolution are not disclosed in the available public record. The early exit means no claim construction, no discovery, and no merits ruling on any of the six asserted patents.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 56 days
56 days — resolved well before any responsive pleading was filed
US10238383B2 and five related spinal implant patents
Any medical device company developing, manufacturing, or commercialising artificial intervertebral discs, spinal fusion cages, transvertebral fixation screws, or plate-based intervertebral implants should treat this six-patent portfolio as a live enforcement risk. The with-prejudice dismissal against ZimVie does not extend to other defendants, and no court has narrowed the claims. Companies in adjacent segments — including next-generation disc replacement and minimally invasive fusion — face uncharted claim scope.
Official order — verbatim text
The Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice was filed unilaterally by Moskowitz Family LLC before ZimVie filed any answer or motion for summary judgment, which is the procedural precondition for this mechanism. The notice states dismissal is with prejudice and that each party bears its own costs and fees. No court order was entered on the merits, and no judicial finding was made regarding infringement, validity, or claim scope for any of the six asserted patents.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the early exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff-right dismissal before any answer
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. ZimVie had not filed either, making this a unilateral right. The notice states dismissal is with prejudice, meaning Moskowitz Family LLC cannot refile these same claims against ZimVie.
No court order requiredWith prejudice: Moskowitz cannot refile these claims against ZimVie
The Basis of Termination is recorded as Voluntary dismissal, without specifying with or without prejudice. The docket order itself states dismissal is with prejudice. The public record is silent on why the with-prejudice framing was chosen. A with-prejudice dismissal is res judicata as to the claims brought — Moskowitz cannot reassert these six patents against ZimVie on the same grounds in a future action.
Bars refiling same claimsZimVie exits without a merits ruling and bears its own costs
ZimVie filed no answer or substantive motion before the dismissal. While the with-prejudice term provides finality against re-litigation of these specific claims, ZimVie received no court ruling validating or invalidating any of the six asserted patents. Each party bears its own costs — ZimVie makes no payment and receives no fee award, despite the case ending in its favour on a practical level.
No cost award; no merits rulingSix spinal patents remain untested; sector enforcement risk persists
None of the six Moskowitz patents were subjected to claim construction or validity challenge in this proceeding. Their enforceability against other spinal implant manufacturers — or against ZimVie on different product lines — remains an open question. Companies operating in the artificial disc, intervertebral fusion device, and spinal fixation markets should note this portfolio remains active and may be asserted elsewhere.
Patents remain live and untestedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Moskowitz Family, LLC | Company | Spinal implant IP holding entity — holder of US10238383B2 and five related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | ZimVie, Inc. | Company | ZimVie Inc. — medical device company focused on spine and dental implant productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian J. Livedalen | Attorney | Counsel for Moskowitz Family, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Casey Kraning | Attorney | Counsel for Moskowitz Family, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Douglas Edward McCann | Attorney | Counsel for Moskowitz Family, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason M. Zucchi | Attorney | Counsel for Moskowitz Family, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph V. Colaianni | Attorney | Counsel for Moskowitz Family, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy W. Riffe | Attorney | Counsel for Moskowitz Family, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing Moskowitz Family, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thatcher A. Rahmeier | Attorney | Counsel for ZimVie, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP | Law Firm | Representing ZimVie, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Christopher J. Burke | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the spinal implant and fusion device space
Forward-looking patent and technology intelligence derived from the Moskowitz Family LLC v. ZimVie action, relevant to spinal implant R&D and IP teams.
Moskowitz spinal patent family spans disc replacement and fusion
The six asserted patents represent a multi-generational filing strategy covering both motion-preserving and fusion-based spinal surgery approaches. The application numbers suggest continued prosecution activity across at least five separate application chains. R&D teams should map the full Moskowitz family — including continuations and divisionals — to understand claim drift and coverage evolution.
Multi-generation portfolioFiling activity in artificial disc and intervertebral cage technology is growing
Artificial cervical and lumbar disc replacement and cage-based fusion devices are among the most actively patented segments in orthopaedic surgery. The overlap between motion preservation and fixation claims — as seen in this portfolio — suggests the boundary between disc replacement and fusion is a contested innovation zone. Companies filing in this space should monitor claim adjacency carefully.
Active filing zoneZimVie's spine IP position warrants monitoring post-split from Zimmer Biomet
ZimVie was spun out of Zimmer Biomet in 2022, bringing with it a spine-focused patent estate. As an independent entity, ZimVie's own filing activity and licensing posture in artificial disc and fusion technology is still evolving. Tracking ZimVie's prosecution pipeline and any cross-licensing arrangements can inform competitive intelligence for other spine device players.
Post-spinout IP evolutionZero-profile and minimally invasive fixation remains an innovation frontier
The asserted patents include zero-profile horizontal intervertebral miniplates and stand-alone cage constructs with integrated screw locking — areas reflecting surgeon demand for lower-profile implants. Adjacent claim space around next-generation locking mechanisms, bioresorbable components, and robotic-assisted insertion techniques may represent filing white space for R&D teams not yet covered by the Moskowitz or ZimVie portfolios.
Innovation white spaceSimilar spinal implant patent cases in Delaware District Court
Browse comparable patent infringement actions involving spinal fusion, artificial disc, and intervertebral implant technology filed in the Delaware District Court.
What this case signals for the spinal implant IP landscape
A six-patent suit dropped in under 60 days raises questions about portfolio strategy, litigation leverage, and defensive positioning in spinal device markets.
Pre-answer resolution signals high leverage or rapid commercial alignment
Cases dismissed this quickly — before any responsive pleading — typically suggest the filing itself created sufficient commercial pressure, or that pre-existing discussions accelerated to resolution. With six patents and no merits adjudication, the Moskowitz portfolio retains full enforcement potential against the rest of the market.
Spinal fusion and disc replacement patents are active enforcement tools
This action demonstrates that IP holding entities are actively asserting patents in the spinal implant space in Delaware. Medical device companies with artificial disc, intervertebral cage, or spinal fixation product lines should audit their FTO exposure against this six-patent family and related continuations.
Moskowitz v ZimVie — key questions answered
Moskowitz Family LLC asserted six patents: US10238383B2, US9622875B2, US11135072B2, US10610371B2, US11083591B2, and US10952723B2. The patents cover artificial cervical and lumbar disc systems, bi-directional fixating transvertebral body screws, intervertebral cage stand-alone constructs, and related spinal fusion devices.
The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that Moskowitz Family LLC dismissed the action with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before ZimVie filed any answer or motion for summary judgment. Each party bears its own costs and fees. The specific terms driving the dismissal are not disclosed in the available public record.
The docket order states that dismissal is with prejudice, which as a matter of procedure bars Moskowitz Family LLC from reasserting the same claims against ZimVie in a new action. However, no court made a merits finding on infringement or validity, and the patents remain enforceable against other defendants.
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action as of right, without a court order, by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because ZimVie had filed neither in this case, Moskowitz Family LLC had an unconditional right to dismiss, making any judicial approval unnecessary.
Yes. The voluntary dismissal resulted in no claim construction ruling, no invalidity finding, and no limitation on claim scope. All six patents — US10238383B2, US9622875B2, US11135072B2, US10610371B2, US11083591B2, and US10952723B2 — remain issued and enforceable against third parties. Companies in the spinal implant sector should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.