Moskowitz Family LLC appealed losses against Globus Medical, Inc. in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:20-cv-03271. The Federal Circuit decided the appeal on September 11, 2026, in a precedential opinion by Judge Prost, joined by Judges Schall and Stoll.
What the court held
The panel affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement on U.S. Patents 8,353,913 and 9,889,022. It agreed that "universal" in those claims is limiting and means an intervertebral bone-fusion spacer that can be used from either the anterior or posterior approach (as the district court construed it). With that construction, Moskowitz could not show infringement.
On U.S. Patent 10,478,319, the panel affirmed the denial of Moskowitz's JMOL of infringement. Substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that Globus's accused products did not meet the "cooperating" limitation of claim 1.
What it means in plain terms
This is a claim-construction and evidence fight about spinal-fusion hardware, not a validity ruling. When a preamble word like "universal" describes what the invention is, it can limit the claim. And when a jury credits testimony that a handle "plays no role" in a gripping mechanism, that can end an infringement theory on "cooperating" parts.
What to watch next
Watch for any rehearing petition and for how later spinal-implant cases cite the "universal" preamble holding. Also watch whether Moskowitz continues related district-court activity on other Globus products outside these three patents.