CAFC Affirms Noninfringement Rulings on Spinal Implant Patents

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Friday in Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement, its construction of the claim term “universal,” and its denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of infringement.

The dispute concerns three patents directed to spinal implant systems used in spinal fusion surgery. U.S. Patent No. 8,353,913 describes a tool for manipulating and inserting an intervertebral bone fusion spacer. U.S. Patent No. 9,889,022 relates to an apparatus combining an internal screw guide and fixation device. U.S. Patent No. 10,478,319 covers an expandable spinal implant designed to sit between two vertebral bodies and encourage bone fusion. The claims at issue on appeal included claims 1 and 10 of the ‘913 patent, claim 47 of the ‘022 patent, and claim 1 of the ‘319 patent.

Moskowitz Family LLC filed a lawsuit against Globus Medical, Inc. in November 2019, alleging that several Globus products infringed the ‘913, ‘022, and ‘319 patents, along with additional patents not at issue in this appeal. The district court construed “universal” to mean an intervertebral bone fusion spacer designed for insertion in any region of the spine using any surgical approach. Moskowitz later moved for clarification of that construction, which the district court denied, and it withdrew its infringement allegations for one claim of the ‘913 patent while maintaining allegations for claims that recite “universal” only in their preambles.

Globus moved for summary judgment of noninfringement of the ‘913 and ‘022 patents. Moskowitz argued that the preambles containing “universal” were non-limiting but acknowledged that, under the district court’s construction, it could not establish infringement. The district court found the preambles limiting and entered summary judgment of noninfringement as to those two patents. The case proceeded to a jury trial on claim 1 of the ‘319 patent, where Globus disputed whether its products satisfied the claim’s “cooperating” limitation between a gripper and handle. The jury found no infringement and no invalidity, and the district court denied Moskowitz’s subsequent JMOL motion. Moskowitz appealed all three rulings, and the CAFC exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1295(a)(1).

Moskowitz argued that the preambles of the ‘913 and ‘022 claims lacked antecedent basis, structural support, or a fundamental characteristic of the invention, and that the district court erred in treating them as limiting. The CAFC disagreed, explaining that the claim bodies depend on the preambles for antecedent basis, since terms such as “the intervertebral cage” and “the” screw guides are first introduced there. The court noted that the shared specification describes the invention as a “unique universal bidirectional screw” system usable across spinal regions and surgical approaches, reinforcing that “the preamble at issue furnishes essential meaning to the claim.” The precedent on preamble limitations supported the court’s conclusion that since the patent drafter used the preamble and the claim body to define the invention, the invention so defined governs what the patent protects.

Moskowitz separately challenged the district court’s construction of “universal,” arguing that it improperly demanded a “one-size-fits-all” device suitable for every patient and every spinal region, calling that outcome a physical impossibility. The CAFC rejected that characterization, pointing to specification passages describing use across the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine through posterior, anterior, or lateral approaches. The court explained that the patents combine spacer and screw fusion functions without dictating a specific size, placement, or insertion method, and that this adaptability makes the design “universal.” Since Moskowitz conceded noninfringement under the district court’s construction, the CAFC affirmed summary judgment as to the ‘913 and ‘022 patents.

The remaining dispute centered on whether Globus’s products satisfied the “cooperating” limitation in claim 1 of the ‘319 patent, a term the parties agreed would be given its plain and ordinary meaning without formal construction. Applying the Third Circuit law, the CAFC reviewed whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict. Globus’s expert testified that cooperation between the gripper and handle required “some action and reaction,” while Globus’s director of product development testified that the handle played no role in operating the gripping mechanism. Moskowitz’s expert offered only limited testimony on the issue and did not define the term, which the district court noted the jury was entitled to find unpersuasive.

The CAFC also addressed Moskowitz’s argument that the district court improperly limited rebuttal testimony, finding the claim unconvincing since the district court had asked Moskowitz to identify planned rebuttal testimony beforehand and none addressing the “cooperating” limitation was identified. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of noninfringement and that the denial of JMOL was proper.

Ultimately, the CAFC affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement on the ’913 and ’022 patents, the construction of “universal,” and denial of JMOL of infringement on the ’319 patent.