Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc. — “Universal” Preambles Limit Spinal-Implant Patent Claims

Background

Moskowitz Family LLC accused Globus Medical of infringing three patents covering tools and implants used in spinal-fusion surgery. Two asserted claims described a “universal” intervertebral spacer or fixation apparatus in their opening language, known as the claim preamble. The district court treated those preambles as enforceable limits and construed “universal” to mean a design adaptable for insertion in any spinal region through different surgical approaches. Moskowitz conceded that Globus’s accused products did not infringe under that construction.

A third patent claimed a tool whose gripper “cooperat[es] with” its handle. A jury found no infringement, and the district court denied Moskowitz’s request for judgment as a matter of law. Moskowitz appealed both branches of the case.

The Court’s Holding

The Federal Circuit affirmed. Judge Prost’s opinion explained that the preambles of the first two claims supplied antecedent basis for structures later recited in the claims and gave essential meaning to the claimed invention. The shared specification repeatedly presented universality as a fundamental feature, not merely an intended use. The word “universal” therefore limited the claims.

The court also upheld the district court’s construction of “universal.” It rejected Moskowitz’s argument that the construction demanded one device of a single size suitable for every patient. Instead, the patents described a design that could be modified for cervical, thoracic, or lumbar use and employed through multiple surgical approaches. Because Globus’s products did not meet that limitation, summary judgment of noninfringement stood.

For the third patent, substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict. Globus’s expert testified that “cooperating” required action at the handle to produce a corresponding action at the gripper, while a company witness said the handle played no role in operating the accused gripping mechanism. The jury was entitled to credit that evidence, particularly because Moskowitz had not sought a construction of the term before trial.

Key Takeaways

• A claim preamble can limit scope when it supplies antecedent basis and captures a feature the specification identifies as fundamental.
• Describing an invention repeatedly as “universal” can narrow a patent when the disclosure ties that word to adaptability across settings or uses.
• A party that leaves a disputed term unconstrued before trial may face a difficult substantial-evidence challenge after the jury applies the term’s ordinary meaning.

Why It Matters

The precedential decision is a useful reminder that claim scope does not always begin after the preamble. Drafting choices in the opening words of a claim, reinforced by the specification’s description of the invention, can become outcome-determinative limitations. Patent owners and accused infringers should evaluate those words early, before infringement theories and expert reports harden.