Moskowitz Family LLC v. Medtronic Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Moskowitz Family LLC (Maryland)
  • Defendant: Medtronic, Inc. (Minnesota); Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. (Indiana); Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. (Tennessee); Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. (Indiana); and Titan Spine, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Avantech Law LLP
• Case Identification: 0:25-cv-00769, D. Minn., 01/29/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Minnesota as Defendants maintain regular and established places of business in the district, have committed acts of infringement in the state, and have placed the accused products into the stream of commerce there. Medtronic, Inc. is incorporated in and resides in Minnesota.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' spinal implant and fusion systems infringe a portfolio of twelve U.S. patents related to expandable intervertebral spacers, bi-directional fixation screws, and associated surgical tools.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns minimally invasive, expandable, and "zero-profile" spinal implants designed to improve outcomes in spinal fusion surgery, a major segment of the medical device market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges extensive pre-suit history between the inventor, Dr. Moskowitz, and Medtronic, spanning from 2005 to 2016, which included technology presentations and direct correspondence. Plaintiff asserts it sent formal notice letters to Medtronic in 2015 identifying the '293 patent and the application that led to the '674 patent. Notice was also allegedly sent to Titan Spine in 2015, prior to its acquisition by Medtronic in 2019. The complaint further alleges that Medtronic has cited patents from the Moskowitz portfolio over 130 times in Information Disclosure Statements during its own patent prosecution activities.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-04-12	Earliest Priority Date for Asserted Patents
2005	Dr. Moskowitz's first interaction with Medtronic
2015-04-14	U.S. Patent No. 9,005,293 issues
2015	Plaintiff sends formal notice letters to Medtronic
2015-07	Plaintiff sends formal notice letter to Titan Spine
2016-01	Medtronic informs Plaintiff it does not wish to pursue acquisition or license
2018-03-06	U.S. Patent No. 9,907,674 issues
2018-07-10	U.S. Patent No. 10,016,284 issues
2018-09-04	U.S. Patent No. 10,064,738 issues
2019	Medtronic acquires Titan Spine, Inc.
2019-03-26	U.S. Patent No. 10,238,505 issues
2019-10-01	U.S. Patent No. 10,426,633 issues
2020-03-31	U.S. Patent No. 10,603,183 issues
2021-08-24	U.S. Patent No. 11,096,797 issues
2022-07-05	U.S. Patent No. 11,376,136 issues
2024-01-09	U.S. Patent No. 11,864,755 issues
2024-06-18	U.S. Patent No. 12,011,367 issues
2025-12-09	U.S. Patent No. 12,491,088 issues
2026-01-29	Second Amended Complaint filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,016,284 - "Zero-profile expandable intervertebral spacer devices for distraction and spinal fusion and a universal tool for their placement and expansion"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,016,284, "Zero-profile expandable intervertebral spacer devices for distraction and spinal fusion and a universal tool for their placement and expansion," issued July 10, 2018 (the '284 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Traditional spinal fusion surgery involves static, non-expandable implants that require forceful distraction of the vertebrae for placement and are often supplemented with plates or pedicle screws, leading to complications like tissue damage, nerve injury, and prolonged recovery Compl. ¶9 '284 Patent, col. 3:1-15
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a "Zero-Profile Expandable Intervertebral Spacer" (ZP-EIS) that can be inserted into the disc space in a compressed state and then expanded in a "calibrated manner" to achieve a precise fit and distract the vertebrae '284 Patent, abstract '284 Patent, col. 4:1-5 This "zero-profile" design avoids the need for supplemental plating, and the controlled expansion is intended to be less traumatic than forcefully inserting a static spacer '284 Patent, col. 3:45-54 Some embodiments incorporate bi-directional screws for fixation '284 Patent, abstract
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a stand-alone implant that combines distraction and fusion functions, aiming to reduce surgical complexity, minimize disruption to surrounding tissues, and improve patient outcomes compared to multi-part implant systems Compl. ¶10

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least exemplary claim 1 Compl. ¶112
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • An expandable interbody device with a first housing and a second housing, each with vertebral body engagement surfaces.
  • The first housing is hingedly connected to the second housing.
  • A wedge positioned between the housings, having an angled surface that engages an angled surface on the first housing.
  • The wedge is configured to slide from a first position (housings closed) to a second position (housings open).
  • A rotation screw operably connected to the wedge and second housing, where rotation of the screw moves the wedge axially to pivot the first housing open with respect to the second.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims Compl. ¶111

U.S. Patent No. 10,064,738 - "Bi-directional fixating/locking transvertebral body screw/intervertebral cage stand-alone constructs having a central screw locking lever, and pliers and devices for spinal fusion"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,064,738, "Bi-directional fixating/locking transvertebral body screw/intervertebral cage stand-alone constructs having a central screw locking lever, and pliers and devices for spinal fusion," issued September 4, 2018 (the '738 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background discusses complications associated with traditional spinal fixation, such as screw pull-out or back-out from the vertebral bodies, which can lead to surgical failure '738 Patent, col. 2:2-5 Compl. ¶9
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses an intervertebral cage that incorporates bi-directionally angled screws for fixation and a "central screw locking lever." After the screws are placed, the lever is moved to a locked position, physically obstructing the screw heads to prevent them from backing out '738 Patent, abstract '738 Patent, col. 7:6-20 This creates a "stand-alone construct" that provides both spacing and fixation without needing an external plate '738 Patent, col. 1:4-8
• Technical Importance: This integrated locking mechanism provides a more secure, lower-profile fixation solution, potentially eliminating the need for a separate, high-profile anterior plate and its associated risks of esophageal or vascular injury Compl. ¶10 '738 Patent, col. 3:25-31

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least exemplary claim 1 Compl. ¶132
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • An intervertebral combination internal screw guide and fixation apparatus.
  • An intervertebral cage with a top wall, bottom wall, and two sidewalls defining an open space for bone filling.
  • A first internal screw guide and a second internal screw guide within the cage, angled to orient screws bi-directionally.
  • A first screw member and a second screw member.
  • A screw locking bracket with end portions sized to be inserted in slots on the cage's sidewalls, and a central portion that partially blocks the screw entrances to retain the screws.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims Compl. ¶131

Multi-Patent Capsules

• U.S. Patent No. 9,005,293: "Bi-directional fixating transvertebral body screws and posterior cervical and lumbar interarticulating joint calibrated stapling devices for spinal fusion," issued April 14, 2015.

  • Technology Synopsis: The technology relates to spinal fusion devices that use bi-directionally oriented screws for fixation into the vertebral bodies, as well as calibrated stapling devices for interarticulating joints. The inventions aim to provide more stable, minimally invasive alternatives to traditional plates and screws, reducing complications like screw pullout Compl. ¶¶9-10
  • Asserted Claims: At least exemplary claim 43 Compl. ¶64
  • Accused Features: The Divergence, Sovereign, Endoskeleton TAS, and Endoskeleton TCS systems are alleged to infringe Compl. ¶63

• U.S. Patent No. 9,907,674: "Bi-directional fixating transvertebral body screws and posterior cervical and lumbar interarticulating joint calibrated stapling devices for spinal fusion," issued March 6, 2018.

  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the '293 patent family, this patent covers similar technology related to spinal fusion devices with bi-directional fixation screws and stapling devices. The goal is to provide more secure and less invasive spinal fusion constructs Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶24
  • Asserted Claims: At least exemplary claim 34 Compl. ¶85
  • Accused Features: The Divergence systems and instrumentation are alleged to infringe Compl. ¶84

• U.S. Patent No. 10,238,505: "Bi-directional fixating/locking transvertebral body screw/intervertebral cage stand-alone constructs," issued March 26, 2019.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes stand-alone intervertebral cage constructs that integrate bi-directional screws for fixation. The technology aims to provide spacing and stability in a single device, obviating the need for supplemental plating Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶27
  • Asserted Claims: At least exemplary claim 1 Compl. ¶155
  • Accused Features: The Divergence systems and instrumentation are alleged to infringe Compl. ¶154

• U.S. Patent No. 10,426,633: "Zero-profile expandable intervertebral spacer devices for distraction and spinal fusion and a universal tool for their placement and expansion," issued October 1, 2019.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to expandable, "zero-profile" intervertebral spacers that can be inserted in a compressed state and then expanded in situ. This approach is intended to provide a custom fit and minimize disruption to surrounding tissues. It also discloses a universal tool for placement and expansion Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶28
  • Asserted Claims: At least exemplary claim 1 Compl. ¶178
  • Accused Features: The Elevate and Catalyft systems and instrumentation are alleged to infringe Compl. ¶177

• U.S. Patent No. 10,603,183: "Bi-directional fixating/locking transvertebral body screw/intervertebral cage stand-alone constructs having a central screw locking lever, and pliers and devices for spinal fusion," issued March 31, 2020.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent covers stand-alone intervertebral cages with integrated bi-directional screws and a central locking lever to prevent screw back-out. The invention provides a single, low-profile device for both spacing and fixation Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶29
  • Asserted Claims: At least exemplary claim 1 Compl. ¶198
  • Accused Features: The Sovereign systems and instrumentation are alleged to infringe Compl. ¶197

• U.S. Patent No. 11,096,797: "Zero-profile expandable intervertebral spacer devices for distraction and spinal fusion and a universal tool for their placement and expansion," issued August 24, 2021.

  • Technology Synopsis: Continuing the technology family of the '284 and '633 patents, this patent describes expandable, zero-profile intervertebral spacers. The devices are designed for minimally invasive placement and calibrated in-situ expansion to achieve distraction and fusion Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶30
  • Asserted Claims: At least exemplary claim 16 Compl. ¶221
  • Accused Features: The Elevate and Catalyft systems and instrumentation are alleged to infringe Compl. ¶220

• U.S. Patent No. 11,376,136: "Expandable spinal implant and tool system," issued July 5, 2022.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes systems comprising an expandable spinal implant and a corresponding tool system for its placement and expansion. The technology focuses on providing a controlled, minimally invasive method for spinal fusion Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶31
  • Asserted Claims: At least exemplary claim 1 Compl. ¶244
  • Accused Features: The Elevate and Catalyft systems and instrumentation are alleged to infringe Compl. ¶243

• U.S. Patent No. 11,864,755: "Artificial expandable implant systems," issued January 9, 2024.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent covers artificial expandable implant systems, likely for corpectomy or interbody fusion. The technology focuses on devices that can be adjusted in size after implantation to restore spinal height and stability Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶32
  • Asserted Claims: At least exemplary claim 1 Compl. ¶266
  • Accused Features: The T2 Stratosphere systems and instrumentation are alleged to infringe Compl. ¶265

• U.S. Patent No. 12,011,367: "Expandable intervertebral device," issued June 18, 2024.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent covers expandable intervertebral devices for spinal fusion. The technology allows for the implant to be inserted in a smaller profile and then expanded to the desired height, providing distraction and support between vertebrae Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶33
  • Asserted Claims: At least exemplary claims 8 or 17 Compl. ¶286
  • Accused Features: The Elevate and Catalyft systems and instrumentation are alleged to infringe Compl. ¶285

• U.S. Patent No. 12,491,088: "Expandable spinal spacer device," issued December 9, 2025.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to an expandable spinal spacer device, likely continuing the technology family focused on in-situ expansion for minimally invasive spinal fusion. The device is designed to be adjusted after insertion to provide a customized fit Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶34
  • Asserted Claims: At least exemplary claim 1 Compl. ¶305
  • Accused Features: The Elevate and Catalyft systems and instrumentation are alleged to infringe Compl. ¶304

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the following product families as the Accused Instrumentalities: the Elevate™ Spinal System ("Elevate"), Divergence™ Anterior Cervical Fusion System ("Divergence"), Sovereign™ Spinal System ("Sovereign"), Catalyft™ PL and PL40 Expandable Interbody Systems ("Catalyft"), Endoskeleton™ TAS and TCS Interbody Systems ("Endoskeleton"), and the T2 Stratosphere™ Expandable Corpectomy System ("T2 Stratosphere") Compl. ¶11

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Instrumentalities are spinal surgery products used for spinal fusion procedures Compl. ¶11 The complaint alleges these products embody the patented technologies by providing features such as expandable intervertebral spacers for distraction, zero-profile designs, and integrated bi-directional fixation screws Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶54 For example, the Elevate and Catalyft systems are identified as expandable intervertebral spacer systems Compl. ¶111 Compl. ¶177 The Divergence and Sovereign systems are identified as incorporating bi-directional fixation and interbody fusion innovations Compl. ¶63 Compl. ¶92 Medtronic is described as the "world's largest medical device company and a dominant force in the spinal surgery market" Compl. ¶11

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement theories Compl. ¶112 Compl. ¶132 Based on the narrative allegations and the patent claims, the core infringement theories are summarized below.

'284 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
An expandable interbody device comprising: a first housing...; a second housing...	The Elevate and Catalyft systems are alleged to be expandable interbody devices comprising housing structures for placement between vertebrae.	¶111	col. 13:45-53
wherein the first housing is hingedly connected to the second housing	The accused expandable systems allegedly include first and second housing components that are pivotally or hingedly connected to allow for expansion.	¶111; ¶28	col. 15:1-4
a wedge extending from a fifth end to a sixth end and having an angled wedge surface...wherein the wedge is positioned between the first housing and the second housing	The expansion mechanism of the accused Elevate and Catalyft systems is alleged to be driven by an internal wedge that moves between the housing components.	¶111; ¶177	col. 15:15-30
a rotation screw operably connected to the wedge and to the second housing, wherein rotation of the rotation screw moves the wedge...to hingedly open the first housing with respect to the second housing	The expansion of the accused Elevate and Catalyft systems is allegedly controlled by a rotation screw that, when turned, drives the wedge to pivot the housings apart to the desired height.	¶111; ¶28	col. 15:41-49

'738 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
An intervertebral combination internal screw guide and fixation apparatus comprising: an intervertebral cage...	The Sovereign system is alleged to be a stand-alone intervertebral cage for spinal fusion.	¶131	col. 2:56-59
a first internal screw guide and a second internal screw guide... angled to orient a first screw member and a second member screw bi-directionally	The Sovereign system allegedly includes an intervertebral cage with internal guides for orienting bi-directional fixation screws into the adjacent vertebral bodies.	¶131; ¶26	col. 3:19-25
a first screw member and a second screw member...	The Sovereign system allegedly includes transvertebral body screws that are inserted through the cage to provide fixation.	¶131; ¶42	col. 7:6-8
a screw locking bracket having a first end portion sized and positioned to be inserted in the first slot, a second end portion... and a central portion... [that] partially blocks the screw entrance...	The Sovereign system allegedly incorporates a screw locking mechanism, such as a bracket or lever, that engages with the cage to physically block the screw heads and prevent them from backing out.	¶131; ¶26	col. 2:5-10

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question for the '284 patent may be whether the specific expansion mechanisms in the Elevate and Catalyft systems meet the claim limitations of a "wedge" that "slides" and is driven by a "rotation screw" to "hingedly open" the device. For the '738 patent, a dispute may arise over whether the specific locking feature in the Sovereign system constitutes a "screw locking bracket" with "end portions" that insert into "slots" on the cage, as required by the claim.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will likely require a detailed technical comparison of the mechanical operations. For the '284 patent, the court may need to determine if the interaction between the moving components in the accused devices is functionally the same as the claimed "wedge" pressing against an "angled housing surface." For the '738 patent, evidence will be needed to show that the accused locking feature operates by physically blocking the screw heads in the manner claimed, rather than through a different locking principle.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• '284 Patent, Claim 1:

  • The Term: "wedge"
  • Context and Importance: The definition of "wedge" is critical because the infringement allegation hinges on whether the expansion mechanism in the accused Elevate and Catalyft systems functions as a "wedge" that slides to pivot the housings apart. A narrow definition tied to a simple inclined plane could create a point of contention if the accused products use a more complex linkage or gear-based system.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition, which may suggest the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning of a component that forces things apart. The patent describes multiple distinct expansion mechanisms in different embodiments (e.g., scissors jack, worm drive, dry anchor), suggesting the inventors did not intend to limit the invention to a single type of expansion mechanism '284 Patent, col. 5:1-10 '284 Patent, col. 6:10-15
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The embodiment described for the asserted claim (Embodiment VI) depicts a "wedge-shaped translation nut" that moves linearly to rotate the housing '284 Patent, col. 9:45-51 A defendant may argue this specific embodiment limits the term "wedge" to a component that translates linearly to effect expansion, as opposed to a purely rotational or linkage-based mechanism.

• '738 Patent, Claim 1:

  • The Term: "central screw locking lever"
  • Context and Importance: The infringement case for the '738 patent depends on the accused Sovereign system having this specific feature. The construction of "central screw locking lever" will determine whether the accused product's mechanism for preventing screw back-out falls within the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent describes a specific rotational lever, and infringement will depend on a functional and structural match with the accused product's mechanism.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract refers generally to a "central screw locking lever," and the summary describes it as a "novel" and "advanced" mechanism, which could support an interpretation covering a category of central locking features, not just the specific one depicted '738 Patent, abstract '738 Patent, col. 2:5-7
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures show a specific T-shaped lever that "is rotatably coupled to the intervertebral cage" and moves between an unlocked position and a locked position where its handle portion physically covers the screw heads '738 Patent, col. 8:3-20 '738 Patent, Fig. 1A A defendant may argue this limits the term to a rotating, T-shaped lever, potentially excluding other forms of central locking mechanisms like sliding plates or set screws.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Medtronic supplies the accused products with instructions, manuals, tutorials, and technical support that encourage and instruct surgeons to use the products in an infringing manner Compl. ¶67 Compl. ¶88 Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the components of the accused systems (e.g., intervertebral cages, inserter tools) are not staple articles of commerce, are a material part of the invention, and are especially made for an infringing use Compl. ¶100 Compl. ¶144
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are extensive and based on both pre-suit and post-suit conduct. Pre-suit willfulness is alleged based on a long history of communication between the inventor and Medtronic beginning in 2005, including product demonstrations and technology disclosures Compl. ¶¶41-45 The complaint alleges Medtronic received formal notice letters in 2015 identifying the '293 and '674 patents, reviewed the portfolio, and then "chose not to license" the technology Compl. ¶46 Compl. ¶49 It further alleges Medtronic cited the patent family over 130 times in its own patent prosecution, indicating actual knowledge Compl. ¶60 Post-suit willfulness is based on the allegation that Medtronic has not ceased infringement after the filing of the lawsuit Compl. ¶323

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A central issue will be one of pre-suit knowledge and intent: given the extensive, decade-long pre-suit history of discussions, disclosures, and formal notice alleged in the complaint, a key question for the court will be whether Medtronic's development and sale of the accused products constitutes willful infringement or willful blindness, or whether its conduct can be justified as independent development.
• The case will also turn on a question of technical and functional scope: does the specific mechanical operation of Medtronic's various accused spinal implants-particularly their expansion and locking mechanisms-fall within the scope of the patent claims? For instance, can the "wedge" and "central screw locking lever" elements of the asserted claims be construed to read on the potentially distinct mechanisms used in products like the Sovereign, Elevate, and Catalyft systems?
• An underlying evidentiary question will be one of causation and derivation: Plaintiff alleges Medtronic "systematically absorbed Dr. Moskowitz's proprietary technologies" after years of review Compl. ¶41 The case may turn on what evidence Plaintiff can produce to demonstrate that the technology in Medtronic's accused products was derived from the inventor's disclosures, versus evidence from Medtronic showing its products were the result of independent research and development.