Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc.

Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the preambles of the asserted '913 and '022 patent claims are limiting and that the district court correctly construed “universal.” It also held that substantial evidence supported the jury’s noninfringement verdict on the '319 patent under the unconstrued “cooperating” limitation. The decision reinforces that preamble language can limit claim scope where it supplies antecedent basis and captures a fundamental characteristic of the invention, and that parties who try infringement under plain meaning face a substantial-evidence record on JMOL. Affirmed. For the '913 patent, the preamble supplied antecedent basis for “the intervertebral cage” and “the” integral screw guides, and provided necessary context for what the claimed tool must manipulate and insert. For the '022 patent, the court held the preamble was not merely intended use; it gave essential meaning to the claimed “universal” apparatus and was supported by the common specification’s description of a universal bidirectional screw system. The court affirmed the construction of “universal” as a spacer designed for insertion in any spinal region using any surgical approach, rejecting Moskowitz’s argument that the construction required an impossible one-size-fits-all device. Because Moskowitz conceded it could not prove infringement of the '913 and '022 patents under that construction, summary judgment of noninfringement was affirmed. On the '319 patent, the parties did not seek construction of “cooperating”; Globus’s expert and product-development testimony provided substantial evidence that the accused products did not meet that limitation, supporting denial of JMOL. precedential claim construction infringement waiver / forfeiture precedential claim construction infringement waiver / forfeiture claim construction infringement