Federal Circuit Limits Patent Scope in Moskowitz v. Globus Based on Key Claim Language and Litigation Strategy

The Federal Circuit’s September 11, 2026 decision in Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., Case No. 24-1696, underscores the pivotal role of patent claim language and litigation strategy in infringement disputes. The court held that the word “universal,” appearing in the preambles of two spinal-device patents, limited the claims’ scope, thereby affirming noninfringement judgments against Moskowitz. Additionally, the court upheld a jury’s noninfringement verdict concerning the term “cooperating,” which was left to the jury’s plain and ordinary meaning without a specific judicial construction.

The patents at issue, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,353,913 and 9,889,022, relate to spinal-fusion implants and associated instruments. Both patents included the term “universal” in the preambles of the asserted claims. The district court construed “universal” to require devices designed for use across multiple spinal regions and surgical approaches. Moskowitz conceded it could not prove infringement under this construction, prompting the Federal Circuit to address whether “universal” limited the claims at all.

Moskowitz argued that because “universal” appeared only in the preambles, it should not limit the claims. The Federal Circuit rejected this, applying the precedent from Catalina Marketing International, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., which holds that a preamble can impose substantive claim limitations if it provides necessary meaning or structure to the invention. The court emphasized that the determination depends on claim language and the patent specification, not solely on the preamble’s location.

The court found that the preambles did more than introduce the devices; the claims relied on structures identified therein. The patents’ shared specification repeatedly described universality as central, highlighting a “unique universal bidirectional screw” system adaptable to different spinal regions and surgical approaches. This characterization aligned with prior Federal Circuit decisions such as Proveris Scientific Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc. and Poly-America, L.P. v. GSE Lining Technology, Inc., supporting the conclusion that “universal” is a substantive limitation.

As a result, Moskowitz’s inability to prove infringement under this construction led the court to affirm the noninfringement rulings. The case illustrates the broader lesson that how a patent specification describes technological advantages—such as versatility or compatibility—can influence claim scope. While patent specifications should explain what makes an invention distinctive, these descriptions may also define the boundaries of patent protection.

The second dispute involved claim 1’s requirement of a tool with a gripper “cooperating with” a handle. The parties did not seek a specific claim construction for “cooperating,” and the jury was instructed to apply its plain and ordinary meaning. However, the parties disagreed on what “cooperating” entailed.

Globus presented expert testimony that “cooperating” meant a functional interaction whereby action on the handle produced a response by the gripper. A Globus product-development witness testified that the handle did not operate the accused gripping mechanism. The jury found no infringement.

On appeal, Moskowitz contended that Globus had effectively added an “actuation” requirement not present in the claim language. The Federal Circuit declined to decide whether “cooperating” necessarily means “actuating.” Instead, it focused on the procedural posture: Moskowitz knew before trial how Globus applied the term but did not seek a claim construction to resolve the dispute. Having allowed the jury to apply the plain meaning, Moskowitz faced appellate review on whether substantial evidence supported the verdict. The court found that it did.

This distinction is critical because claim construction is a legal question for the court, while infringement is a factual question for the jury. Under O2 Micro International Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co., genuine disputes about claim scope must be resolved judicially. But whether an accused product meets an established claim limitation is typically a factual inquiry.

Moskowitz v. Globus thus serves as a cautionary tale for patent owners and litigants. The language used in patent claims and specifications can significantly affect enforcement outcomes. Moreover, litigation choices—such as whether to seek claim construction on disputed terms—can determine whether a jury or court ultimately decides infringement. Patent holders should carefully consider how their specifications describe key features and how they manage claim construction disputes during litigation to protect the commercial value of their patents.