Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc.

Moskowitz Family v. Globus Medical, decided September 11th, 2026. A precedential panel of the Federal Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Prost, held that the word universal in the preambles of two spinal-implant patent claims limits those claims. The preambles supplied antecedent basis and essential meaning to the claim bodies. Under the district court's construction of universal, the patentee conceded noninfringement, and the court affirmed. Here's the brief.

Moskowitz Family owns patents on systems for spinal-fusion surgery, in which a damaged intervertebral disc is replaced with an implant. Two of them, the ’913 and ’022 patents, recite a universal, intervertebral bone fusion spacer or apparatus. In the claims on appeal, the word universal appears only in the preamble.

Moskowitz sued Globus Medical in 2019. The district court construed universal to mean a spacer designed to be inserted in any region of the spine, cervical, thoracic, or lumbar, using any surgical approach. Moskowitz argued the preambles were not limiting, but agreed that if they were, it could not show infringement under that construction. The district court held the preambles limiting and granted summary judgment of noninfringement.

On a third patent, the ’319 patent, a jury found no infringement, and the court denied Moskowitz's motion for judgment as a matter of law. Moskowitz appealed both rulings.

Whether a preamble limits a claim is a question of claim construction, reviewed de novo. If the body of the claim sets out the complete invention, the preamble ordinarily does not limit it. But no litmus test governs.

Guideposts include whether the body depends on the preamble for antecedent basis, whether the preamble recites structure the specification underscores as important, and whether the applicant relied on it during prosecution.

The court held the preambles limiting.

In the ’913 patent, the body refers to the intervertebral cage and to the first and second integral screw guides — terms first introduced in the preamble. That antecedent basis, the court said, is a strong indication that the preamble is a necessary component of the invention.

The specification confirmed it, describing the invention as a unique universal bidirectional screw system usable across spinal regions and surgical approaches. In the ’022 patent, the court found the claim body altogether incomplete without the preamble's direction that the apparatus be universal.

The court also rejected Moskowitz's request to treat the word universal separately from the rest of the preamble, distinguishing its decision in TomTom v. Adolph.

It then affirmed the construction of universal. The construction does not demand an impossible one-size-fits-all device. The patents describe a design adaptable across spinal regions and approaches, and that adaptability is what makes it universal.

Finally, on the ’319 patent, the term cooperating had gone to the jury without construction and without a request for one. The question was only whether substantial evidence supported the verdict under its plain meaning, and the expert testimony did.

Moskowitz v. Globus applies the settled framework for limiting preambles. Where the claim body draws its antecedents from the preamble, and the specification presents the preamble's subject as the essence of the invention, the preamble limits the claim. A single word cannot be carved out of an integrated preamble as mere intended use when it states a fundamental characteristic of the invention. The decision confirms that the drafter who uses both preamble and body to define the invention is held to the invention so defined.

Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 2024-1696, decided September 11th, 2026. I'm John Goodhue. Thanks for watching.