Moskowitz v. Globus: When a Patent Claim Preamble Becomes a Limitation
A patent claim’s opening words can look like scene-setting. In the wrong case, treating them that way can decide infringement before the factfinder ever compares the accused product to the claim.
That is the practical lesson from the Federal Circuit’s September 11, 2026 precedential decision in Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc. The court affirmed noninfringement rulings involving three spinal-implant patents. For two patents, the word “universal” appeared in the claim preambles, but the court held that it limited the claims. For the third, the court upheld a jury verdict because substantial evidence supported noninfringement under the instruction the parties had allowed the jury to receive.
The opinion is useful on both sides of the patent lifecycle. It shows patent applicants why preamble language, antecedent basis, and sweeping descriptions in the specification must be coordinated. It also shows litigants why a claim-construction dispute should be identified before trial—not repackaged after an unfavorable verdict.
What happened in Moskowitz v. Globus?
Moskowitz Family LLC accused Globus Medical of infringing patents directed to spinal implant technology: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,353,913, 9,889,022, and 8,894,319. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered summary judgment of noninfringement on the asserted claims of the ’913 and ’022 patents after construing “universal,” a term in their preambles. A jury later found no infringement of the asserted ’319 patent claim, and the district court denied Moskowitz’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.
In its precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed each ruling. The result did not invalidate the patents. It left in place findings that the accused products did not infringe the asserted claims.
When does a patent claim preamble become limiting?
A preamble is the introductory portion of a patent claim. Sometimes it merely states a purpose or intended use. Other times it supplies structure, relationships, or meaning needed to understand the claim body. The Federal Circuit again emphasized that there is no single mechanical test. Courts examine the entire claim in light of the specification and the prosecution history.
A preamble is more likely to limit claim scope when it recites essential structure or steps, gives necessary meaning to the claim, or supplies antecedent basis for terms used later. By contrast, language that simply names an intended use for an otherwise complete claim may not be limiting.
This context-dependent approach is familiar from patent claim construction generally: claim language is not interpreted in isolation. The surrounding claim text and the patent’s written description can turn a seemingly introductory word into a substantive requirement.
Why “universal” limited the asserted claims
For the ’913 patent, the asserted claims opened by reciting a “universal bidirectional screw system.” The bodies then referred to “the intervertebral cage” and “the” first and second integral screw guides that the preamble had introduced. Those references gave the preamble an antecedent-basis role and tied it to the claimed structure.
The specification reinforced that connection. As the Federal Circuit explained, the patent described the invention as a unique universal bidirectional screw system and repeatedly emphasized its adaptability across spinal regions and surgical approaches. Against that backdrop, “universal” was not a disposable label. It described a fundamental characteristic of the claimed system.
The ’022 patent led to the same conclusion. Its claim body recited components whose significance depended on the preamble’s “universal” apparatus. The court found that the body did not present a structurally complete invention without that context.
Moskowitz argued that the court should separate “universal” from the rest of each preamble and treat that single adjective as nonlimiting. The Federal Circuit declined. The term was intertwined with the structure the preambles introduced and with the way the specifications characterized the inventions.
What did “universal” require?
The district court construed “universal” to mean designed for insertion in any region of the spine—cervical, thoracic, or lumbar—using any approach, including posterior, anterior, or lateral. The Federal Circuit affirmed that construction based on the intrinsic record.
Importantly, the construction did not require one physical implant to fit every patient. The relevant concept was adaptability across the identified spinal regions and approaches. Moskowitz conceded that the accused products did not infringe under the adopted construction, so affirmance of summary judgment followed.
This illustrates a recurring claim-drafting risk. An applicant may use an expansive word to describe commercial versatility or distinguish an invention from prior systems. But if that word enters the claims and is supported by repeated invention-wide descriptions, it can narrow the territory the patent ultimately covers.
A second lesson: raise claim-construction disputes before the verdict
The ’319 patent presented a different issue. Its asserted claim required components that “cooperat[e]” in a specified way. The parties were given an opportunity to request construction of that language, but they did not do so. The jury therefore received a plain-and-ordinary-meaning instruction.
After the jury found no infringement, Moskowitz argued in its motion for judgment as a matter of law that the defense expert had applied an improper understanding of “cooperating.” The Federal Circuit treated the dispute in light of the instruction the parties had permitted at trial. The question was whether substantial evidence supported the verdict under that instruction—not whether the court should supply a new post-verdict construction.
The record included expert testimony and testimony about the accused product’s design and operation. That evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding. The court therefore affirmed denial of the motion.
For a patent litigation team, the point is operational: claim construction is not a housekeeping item. If the parties’ experts or infringement theories reveal materially different understandings of a claim term, counsel should decide whether the court must resolve the dispute before the case reaches the jury.
Drafting lessons for patent applicants
The decision does not mean that every preamble limits every claim. It does show why the opening language deserves the same discipline as the claim body.
Know what the preamble contributes
During patent application drafting, ask whether the body can stand on its own. If later elements depend on nouns or relationships introduced only in the preamble, the preamble may be doing substantive work. That can be appropriate, but it should be deliberate.
Coordinate the claims with the specification
Repeated descriptions of “the present invention,” “the invention,” or a supposedly universal feature can affect how courts understand claim language. A specification should explain important embodiments and advantages without accidentally presenting every feature as mandatory for every claim.
Use expansive adjectives carefully
Terms such as “universal,” “integrated,” “automatic,” or “seamless” may sound commercially attractive, yet their legal content can be uncertain. If the feature matters, define it through concrete structure or operation. If it does not belong in every asserted combination, consider whether it should appear in the independent claim at all.
Build meaningful claim differentiation
A thoughtful claim set can place narrower characteristics in dependent claims while preserving a supportable broader position. That requires consistency: the specification, drawings, and prosecution arguments must support the hierarchy rather than undermine it.
AI-assisted drafting makes this review even more important. Generated language can repeat promotional phrases or vary terminology without recognizing their claim-scope consequences. As discussed in Tucker Law’s guide to using AI tools to help write a patent application, human legal review remains essential when wording can determine enforceable scope.
Litigation lessons for patent owners and accused infringers
Before claim construction, each side should map the asserted claims to the specification and accused products with special attention to preambles. Useful questions include:
- Does the claim body rely on the preamble for antecedent basis?
- Would the body describe a complete invention without the preamble?
- Does the specification call the preamble feature fundamental or describe it as the invention itself?
- Did prosecution arguments rely on the feature to obtain allowance?
- Are the experts applying materially different meanings to an apparently ordinary term?
Those questions can shape infringement positions, noninfringement motions, expert reports, and settlement value. They can also expose a dispute that requires judicial resolution before trial. Waiting until after a jury verdict may leave a party arguing under a record and instruction it already accepted.
The business takeaway
Moskowitz v. Globus connects drafting choices made years earlier with litigation outcomes much later. A single word in a preamble mattered because the rest of the claim depended on it and the specification treated it as central. A different term reached the jury without a requested construction, and the resulting evidentiary record supported the verdict.
Patent owners should review important claims before enforcement with the same rigor used for a new application. Accused infringers should not assume preamble language is merely aspirational. For businesses building a patent portfolio, the decision is another reason to invest in careful, consistent drafting instead of relying on broad-sounding language.
Tucker Law advises inventors and companies on patent protection, claim strategy, and enforcement. If a preamble or disputed claim term may affect an application, product clearance, or infringement case, contact Tucker Law to discuss the specific record and business objectives.
