DCT

8:18-cv-00311

CLM Analogs LLC v. James R Glidewell Dental Ceramics Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:18-cv-00311, C.D. Cal., 02/22/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants having committed acts of infringement and maintaining regular and established places of business within the Central District of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' methods for fabricating dental crowns, and the dental implant analogs used in those methods, infringe a patent related to technology for improving the stability of analogs within casting molds.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the dental laboratory process of creating custom-fitted prostheses (crowns) for dental implants, where the accuracy of a physical model is critical to the final product's fit.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff CLM Analogs, LLC is the assignee of the patent-in-suit. The patent face indicates it is subject to a terminal disclaimer. No other significant procedural events are detailed in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-08-31 ’927 Patent Priority Date
2007-10-16 ’927 Patent Issue Date
2017-01-01 Date of Accused Product Catalogs (Inclusive Systems)
2017-07-01 Date of Accused Product Catalog (Hahn System)
2018-02-22 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,281,927 - "Stable Dental Analog"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,281,927, "Stable Dental Analog," issued October 16, 2007.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In fabricating dental crowns, a laboratory creates a physical model (a "replica") of the patient's jaw using a plaster-like material. A "dental analog"—a stand-in for the actual implant—is placed in this material. The patent’s background explains that conventional analogs can be too smooth, allowing them to rotate or shift within the plaster model as it is being worked on, which compromises the accuracy of the final crown ('927 Patent, col. 2:10-18; col. 5:26-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a dental analog designed to be more stable within the casting model. It achieves this through the inclusion of a "pin or other protrusion" that projects from the base of the analog and becomes embedded in the plaster, physically preventing rotation and movement ('927 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:31-36; Fig. 3A). This anchoring feature is intended to ensure the analog's position in the lab model precisely matches the implant's orientation in the patient's mouth.
  • Technical Importance: The patent asserts that this enhanced stability provides a measurable improvement in the accuracy of the fabrication process, citing an experiment that found a "statistically significant improvement" in framework fit and resistance to torque compared to a prior art analog ('927 Patent, col. 2:50-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent method claim 5 (Compl. ¶¶2, 15).
  • The essential steps of independent claim 5 are:
    • Preparing an analog dental crown mounting post that has a downwardly extending elongated member and "at least one radially extending anchoring extension" near its bottom end.
    • Inserting the elongated member into a dental crown casting mold.
    • Securing the member temporarily within the mold.
    • Adding settable plaster to the mold to embed the bottom end of the member and its anchoring extension.
    • Allowing the plaster material to set and harden.
    • Utilizing the resulting "firmly anchored and secured" analog to make a dental crown.
  • The complaint notes that Plaintiff may assert infringement of other claims of the ’927 Patent (Compl. ¶13).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' methods of creating dental crowns and specific products used in practicing those methods (Compl. ¶14, ¶17). These products are identified as "Inclusive Mini Implant Replicas," "Inclusive Tapered Implant Analogs," and "Hahn Tapered Implant Analogs," collectively referred to as the "Subject Products" (Compl. ¶¶17, 19).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the "Subject Products" are analog dental crown mounting posts that serve as replicas for portions of dental implants (Compl. ¶26). It further alleges that Defendant Glidewell uses these products in a multi-step method involving casting molds and plaster to create dental crowns for its customers (Compl. ¶15). The complaint cites a January 2017 "Inclusive Dental Implant System, Surgical Manual" as describing these allegedly infringing steps (Compl. ¶15). Defendant Prismatik is identified as a manufacturer and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant Glidewell (Compl. ¶3). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’927 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a. preparing an analog dental crown mounting post ... having a downwardly extending elongated member with at least one radially extending anchoring extension... Defendant Glidewell allegedly prepares dental crowns using the Subject Products, which are analog mounting posts. Defendant Prismatik allegedly manufactures and sells these posts. The complaint alleges these posts are designed for the patented method. ¶15, ¶17, ¶27 col. 10:11-20
b. inserting bottom-end-down said elongated member into a dental crown casting mold; Defendant Glidewell is alleged to perform the step of inserting the analog post into a dental crown casting mold. ¶15 col. 10:21-22
c. securing said elongated member temporarily in place within said casting mold; Defendant Glidewell is alleged to perform the step of securing the post in place within the mold. ¶15 col. 10:23-24
d. adding settable plaster molding material to said casting mold so as to embed said bottom end of said elongated member with said at least one extension... Defendant Glidewell is alleged to perform the step of adding settable plaster molding material to the casting mold. ¶15 col. 10:25-29
e. allowing said plaster molding material to set and harden with said elongated member and extensions embedded within said molding material; and Defendant Glidewell is alleged to perform the step of allowing the molding material to set and harden. ¶15 col. 10:30-32
f. utilizing said analog dental crown firmly anchored and secured to make a dental crown. Defendant Glidewell is alleged to utilize the anchored analog to make a dental crown. ¶15 col. 10:33-35

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the definition of the claimed structures. The complaint alleges the "Subject Products" infringe but provides no visual evidence comparing their features to the claims. This raises the question of whether the design of the accused analogs includes a structure that meets the definition of a "radially extending anchoring extension" as required by claim 5.
  • Technical Questions: For direct infringement, the inquiry will focus on whether the method actually performed by Glidewell includes every step of claim 5. The complaint's reliance on a "Surgical Manual" (Compl. ¶15) raises the evidentiary question of whether that manual accurately describes the accused process and, if so, whether that process constitutes performance of all claimed steps.
  • Divided Infringement Questions: The complaint appears to anticipate a divided infringement defense by alleging that Prismatik (supplier) and Glidewell (user/integrator) are engaged in a "joint enterprise" (Compl. ¶20) and that they direct and control each other or their customers (Compl. ¶¶16, 18). This raises the legal question of whether the alleged relationship—including Prismatik’s status as a subsidiary and the provision of instructional materials—is sufficient to attribute the actions of multiple parties to a single defendant.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "radially extending anchoring extension"
  • Context and Importance: This term describes the core inventive feature that provides stability. The infringement analysis for the accused products, and any arguments regarding their non-infringing alternatives, will depend heavily on the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether any anti-rotation feature on the accused products falls within the claim scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes this feature using varied language, including a "pin or other protrusion" (col. 2:43-44), "side ridge" (col. 2:44), "transverse wings" (col. 3:15), "angled spikes" (col. 3:24), and "looped side extensions" (col. 3:27). This variety of examples may support a construction that is not limited to a specific shape but covers a range of structures that extend from the analog body to provide an anchoring function.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment detailed in the patent shows a "transverse pin 312" passing through a "hole 314" in the side of the analog (col. 5:31-36; Fig. 3A). Claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, recites an "anchoring extension within a bore disposed near a bottom end" (col. 10:46-47). A party could argue that this language limits the "extension" to a component that passes through the body of the analog, as opposed to features that are integrally formed with or protrude from its surface.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both inducement and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendants provide "instructional materials, such as user guides, owner manuals, and similar online resources" that teach and encourage customers to use the Subject Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶29-30). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the Subject Products are "especially made and/or adapted for use in infringement" and are "poorly-suited to use of non-infringing methods," suggesting they have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶25, 27).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint alleges that Defendants have had actual notice of the ’927 Patent "at least as early as the filing and service of this Complaint" and have continued their alleged infringement with specific intent (Compl. ¶¶28-29).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "radially extending anchoring extension," which is described in the patent with reference to a pin passing through a bore, be construed broadly enough to read on the specific anti-rotation features of the accused analog products? The outcome of this construction will be pivotal to the infringement analysis.
  • A key legal question will be one of divided infringement: since the asserted claim is a multi-step method, and the defendants include a product supplier (Prismatik) and a service provider (Glidewell), the case may turn on whether the plaintiff can prove that a single entity directs or controls the performance of all claim steps, or that the defendants are engaged in a joint enterprise sufficient to establish liability.
  • An essential evidentiary question will be one of proof of practice: can the plaintiff demonstrate through discovery that the actual laboratory processes used by Defendants or their customers map to each limitation of the asserted method claim, particularly the final step of "utilizing said analog dental crown firmly anchored and secured to make a dental crown"?