3D Scan Guide LLC v. 360 Imaging LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: 3D Scan Guide LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: 360 Imaging LLC a/k/a 3Sixty LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01518, N.D. Ga., 06/19/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining a regular and established place of business within the Northern District of Georgia, specifically an office located in Atlanta.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s dental surgical guide systems infringe a patent related to modular templates for precisely guiding and limiting the depth of surgical drills.
• Technical Context: The technology involves custom-fitted templates, often created using 3D imaging and printing, that are placed in a patient's mouth to guide a surgeon's drill during dental implant procedures, aiming to improve accuracy and safety.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE 47,368, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 9,050,665, which itself was a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 7,210,881. The reissue process, which allows for the correction of errors in an issued patent, may have implications for the scope and interpretation of the asserted claims.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE 47,368 - "Modular Template for Drilling Holes and Method of Making Same," issued April 30, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes drawbacks in prior art surgical drilling, particularly for dental implants. These include imprecision caused by radiographic scatter from existing dental work and, critically, a lack of reliable means for controlling the depth of drilling, which can lead to "catastrophic and irreparable consequences" if a drill penetrates too far into a patient's jawbone (Compl. ¶16; '368 Patent, col. 1:32-38, 1:57-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a modular surgical template system. It features a main body with a custom surface that fits precisely onto an "uncut irregular surface" like a patient's dental arch ('368 Patent, col. 4:54-65). This body holds a removable portion containing a guideway to direct the drill. The system also incorporates a physical stop to mechanically limit how deep the drill can penetrate, thereby enhancing safety and accuracy ('368 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a comprehensive solution that not only guided the angle and location of a surgical instrument but also provided a physical safeguard against over-drilling, a key concern in implant dentistry (Compl. ¶16; '368 Patent, col. 1:32-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Independent Claim 11: The complaint asserts this claim (Compl. ¶25). Its essential elements include:
  • A template for use with a penetrating instrument.
  • A body with a custom surface shaped as a negative impression of the uncut irregular surface, the body having a receiving section.
  • A removable portion configured to be arranged in the receiving section.
  • A removable guideway arranged at the removable portion, comprising an inner piece and an outer piece.
  • Means for securing the removable portion to the body.
  • The inner piece configured as a stop for limiting the depth of penetration.
• Independent Claim 19: The complaint also asserts this claim (Compl. ¶33). Its essential elements include:
  • A modular template for use with a drill bit.
  • A body with a custom surface shaped as a negative impression.
  • A guideway detachably connected to the body, comprising an inner piece (configured as a removable stop) and an outer piece.
  • The guideway having a second end positioned on an exterior surface of the body, connected to the first end by a passage.
  • The removable stop for limiting the depth of penetration of the instrument.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting it may assert additional dependent claims later (Compl. ¶45, ¶49).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are Defendant’s "Anatomic Guides" and "PET (Partial Extraction Therapy) Guides," including associated components such as drill guides, sleeves, and tools (Compl. ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges these products are used for "full-arch guided implant placement surgery" (Compl. ¶21, p. 7). They are described as a "completely-guided, stackable system" designed to provide "unmatched accuracy and predictability" (Compl. ¶21, p. 7). The system is based on a CT scan of the patient's anatomy, which is used to design and 3D print the guide components (Compl. ¶21, p. 11). A key advertised feature is a "360 Surgical Guide Drill Protocol" which specifies tool selection and "Total Drill Depth," and the system is marketed as having "Drill Depth Control" (Compl. ¶28, p. 18). An image in the complaint depicts the "Anatomic Guide™" and other components such as an "Implant Placement Guide" and "PMMA TEMPS" as part of what is included in the product kit (Compl. ¶27, p. 14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

RE 47,368 Infringement Allegations (Claim 11)

RE 47,368 Infringement Allegations (Claim 19)

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Claim 11 recites a "means for securing" limitation. The patent discloses a "clip 134" as the corresponding structure ('368 Patent, col. 5:30-32). A central question will be whether the "latches" alleged to be used with the Accused Products (Compl. p. 16) are structurally equivalent to the disclosed clip, which will determine the scope of this means-plus-function element.
  • Technical Questions: Both asserted claims require a physical "stop" (an "inner piece configured as a stop" or a "removable stop"). The complaint points to Defendant's "Drill Depth Control" feature and drilling protocol table (Compl. p. 12, 18). A key technical question is whether this feature is implemented via a physical component that meets the structural limitations of the claims, or if it is a more procedural control system that relies on selecting specific drill lengths without a physical stop as described in the patent. The complaint's visual evidence, such as a "360 Surgical Guide Drill Protocol" table, may be used by the defendant to argue its system operates differently than the patented invention (Compl. ¶28, p. 18).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "means for securing said removable portion to said body" (Claim 11)

• Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function term governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its construction is critical because its scope is not defined by the words alone, but is limited to the specific structure(s) disclosed in the patent's specification for performing the function of "securing," plus their equivalents. The infringement analysis for this element will depend entirely on this structural comparison.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for broader scope might contend that the term "clip" is exemplary and that other conventional fasteners known at the time would be structural equivalents.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly discloses "at least one clip 134" as the structure corresponding to this function ('368 Patent, col. 5:31-32; Fig. 3). A party arguing for a narrow construction would assert that the scope is limited to this specific clip structure and its strict structural equivalents, and may argue that the "latches" of the accused product are structurally distinct.

• The Term: "inner piece configured as a stop" (Claim 11) / "removable stop" (Claim 19)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the safety feature at the heart of the invention. Whether the Accused Products infringe will likely depend on whether their "Drill Depth Control" mechanism constitutes a "stop" as claimed. Practitioners may focus on whether the term requires a single, discrete component or if it can be read on a system of interacting parts.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "configured as a stop" is a functional description and should encompass any structure or combination of structures in the accused device that performs the function of physically limiting drill depth, as shown in the video still where a drill appears to be physically halted (Compl. ¶32, p. 20).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification depicts the stop as a distinct physical feature, "shoulder 146," which is part of the "inner piece 138" ('368 Patent, col. 5:35-41; Fig. 3). A party could argue that the term requires a specific, integrated shoulder-like structure, and that a system relying on selecting different drill bits or sleeves from a kit does not meet this limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that Defendant knowingly encourages and provides instructions to oral surgeons and dentists to assemble and use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶45-46). The complaint provides as evidence marketing materials that include a "Drilling Recipes Included" sheet and a detailed "Drill Protocol" table, which could be construed as instructions for infringing use (Compl. ¶28, pp. 10, 18).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the '368 patent. The complaint alleges notice was provided through personal discussions at a 2019 conference, written notice in November 2020, and the filing of the original complaint (Compl. ¶41, ¶45). It further alleges that Defendant is willfully blind by maintaining a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶42).

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

The resolution of this dispute may turn on the court's answers to the following central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of claim construction under § 112(f): What is the scope of the "means for securing" limitation in Claim 11? Specifically, are the "latches" allegedly used in Defendant’s stackable system structurally equivalent to the "clip" disclosed in the '368 Patent's specification?

2. A key question of technical infringement will be whether Defendant's "Drill Depth Control" system meets the "stop" limitation of Claims 11 and 19. Does the accused system include a physical component that functions as the claimed "inner piece configured as a stop" or "removable stop," or does it achieve depth control through a different, non-infringing method, such as a procedural protocol that coordinates specific drill and sleeve lengths?