DCT
6:26-cv-00025
Louisiana Dental Implant Lab LLC v. Jdentalcare S R L
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Louisiana Dental Implant Lab, LLC (Louisiana)
- Defendant: Jdentalcare SRL (Italy)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: ONEBANE LAW FIRM (APC); Johnson Legal PLLC
- Case Identification: 6:26-cv-00025, W.D. La., 01/05/2026
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is not a resident of the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s dental screw product infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a dental screw.
- Technical Context: The case concerns the field of dental implants, where specialized components like dental screws are used in restorative and surgical procedures.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of license negotiations between the parties concerning the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff also alleges it sent a demand letter to Defendant notifying it of the alleged infringement prior to filing the complaint. The patent was assigned to the Plaintiff from the inventor after issuance.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023-05-05 | ’155 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 2024-10-08 | U.S. Design Patent No. D1,046,155 Issues |
| 2025-04-10 | ’155 Patent Assigned to Plaintiff |
| 2025-05-09 | Plaintiff Sends Demand Letter to Defendant |
| 2026-01-05 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,046,155 - *“Dental Screw”*
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,046,155, titled “Dental Screw,” issued October 8, 2024 (the “’155 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian features. The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead claims a new, original, and ornamental design for a dental screw.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a dental screw as depicted in its figures (’155 Patent, Figs. 1-9). The design is characterized by the overall configuration of the screw, including a tapered head with a distinct, six-pointed star-shaped internal recess, and a threaded shank with a specific pitch and profile (’155 Patent, Figs. 1, 3, 7). The patent’s description consists solely of a list identifying the views shown in each of its nine figures (’155 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the patented design is embodied in Plaintiff's "VORTEX" commercial product, suggesting the design has commercial value in the dental screw market (Compl. ¶9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for a dental screw, as shown and described" (’155 Patent, Claim).
- As is typical for design patents, there are no independent or dependent claims to differentiate. The scope of the claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent’s drawings.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant’s dental screw product designated as “EVS112” (the “Accused Product”) (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint identifies the Accused Product as a dental screw, indicating it is a component used in dental procedures (Compl. ¶10).
- Plaintiff alleges Defendant manufactures, imports, offers for sale, and sells the Accused Product in the United States via its website (Compl. ¶5c, ¶10). The complaint includes a side-by-side visual comparison chart showing photographs of the Accused Product alongside figures from the ’155 Patent (Compl. ¶11). The chart presents multiple views of the EVS112 product, including a top-down perspective showing the internal design of the screw head (Compl. ¶11, p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Accused Product is “substantially similar” to the patented design and “embodies the overall visual appearance of the ’155 Patent in all material respects” (Compl. ¶11, ¶12). For design patents, infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused device supposing it to be the patented design. The complaint presents its infringement theory through a visual comparison chart.
’155 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Ornamental Feature (from ’155 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (in EVS112 Product) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A screw head with a tapered exterior profile and a flat top surface. | The Accused Product is shown with a screw head that has a tapered external shape and a flat top. | ¶11 | Figs. 3-6 |
| A six-pointed, star-like internal recess within the screw head, characterized by inwardly curving points. | The Accused Product’s screw head features a six-pointed, star-shaped internal recess. | ¶11 | Figs. 1, 7 |
| A threaded shank extending from the head, featuring threads of a specific pitch and profile. | The Accused Product features a threaded shank with a similar visual thread pattern. | ¶11 | Figs. 3-6 |
| The overall visual impression of the dental screw as a combination of the head, recess, and thread design. | The complaint alleges the Accused Product's overall appearance is substantially similar to the patented design. | ¶12 | Figs. 1-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central question will be whether the overall visual impression of the Accused Product is substantially the same as the claimed design in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The analysis will focus on the combination of ornamental features rather than any single element in isolation.
- Technical Questions: A factual dispute may arise over the degree of similarity between specific features, such as the precise curvature and depth of the internal recess in the screw head or the exact pitch and shape of the screw threads, and whether any minor differences are sufficient to distinguish the designs in the mind of an ordinary observer. The top-down comparison view provided in the complaint highlights the similarity of the screw head recess as a key aspect of the infringement allegation (Compl. ¶11, p. 6).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, claim construction is typically not focused on textual terms but on the scope of the design as depicted in the patent's figures. The drawings themselves define the claim.
- The Term: The ornamental design as a whole.
- Context and Importance: The entire dispute hinges on the visual scope of the design claimed in the ’155 Patent and whether the Accused Product falls within that scope. The analysis will compare the overall appearance of the two designs, not their functional aspects. Practitioners may focus on which visual features dominate the design's overall impression.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for the design "as shown and described." Parties advocating for broader scope may argue that the key, legally-protectable features are the overall shape and configuration, and that minor variations in proportion or surface detail do not alter the fundamental design identity.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The scope is limited to the specific ornamental design shown in the patent's figures (’155 Patent, Figs. 1-9). Parties advocating for narrower scope may argue that any discernible visual difference between the patented design and the accused product is sufficient to avoid infringement under the ordinary observer test. The precise contours of the star-shaped recess (Fig. 7) and the specific profile of the screw threads (Fig. 3) create a specific visual impression that may be construed narrowly.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged actual knowledge of the ’155 Patent (Compl. ¶15, ¶16). This knowledge is asserted to have arisen from both prior license negotiations between the parties and a formal demand letter sent by Plaintiff’s counsel on May 9, 2025 (Compl. ¶5g, ¶14). The complaint alleges that Defendant continued its infringing activities despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶15).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two primary questions:
- A central issue will be one of visual comparison: Would an ordinary observer, giving the attention a purchaser usually gives, be deceived into purchasing Defendant’s EVS112 product believing it to be the design protected by the ’155 Patent? The outcome will depend on the court's holistic assessment of the similarity in overall ornamental appearance, not just an element-by-element comparison.
- Should infringement be found, a key question for damages will be the apportionment of profits. The complaint seeks Defendant's total profits from sales of the Accused Product pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289, a remedy unique to design patents. This raises the question of what constitutes the relevant "article of manufacture" and the proper calculation of total profits attributable to the infringing design.