DCT
1:25-cv-01177
3D Scan Guide LLC v. Absolute Dental Services Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: 3D Scan Guide LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Absolute Dental Services, Inc. (North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: TUGGLE DUGGINS PA; Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01177, M.D.N.C., 12/23/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant maintaining a regular and established place of business within the Middle District of North Carolina, specifically in Durham.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s guided surgical template systems for dental procedures infringe a patent related to modular templates designed to ensure precision in drilling.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns custom-fit surgical guides used in dental implant surgery to control the location, angle, and depth of drilling into a patient's jawbone.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a reissue of a previously granted patent. The complaint alleges Defendant had knowledge of the patent family due to prior litigation Plaintiff pursued against other entities in the dental technology field, which forms the basis for allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-05-20 | ’368 Patent - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2007-05-01 | Original Related U.S. Patent 7,210,881 Issued |
| 2015-06-09 | Predecessor U.S. Patent 9,050,665 Issued |
| 2017-06-06 | Application to Reissue the ’665 Patent Filed |
| 2019-04-30 | U.S. Reissue Patent RE 47,368 Issued |
| 2025-12-23 | Complaint Filed |
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"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the critical importance of precision in medical and dental drilling procedures, where an "improperly drilled hole may have catastrophic and irreparable consequences" (’368 Patent, col. 1:36-38). Prior surgical templates, while improvements over freehand drilling, often lacked reliable mechanisms for controlling the depth of penetration into the target surface, such as a patient's jawbone (’368 Patent, col. 2:32-38).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a modular surgical template designed for high-precision drilling. Its core features include a body with a custom-fit "negative impression" of the patient's anatomy to ensure stable and accurate placement, and a guideway to direct the surgical instrument (’368 Patent, col. 4:35-43). To enhance functionality, the guideway is housed in a "removable portion" of the template and incorporates a "stop" mechanism to physically limit how deep the instrument can penetrate the surface (’368 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: This approach combines a custom-fit foundation with a modular, depth-limiting guide system, aiming to provide a comprehensive solution for controlling the location, trajectory, and depth of surgical drilling (Compl. ¶16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶25).
- Essential elements of Claim 11 include:
- A body with a custom surface shaped as a negative impression of an uncut irregular surface, the body having a receiving section.
- A removable portion configured to be arranged in the receiving section.
- A removable guideway at the removable portion, which itself comprises an inner piece and an outer piece.
- Means for securing the removable portion to the body.
- The inner piece configured as a stop to limit the depth of penetration.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting the right to assert additional dependent claims is reserved (Compl. ¶38).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's guided surgical template products, including "NavaGation Precision Guidance, Synergy Plus (including Full Arch, Abutment, Conversion, and Base Guide), Synergy Guided Workflow, Synergy Zero, and EnCompass" (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are systems for guided dental surgery (Compl. ¶21). The complaint describes the "NavaGation" system as using a "base guide" that seats on the patient's bone to hold "vertical and planned occlusion" and to carry all surgical guides (Compl. p. 14). This system is described as a "stackable process," where different components are layered to achieve the final surgical guide assembly (Compl. p. 14). An image from Defendant's "Clinician's Guide" shows the "Seating of Base Guide" during a surgical procedure (Compl. p. 14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
RE 47,368 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a body including a custom surface shaped as a negative impression of the uncut irregular surface to conform to the uncut irregular surface, the body having a receiving section | The "base guide" is designed to seat onto the buccal bone, allegedly conforming to the patient's anatomy based on DICOM data. | ¶27 | col. 5:13-16 |
| a removable portion configured to be arranged in the receiving section | The system is described as "stackable," with components such as the "Surgical guide latched base" functioning as removable portions that attach to the base frame. | ¶28 | col. 5:31-34 |
| a removable guideway...comprises an inner piece and an outer piece, and wherein the outer piece includes an outer surface configured to engage an inner surface of the removable portion | The "Surgical guide latched base" is identified as the removable guideway. The complaint points to an image of "Keyed osteotomy guidance" to allege the presence of inner and outer pieces. | ¶29, ¶30 | col. 5:36-40 |
| means for securing said removable portion to said body | The system uses "latches" and "latch pins" to secure the various components, such as the surgical guide, to the base frame. An image depicts a "Surgical guide latched base." | ¶31; p. 17 | col. 5:33-34 |
| the inner piece configured as a stop for limiting a depth of penetration of said instrument into said hole | The "Keyed osteotomy guidance" feature is alleged to function as a stop that limits drilling depth. An image highlights this function with a red circle. | ¶32; p. 18 | col. 5:40-42 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the defendant's "stackable" system of multiple distinct components (base guide, aligner, surgical guide) corresponds to the claim's architecture of a "body" with a "removable portion." The defense may argue its system is fundamentally different from a single portion fitting into a "receiving section" of a monolithic body.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the guideway comprises an "inner piece and an outer piece," but the supporting visual evidence for this two-part structure appears to show a single "Keyed osteotomy guidance" component (Compl. p. 17). The analysis may focus on whether this single accused component can satisfy a claim limitation requiring two distinct pieces. Further, the "means for securing" limitation will require a court to first identify the corresponding structure in the patent's specification (e.g., a "clip") and then determine if the accused "latches" and "latch pins" are structurally equivalent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "removable guideway comprises an inner piece and an outer piece"
- Context and Importance: Infringement of this element is pivotal, as it requires a specific two-part structure for the guideway. The complaint's allegations appear to map this limitation onto a single component of the accused device, raising a direct question of structural correspondence that is critical to the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explains that the purpose of having two pieces with different thread pitches is to allow for "fine adjustment" and "coarse adjustment" of the drilling depth (’368 Patent, col. 6:53-58). Plaintiff may argue that any structure achieving this dual-adjustment functionality meets the claim's intent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 3 and the accompanying text explicitly depict two physically separate, threaded components: "inner piece 138" and "outer piece 140" (’368 Patent, col. 5:36-39). This could support a strict interpretation requiring two distinct physical parts.
The Term: "means for securing said removable portion to said body"
- Context and Importance: As a means-plus-function term, its scope is not its literal meaning but is limited to the specific structure disclosed in the patent for performing the function, and its equivalents. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will depend on a comparison between the patent’s disclosed structure and the accused product’s "latches" and "pins."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The specification discloses the corresponding structure as "at least one clip 134" shown in Figure 3 (’368 Patent, col. 5:33-34). The legal question will be whether the accused product's latching mechanism is structurally equivalent to this disclosed clip.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant provides infringing products along with instructional materials, such as the "Clinician's Guide," that direct and encourage dentists and oral surgeons to assemble and use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶38-¶39).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent family through "prior litigation between Plaintiff and defendants Chrome Full Arch Guided Systems and ROE Dental Laboratory, Inc." (Compl. ¶34, ¶38). It further alleges Defendant was willfully blind by maintaining a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶35). Post-suit willfulness is based on continued infringement after receiving the complaint (Compl. ¶23, ¶34).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Can the architecture of the accused "stackable" surgical system, with its multiple interlocking components, be read onto the claim language describing a "body" with a "receiving section" for a "removable portion"?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of component structure: Does the Accused Product's guideway mechanism contain the two distinct "inner piece" and "outer piece" components required by Claim 11, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the number and arrangement of its parts?
- A central legal question will concern willfulness: Can knowledge be imputed to the Defendant for the purposes of pre-suit willfulness based on prior litigation involving different, albeit related, corporate entities, or will Plaintiff need to establish a more direct link of knowledge?