DCT
7:26-cv-00026
Legion Innovations LLC v. Alphatec Spine Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Legion Innovations, LLC (Washington)
- Defendant: Alphatec Spine Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Davis Firm, PC; Seed Intellectual Property Law Group LLP
- Case Identification: 7:26-cv-00026, W.D. Tex., 01/26/2026
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in the district, specifically through full-time sales representatives who are required to live within the district and who allegedly store, deliver, and operate equipment used in the infringing surgeries.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s surgical method, known as the Prone Transpsoas ("PTP") approach, infringes a patent related to a method for performing spinal surgery on a patient in a prone position.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns minimally invasive spinal fusion surgery, a field focused on reducing patient trauma and improving outcomes compared to traditional open surgery.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s counsel sent letters to Defendant on August 29, 2025, and January 7, 2026, notifying Defendant of its patent rights before filing the lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-06-05 | U.S. Patent No. 10,080,665 Priority Date |
| 2018-09-25 | U.S. Patent No. 10,080,665 Issued |
| 2020-10-05 | Defendant announced teaching of accused PTP surgical method |
| 2025-08-29 | Plaintiff sent first letter to Defendant regarding patent rights |
| 2026-01-07 | Plaintiff sent second letter to Defendant regarding patent rights |
| 2026-01-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,080,665 - *Devices and Approach for Prone Intervertebral Implant*
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,080,665, "Devices and Approach for Prone Intervertebral Implant," issued September 25, 2018 (’665 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the drawbacks of conventional spinal surgery techniques (Compl. ¶¶13-15). Traditional posterior approaches on a prone patient limit the size of implants, while anterior approaches require placing the patient in an unfamiliar supine or lateral position, potentially necessitating a second surgeon or repositioning during the operation ('665 Patent, col. 1:53 - col. 2:31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a surgical method that allows a surgeon to access the anterior portion of the vertebral column while the patient remains in the familiar prone position (Compl. ¶17). This is achieved by making an incision in the patient’s side (the posterolateral flank) and creating a path to the spine through the retroperitoneal space, a method described as a "retropsoas approach" ('665 Patent, col. 2:52-59, FIG. 1A). This approach aims to combine the benefits of an anterior implant placement with the safety and familiarity of the prone position ('665 Patent, col. 2:61-68).
- Technical Importance: This method purports to enable minimally invasive access for larger implants and better deformity correction while reducing complications associated with other surgical approaches (Compl. ¶17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('665 Patent, col. 16:35-49; Compl. ¶27).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A method of performing surgery on a spine of a subject positioned in a prone position, comprising:
- making an incision in a posterolateral flank of the subject;
- performing dissection from the incision at least toward a quadratus lumborum muscle or an external oblique muscle of the subject;
- performing dissection into the retroperitoneal space through the transversalis fascia; and
- accessing a target disc space in the spine via the retroperitoneal space.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶27).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "PTP" (Prone Transpsoas) surgical method (Compl. ¶27).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the PTP method is a "prone transpsoas surgical method in which the patient is placed in the prone position for performing the spinal fusion surgery" (Compl. ¶21). Defendant allegedly teaches and promotes this method to surgeons (Compl. ¶¶21, 26).
- The complaint cites Defendant’s press release, which describes the PTP approach as a "streamlined surgical approach that addresses many of the challenges that have limited adoption of lateral spine fusion," by minimizing patient repositioning and enhancing time efficiencies (Compl. ¶21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
The complaint alleges that the PTP method infringes at least claim 1 of the ’665 Patent. A screenshot included in the complaint shows a patient positioned for surgery, which the complaint alleges satisfies the preamble's requirement of a subject "positioned in a prone position" (Compl. ¶28).
'665 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| making an incision in a posterolateral flank of the subject | Defendant's method includes making an incision in the subject's posterolateral flank, as illustrated in a provided diagram. | ¶29 | col. 8:36-43 |
| performing dissection from the incision at least toward a quadratus lumborum muscle or an external oblique muscle of the subject | Defendant's method includes dissecting from the incision toward the quadratus lumborum or external oblique muscle. | ¶30 | col. 8:44-48 |
| performing dissection into the retroperitoneal space through the transversalis fascia | Defendant’s method includes dissection into the retroperitoneal space through the transversalis fascia. | ¶31 | col. 8:49-54 |
| accessing a target disc space in the spine via the retroperitoneal space | Defendant's method accesses the target disc space via the retroperitoneal space, as shown in an annotated X-ray image. | ¶32 | col. 8:55 - col. 9:8 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the anatomical path used in the accused PTP method is the same as that required by the claims when read in light of the specification. The patent details a specific path relative to anatomical landmarks like the transverse process and pedicle ('665 Patent, col. 4:14-18). The dispute may focus on whether "accessing... via the retroperitoneal space" is limited to this specific path or can be read more broadly. The complaint uses an annotated X-ray to allege the PTP method accesses the target disc space, but the precise surgical path is not detailed (Compl. p. 10).
- Technical Questions: A factual question may arise regarding the precise location of the incision in the accused PTP method and whether it qualifies as being in the "posterolateral flank" as contemplated by the patent. The complaint provides a diagram showing the incision location (Compl. p. 8).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "posterolateral flank"
Context and Importance: The location of the initial incision is the first active step of the claimed method. The definition of this anatomical term will be critical to determining whether the accused surgical method literally infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because its precise boundaries could be debated, and a narrow construction could place the accused method outside the claim scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is a general anatomical description, which could support an interpretation covering a range of locations on the side and back of the torso. The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition that narrows the term's plain and ordinary meaning.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example, stating the incision is made "approximately 8-12 centimeters from the midline" ('665 Patent, col. 4:5-7) and "just over the lateral edge of the quadratus lumborum" ('665 Patent, col. 8:40-42). A defendant may argue these specific disclosures limit the scope of the term to this particular region.
The Term: "accessing a target disc space... via the retroperitoneal space"
Context and Importance: This limitation defines the novel surgical pathway, which is the core of the invention. Whether the accused PTP method performs this step will be a dispositive issue. The complaint supports this element with a screenshot of an X-ray showing a surgical instrument approaching the spine (Compl. ¶32).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue this term should be construed broadly to cover any surgical approach that begins in the retroperitoneal space and ends at the target disc, without being limited to the exact path of the preferred embodiment.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description teaches a very specific path: "digital dissection is made towards the midline... towards the transverse process... down the lateral aspect of the pedicle and to the root of the pedicle. Next, dissection is performed cranially towards the targeted disc space" ('665 Patent, col. 4:14-19). A defendant may argue that the term "accessing" should be construed as being limited to this disclosed pathway.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating Defendant "actively and knowingly" encourages surgeons to use the patented methods (Compl. ¶26). Factual support includes allegations that Defendant teaches the PTP method to surgeons (Compl. ¶21) and that its sales representatives are physically present and operate software during the infringing surgeries (Compl. ¶7).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on knowledge acquired "at least by the date that it received notice of this lawsuit" (Compl. ¶34), suggesting a focus on post-suit conduct. The complaint also alleges Defendant received pre-suit notice letters dated August 29, 2025, and January 7, 2026, which may be used to argue knowledge existed prior to the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶22-23).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the anatomical term "posterolateral flank" and the surgical path limitation "accessing a target disc space... via the retroperitoneal space"? The case may turn on whether these terms are given their plain meaning or are limited to the specific examples and pathways described in the patent's specification.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of inducement: What evidence will demonstrate that Defendant possessed the specific intent to encourage surgeons to perform each and every step of the claimed method? The allegations regarding Defendant's training programs and the role of its sales representatives in the operating room will be central to this inquiry.