ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

3D SCAN GUIDE LLC,

Plaintiff

v.

CHROME FULL ARCH GUIDED 

SYSTEMS; and ROE DENTAL 

LABORATORY, INC.,

Defendants

Case No. 2:23-cv-194

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff 3D Scan Guide LLC (“Plaintiff” or “3D Scan”) hereby files this Original Complaint for 

Patent Infringement against Defendants Chrome Full Arch Guided Systems (“CFGS”) and ROE Dental 

Laboratory, Inc. (“RDL”) (jointly and severally as “Defendant”), and alleges, upon information and 

belief, as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff 3D Scan Guide LLC is a limited liability corporation organized and existing under the 

laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 18 East 48th Street, Suite 

1702, New York, New York 10017.

2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Chrome Full Arch Guided Systems is an unincorporated 

entity of unknown legal status owned and operated by, and for the benefit of, Defendant ROE 

Dental Laboratory, Inc. through at least Messrs. Bruce Kowalski and Jay Watson. On 

information and belief, Defendant Chrome Full Arch Guided Systems maintains business 

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 1
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 2

locations across the United States in the form of “Chrome Labs”, including at least two 

independent physical locations within this Judicial District, at 3309 Essex Drive, Richardson, 

Texas 75082 and at 2801 Capital Street, Wylie, Texas 75098. On information and belief, 

Defendant Chrome Full Arch Guided Systems may be served at its principal place of business 

located at 7100 East Pleasant Valley Road, Suite 150, Independence, Ohio 44131 or, in the 

alternative, by serving the registered agent for service for Defendant ROE Dental Laboratory, 

Inc. (which is also the agent and registrant of record for CFGS) as follows: Dana A. Banks, 7165 

East Pleasant Valley Road, Independence, Ohio 44131. On information and belief, CFGS

makes, markets, sells, and internally uses a variety of dental technologies (including but not 

limited to the infringing products identified herein) across the United States, and particularly 

within this Judicial District.

See https://chromeguidedsmile.com/about-chrome/.

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 2 of 30 PageID #: 2
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 3

See https://chromeguidedsmile.com/chrome-lab-locations/.

See https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=4807:lmt1dq.4.3.

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 3 of 30 PageID #: 3
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 4

See https://businesssearch.ohiosos.gov/.

3. Upon information and belief, Defendant ROE Dental Laboratory, Inc. is a domestic business 

corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with a principal 

place of business located at 1115 East 2nd Street, Jamestown, New York 14701. Defendant may 

be served through its registered agent as follows: Dana A. Banks, 7165 East Pleasant Valley 

Road, Independence, Ohio 44131. On information and belief, RDL makes, markets, sells, and 

internally uses a variety of dental technologies (including but not limited to the infringing 

products identified herein) across the United States, and particularly within this Judicial District.

See https://businesssearch.ohiosos.gov/.

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 4 of 30 PageID #: 4
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 5

See https://businesssearch.ohiosos.gov/.

4. Upon information and belief, Defendants are engaged in a Joint Enterprise to exploit and 

monetize the Accused Instrumentalities in the United States, including within this Judicial 

District, and are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff for all damages resulting therefrom. By 

way of example, and on information and belief, Defendant RDL is the registered agent and 

registrant in the State of Ohio for the trade name associated with Defendant CFGS. Further, the 

agent/registrant for Defendant RDL in the State of Ohio is Mr. Bruce Kowalski, who is also the 

individual named in the recorded Patent Assignment (License) for United States Patent Nos. 

11,576,755 and 11,589,963. Those same two United States Patents are likewise promoted by 

Defendant CFGS as the so-called “CHROME Patents.” Further, as noted above, the business 

headquarters for each of Defendants are adjacent to one another in Independence, Ohio, and the 

business address listed with the Ohio Secretary of State for Defendant CFGS is the same address 

as is listed for Defendant RDL. Stull further, the Accused Instrumentalities are marketed in the 

same form, using the same names (e.g., CHROME Natural), by both Defendants. On 

information and belief, there exists written agreement(s) among and between Defendants CFGS 

and RDL governing the rights, duties, and responsibilities of each entity in their collective effort 

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 5 of 30 PageID #: 5
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 6

to exploit and monetize the Accused Instrumentalities in the United States, including within this 

Judicial District, all to the harm of Plaintiff.

See https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/17670362/assignments/assignment/

reel/060521/frame/0211.

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 6 of 30 PageID #: 6
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 7

See https://chromeguidedsmile.com/chrome-patent/.

See https://businesssearch.ohiosos.gov/#BusinessNameDiv.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 7 of 30 PageID #: 7
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 8

6. Defendant makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, and/or distributes in the United States,

including within this Judicial District, dental products for tooth replacement solutions and 

oral tissue regeneration. On information and belief, Defendant designs, manufactures, uses, 

imports into the United States, sells, and/or offers for sale in the United States products that 

infringe the Asserted Patent, directly and or through intermediaries, as alleged herein. Defendant 

markets, sells, and/or offers to sell its products and services, including those accused herein of 

infringement, to actual and potential customers and end-users located in the State of Texas and in 

this Judicial District, as alleged herein.

7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant has continuous and systematic 

business contacts with the State of Texas. Defendant directly conducts business extensively 

throughout the State of Texas by manufacturing, providing, selling, offering for sale, importing, 

and/or distributing Accused Products (as defined herein) and services; and/or by inducing others 

to make and use its Accused Products and services in an infringing manner; and/or contributing

to the making and use of Accused Products and services by others, including its customers, who 

directly infringe the Asserted Patent. Defendant has purposefully and voluntarily made its

services and training, including the infringing products, available to residents of this District and 

into the stream of commerce with the intention and expectation that they will be used by 

consumers in this District.

8. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas as to Defendant pursuant to at least 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1391(c)(2) and 1400(b). As noted above, Defendant maintains a regular and established business 

presence in this District.

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 8 of 30 PageID #: 8
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 9

See https://chromeguidedsmile.com/chrome-lab-locations/.

PATENTS-IN-SUIT 

9. Plaintiff is the sole and exclusive owner, by assignment, of U.S. Patents No. 7,210,881 and RE 

47,368. By way of this Complaint, Plaintiff alleges infringement of the claims of RE 47,368

(hereinafter “the Asserted Patent” or “the ’368 Patent”).

10. By operation of law, United States Patent No. 7,210,881 (“the ’881 Patent”) was originally 

issued and exclusively vested to the sole named inventor, Alex M. Greenberg, as of the date of 

issuance on May 1, 2007. See 35 U.S.C. § 261; Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, 

Inc., 959 F.3d 1065, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Suppes v. Katti, 710 Fed. Appx. 883, 887 (Fed. Cir. 

2017); Taylor v. Taylor Made Plastics, Inc., 565 Fed. Appx. 888, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Mr. 

Greenberg, in a written instrument dated April 30, 2015, and filed with the United States Patent 

and Trademark Office on May 4, 2015 at Reel 035553 and Frames 0504-0506, assigned all 

rights, title, and interest in the ’881 Patent, together with all continuing and reissue applications 

therefrom, to Greenberg Surgical Technologies LLC. On June 9, 2015, United States Patent No. 

9,050,665 (“the ’665 Patent”) issued to Alex M. Greenberg. The ’665 Patent issued as a 

continuing application from the ’881 Patent. Thereafter, on June 6, 2017, Mr. Greenberg filed an 

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 9 of 30 PageID #: 9
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 10

Application to Reissue the ’665 Patent and, following full and proper examination, the ’665 

Patent was reissued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office as RE 47,368 on April 30, 

2019. Thereafter, in a written instrument dated December 17, 2019, Greenberg Surgical 

Technologies LLC assigned all rights, title, and interest in the ’881 Patent and the ’368 Patent to 

the Plaintiff, 3D Scan Guide LLC. The aforementioned assignment was filed with the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office on February 28, 2020 at Reel 051967 and Frames 0351-

0353. As such, Plaintiff 3D Scan Guide LLC has sole and exclusive standing to assert the ’368 

Patent and to bring these causes of action.

11. The ’368 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the 

United States Code.

12. The inventions described and claimed in the ’368 Patent were invented individually and 

independently by Alex M. Greenberg.

13. The ’368 Patent includes numerous claims defining distinct inventions.

14. By way of example, Claim 11 of the ’368 Patent recites as follows:

A template for use with an instrument for penetrating an uncut irregular surface through 

a hole in said uncut irregular surface, said hole being located at a desired location on 

said uncut irregular surface, said template comprising:

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;

a removable portion configured to be arranged in the receiving section;

a removable guideway arranged at the removable portion and having a first end 

positioned to open onto said desired location when said body is placed in conforming 

contact with said uncut irregular surface, wherein the 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;

means for securing said removable portion to said body; and

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 10 of 30 PageID #: 10
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 11

the inner piece configured as a stop for limiting a depth of penetration of said 

instrument into said hole.

15. As described in great detail in the specification of the ’368 Patent, a preferred embodiment of the 

template is for use with an instrument to drill a hole in a surface at a desired location. The 

template includes a body which has a negative impression of the surface, a guideway having a 

first end positioned to open onto the desired location when the body is placed in conforming 

contact with the surface, and a second end positioned on an exterior surface of the body. The 

second end of the guideway is connected to the first end by a passage. The template also 

includes a stop for limiting the depth of penetration of the drill bit into the hole.

16. The priority date of the ’368 Patent is at least as early as May 20, 2005. As of the priority date, 

the inventions as claimed were novel, non-obvious, unconventional, and non-routine.

17. The ’368 Patent relates generally to apparatuses for use with an instrument to drill a hole in a 

surface (e.g., the interior of a dental patient’s mouth) at a desired location. The template includes 

a body which has a negative impression of the surface, and a guideway having a first end 

positioned to open onto the desired location when the body is placed in conforming contact with 

the surface and a second end positioned on an exterior surface of the body. The second end of 

the guideway is connected to the first end by a passage. The guideway is preferably positioned 

in a portion of the template which is removable from the remainder thereof. The template also 

includes a stop for limiting the depth of penetration of the drill bit into the hole, a first fastener 

for attaching the stop to the body and a second fastener for fastening the removable portion of 

the template to the remainder of the template. See Abstract, ’368 Patent.

18. As noted, the claims of the ’368 Patent have priority to as early as May 20, 2005, or at minimum 

as early as May 22, 2006 (the “Date of Invention”). At that time, the customary procedures for 

carrying our oral surgery (including the use of drilling apparatuses) were deficient in their 

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 11 of 30 PageID #: 11
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 12

inability to adequately safeguard the depth of drilling. Such was of critical importance, as 

improperly drilled holes can have catastrophic and irreparable consequences. See ’368 Patent at 

1:33-2:38. The inventive template, as claimed, was an unconventional approach at the time, 

including because it uniquely provides for guidance of the dental instrument for entering a hole 

in a surface at a desired location, at a desired trajectory, and to a desired depth. Id. at 4:53-57.

19. As of the Date of Invention, it was unconventional and non-routine to create templates having 

removable portions including removable guideways as claimed. See Amendment After Final, 

dated June 20, 2018, at pages 9-11.

20. After giving full proper credit to the prior art and having conducted a thorough search for all 

relevant art and having fully considered the most relevant art known at the time, the United 

States Patent Examiners allowed all of the claims of the ’368 Patent to issue. In so doing, it is 

presumed that Examiners Schaper and Wehner used their knowledge of the art when examining 

the claims. K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It is 

further presumed that Examiners Schaper and Wehner had experience in the field of the 

invention, and that the Examiners properly acted in accordance with a person of ordinary skill. 

In re Sang Su Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In view of the foregoing, the claims of 

the ’368 Patent are novel and non-obvious, including over all non-cited art which is merely 

cumulative with the referenced and cited prior art. Likewise, the claims of the ’368 Patent are 

novel and non-obvious, including over all non-cited contemporaneous state of the art systems 

and methods, all of which would have been known to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and 

which were therefore presumptively also known and considered by Examiners Schaper and 

Wehner.

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 12 of 30 PageID #: 12
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 13

21. The claims of the ’368 Patent were all properly issued, and are valid and enforceable for the 

respective terms of their statutory life through expiration, and are enforceable for purposes of 

seeking damages for past infringement even post-expiration. See, e.g., Genetics Institute, LLC v. 

Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., 655 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[A]n expired 

patent is not viewed as having ‘never existed.’ Much to the contrary, a patent does have value 

beyond its expiration date. For example, an expired patent may form the basis of an action for 

past damages subject to the six-year limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 286”) (internal citations 

omitted).

22. The nominal expiration date for the claims of the ’368 Patent is no earlier than June 5, 2025.

THE ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES

23. Upon information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, and/or 

distributes in the United States, including within this Judicial District, SMOP template products 

and products that are made, sold, offered for sale or operate in a substantially similar manner. 

Such products are marketed as: CHROME GuidedSMILE, including CHROME Natural, 

CHROME Replica, CHROME Standard, and CHROME Zygo (collectively, the “Accused 

Products”).

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 13 of 30 PageID #: 13
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 14

See https://www.roedentallab.com/products/chrome-guidedsmile/guided-surgery-decisions/

chrome-standard/.

See https://www.roedentallab.com/products/chrome-guidedsmile/guided-surgery-decisions/

chrome-natural/.

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 14 of 30 PageID #: 14
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 15

See https://www.roedentallab.com/products/chrome-guidedsmile/guided-surgery-decisions/

chrome-replica/.

See https://www.roedentallab.com/products/chrome-guidedsmile/guided-surgery-decisions/

chrome-zygo/.

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 15 of 30 PageID #: 15
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 16

 

See https://chromeguidedsmile.com/chrome-family-of-products/.

COUNT I

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE 47,368

24. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs by reference.

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 16 of 30 PageID #: 16
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 17

25. Defendant has been on actual notice of the ’368 Patent at least as early as the date it received 

service of this Original Complaint.

26. Upon information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, and/or 

distributes the Accused Instrumentalities and generates substantial financial revenues therefrom.

27. Upon information and belief, Defendant has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe 

at least Claim 11 of the ’368 Patent by making, using, importing, selling, and/or, offering for sale 

the Accused Instrumentalities. The Accused Instrumentalities themselves comprise each and 

every limitation of Claim 11, and therefore directly and literally infringe (or, in the alternative, 

infringe under the doctrine of equivalents).

28. The Accused Products comprise “[a] template for use with an instrument for penetrating an uncut 

irregular surface through a hole in said uncut irregular surface, said hole being located at a 

desired location on said uncut irregular surface,” as detailed and depicted below.

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 17 of 30 PageID #: 17
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 18

See https://www.roedentallab.com/products/chrome-guidedsmile/guided-surgerydecisions/chrome-standard/

29. The Accused Products further comprise “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,” as detailed and depicted below.

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 18 of 30 PageID #: 18
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 19

See https://www.roedentallab.com/products/chrome-guidedsmile/day-of-guided-surgery/chromeguidedsmile-components/pin-guide/

See https://www.roedentallab.com/products/chrome-guidedsmile/day-of-guided-surgery/chromeguidedsmile-components/fixation-base/

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 19 of 30 PageID #: 19
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 20

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 20 of 30 PageID #: 20
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 21

See https://www.roedentallab.com/products/chrome-guidedsmile/day-of-guided-surgery/chromeguidedsmile-components/osteotomy-guide/

30. The Accused Products further comprise “a removable portion configured to be arranged in the 

receiving section,” as detailed and depicted below.

See https://www.roedentallab.com/products/chrome-guidedsmile/day-of-guided-surgery/chromeguidedsmile-components/osteotomy-guide/

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 21 of 30 PageID #: 21
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 22

31. The Accused Products further comprise “a removable guideway arranged at the removable 

portion and having a first end positioned to open onto said desired location when said body is 

placed in conforming contact with said uncut irregular surface,” as detailed and depicted below.

See https://www.roedentallab.com/products/chrome-guidedsmile/day-of-guided-surgery/chromeguidedsmile-components/osteotomy-guide/

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 22 of 30 PageID #: 22
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 23

See https://www.roedentallab.com/products/chrome-guidedsmile/chrome-furthereducation/chrome-training-videos/; 

also available at: 

https://vimeo.com/720010415?embedded=true&source=video_title&owner=178280809

32. The Accused Products further comprise a removable guideway which 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,” as detailed and depicted above.

33. The Accused Products further comprise a “means for securing said removable portion to said 

body,” as detailed and depicted below.

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 23 of 30 PageID #: 23
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 24

See https://www.roedentallab.com/products/chrome-guidedsmile/day-of-guided-surgery/chromeguidedsmile-components/osteotomy-guide/

34. The Accused Products further comprise “the inner piece configured as a stop for limiting a depth 

of penetration of said instrument into said hole,” as detailed and depicted below.

See https://www.roedentallab.com/products/chrome-guidedsmile/day-of-guided-surgery/chromeguidedsmile-components/osteotomy-guide/

35. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s direct infringement of the ’368 Patent in 

an amount adequate to compensate for such infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable 

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 24 of 30 PageID #: 24
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 25

royalty from the date of first infringement to the expiration of the ’368 Patent for the use made of 

the invention by Defendant, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.

36. To the extent Defendant continues, and has continued, its infringing activities noted above in an 

infringing manner post-notice of the ’368 Patent, including upon actual notice as of November 

19, 2020 (via written actual notice), such infringement is necessarily willful and deliberate.

37. On information and belief, Defendant has a policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of 

others. Further on information and belief, Defendant instructs its employees to not review the 

patents of others for clearance or to assess infringement thereof. As such, Defendant has been 

willfully blind to the patent rights of Plaintiff.

38. Each of Defendant’s aforesaid activities have been without authority and/or license from 

Plaintiff.

COUNT II

Induced Infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE 47,368

39. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs by reference.

40. On information and belief, as of November 19, 2020 (via written actual notice), or at least as 

early as the date of receipt of this Original Complaint, Defendant has been and is presently 

indirectly infringing one or more claims of the ’368 Patent, by inter alia actively inducing 

infringement of the ‘368 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). On information and belief, such 

inducements include without limitation, with specific intent to encourage the infringement, 

knowingly inducing oral surgeons and dentists to use infringing articles that Defendant knows or 

should know infringe one or more claims of the ’368 Patent. On information and belief, 

Defendant, inter alia, creates and provides its infringing surgical guide templates and instructs 

and directs oral surgeons and dentists to reassemble them in an infringing manner as claimed in 

the ’368 Patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 25 of 30 PageID #: 25
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 26

41. On information and belief, as of November 19, 2020 (via written actual notice), or at least as 

early as the date of receipt of this Original Complaint, Defendant knew or was willfully blind to 

the fact that it was inducing others to infringe the ’368 Patent. On information and belief, 

Defendant knowingly and actively aided and abetted the direct infringement of the ’368 Patent 

by, inter alia, providing instructions and encouragement to oral surgeons and dentists to 

reassemble the surgical guide templates in an infringing manner.

42. As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’368 Patent, Plaintiff has suffered monetary 

damages, and is entitled to an award of damages adequate to compensate it for such infringement 

under 35 U.S.C. § 284, but in no event, less than a reasonable royalty.

COUNT III

Contributory Infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE 47,368

43. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs by reference.

44. On information and belief, as of November 19, 2020 (via written actual notice), or at least as 

early as the date of receipt of this Original Complaint, Defendant has been and is presently 

indirectly infringing one or more claims of the ’368 Patent, by contributing to infringement of 

the ’368 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) and/or §271(f), either literally and/or under the doctrine 

of equivalents.

45. On information and belief, as of November 19, 2020 (via written actual notice), or at least as 

early as the date of receipt of this complaint, Defendant has contributed to the infringement of 

the ’368 Patent by, with knowledge of the ’368 Patent and its infringing use, offering and/or 

providing to oral surgeons and dentists, and/or importing into the United States, its infringing 

surgical guide templates. These infringing surgical guide templates (i) are a material part of the 

patented inventions claimed in the ’368 Patent, (ii) are not a staple article or commodity of 

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 26 of 30 PageID #: 26
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 27

commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and (iii) are especially made or especially 

adapted for use in an infringement of the ’368 Patent.

46. As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’368 Patent, Plaintiff has suffered monetary 

damages, and is entitled to an award of damages adequate to compensate it for such infringement 

under 35 U.S.C. § 284, but in no event, less than a reasonable royalty.

COUNT IV

Joint Enterprise

47. On information and belief, and as detailed above, Defendants are engaged in a Joint Enterprise to 

exploit and monetize the infringing functionalities and features of the Accused Instrumentalities 

in the United States. On information and belief, such Joint Enterprise is based upon at least one 

written or oral agreement among the Defendants to market and collectively profit from the 

Accused Instrumentalities. By way of example, and on information and belief, Defendant RDL 

is the registered agent and registrant in the State of Ohio for the trade name associated with 

Defendant CFGS. Further, the agent/registrant for Defendant RDL in the State of Ohio is Mr. 

Bruce Kowalski, who is also the individual named in the recorded Patent Assignment (License) 

for United States Patent Nos. 11,576,755 and 11,589,963. Those same two United States Patents 

are likewise promoted by Defendant CFGS as the so-called “CHROME Patents.” Further, as 

noted above, the business headquarters for each of Defendants are adjacent to one another in 

Independence, Ohio, and the business address listed with the Ohio Secretary of State for 

Defendant CFGS is the same address as is listed for Defendant RDL. Stull further, the Accused 

Instrumentalities are marketed in the same form, using the same names (e.g., CHROME 

Natural), by both Defendants. Again, and on information and belief, there exist written 

agreement(s) among and between Defendants CFGS and RDL governing the rights, duties, and 

responsibilities of each entity in their collective effort to exploit and monetize the Accused 

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 27 of 30 PageID #: 27
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28

Instrumentalities in the United States, including within this Judicial District, all to the harm of 

Plaintiff. By virtue of such agreement(s), Defendants collectively have engaged in a common 

purpose with a common pecuniary interest in the Accused Instrumentalities. Moreover, and on 

information and belief, the Defendants each possess an equal right to a voice in the direction of 

the enterprise, which gives an equal right of control over such enterprise.

COUNT V

Vicarious Liability

48. In addition and/or in the alternative, and on information and belief, Defendant CFGS acts as an 

agent of Defendant RDL with respect to the Accused Instrumentalities. More specifically, and as 

discussed supra, Defendant RDL is the registered agent and registrant in the State of Ohio for the 

trade name associated with Defendant CFGS. Further, the agent/registrant for Defendant RDL in 

the State of Ohio is Mr. Bruce Kowalski, who is also the individual named in the recorded Patent 

Assignment (License) for United States Patent Nos. 11,576,755 and 11,589,963. Those same 

two United States Patents are likewise promoted by Defendant CFGS as the so-called 

“CHROME Patents.” Further, as noted above, the business headquarters for each of Defendants 

are adjacent to one another in Independence, Ohio, and the business address listed with the Ohio 

Secretary of State for Defendant CFGS is the same address as is listed for Defendant RDL. Stull 

further, the Accused Instrumentalities are marketed in the same form, using the same names 

(e.g., CHROME Natural), by both Defendants. Upon such facts and relationship, the acts of 

infringement in the United States are carried out by agents of Defendant RDL, acting under the 

authority and control of Defendant RDL.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff 3D Scan Guide LLC respectfully requests the Court enter individual 

and collective joint judgment against Defendants as follows:

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 28 of 30 PageID #: 28
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 29

1. Declaring that Defendants have each infringed the Asserted Patent, including willfully;

2. Awarding 3D Scan Guide LLC its damages suffered because of Defendants’

infringement of the Asserted Patent(s);

3. Awarding 3D Scan Guide LLC its costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and 

interest; 

4. Granting a permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, enjoining Defendants from 

further acts of infringement with respect to the Asserted Patent;

5. Awarding 3D Scan Guide LLC ongoing post-trial royalties for infringement of the nonexpired claims of the Asserted Patent; and

6. Granting 3D Scan Guide LLC such further relief as the Court finds appropriate.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff 3D Scan Guide LLC demands trial by jury, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 38.

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 29 of 30 PageID #: 29
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 30

Dated: April 27, 2023 Respectfully Submitted

/s/ M. Scott Fuller

M. Scott Fuller

 Texas Bar No. 24036607

 sfuller@ghiplaw.com

Randall Garteiser 

 Texas Bar No. 24038912

 rgarteiser@ghiplaw.com

Christopher A. Honea

 Texas Bar No. 24059967

 chonea@ghiplaw.com

René Vazquez 

 Virginia Bar No. 41988

 rvazquez@ghiplaw.com

GARTEISER HONEA, PLLC

119 W. Ferguson Street

Tyler, Texas 75702

Telephone: (903) 705-7420

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

3D SCAN GUIDE LLC

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/27/23 Page 30 of 30 PageID #: 30