IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION

Civil Action No: 2:23-cv-194

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE MOTION

TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(3) OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE

TO TRANSFER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1406

3D SCAN GUIDE LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CHROME FULL ARCH GUIDED

SYSTEMS; and ROE DENTAL

LABORATORY, INC.,

Defendants.

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 23 Filed 11/09/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 160
2

Pursuant to the Court’s Order dated August 25, 2023 (D.N. 21), Defendants submit this 

supplemental brief explaining how venue discovery taken by plaintiff 3D Scan Guide, LLC (“3D 

Scan”) supports their motion to dismiss for improper venue, or alternatively, transfer the litigation 

to the Northern District of Ohio.

I. Venue Discovery

For its venue discovery, 3D Scan served one set of document requests and one set of 

interrogatories. Defendants timely responded to both on September 29, 2023. A copy of the 

response to the interrogatories, redacted to remove confidential information, is attached as Exhibit 

A. The response to the document requests is attached as Exhibit B. Defendants also produced 

responsive documents on September 29, 2023. Two pages of those responsive documents, which 

are relevant to the discussion below, are attached as Exhibit C. 3D Scan did not seek any further 

discovery after Defendants’ September 29th responses and document production. 

The venue discovery shows that Defendants have two authorized dealers (called “Chrome 

Labs”) in the Eastern District of Texas. Defendants’ website identifies those dealers as Helm 

Dental Laboratory in Wylie, Texas and Westbrook, a MicroDental Lab, in Richardson, Texas. See

Exhibit C. The address and telephone numbers for Helm and Westbrook are set out on Defendants’ 

website, and if the “Contact Lab” button is selected on Defendants’ website, an email is sent 

directly to the lab (respectively to “sarahelm” at Helm Dental Lab and to “pwestbrook” at 

MicroDental). See Exhibit A at pp. 6-7 and Exhibit C (displaying the email address when hovering 

over the “Contact Lab” button). 

The product accused of infringement, CHROME, is a customized set of guided surgical 

elements. When Helm and/or MicroDental Laboratories, Westbrook’s parent company, order 

CHROME, they provide patient specific data. See Exhibit A at pp. 3-4. Defendants review that 

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 23 Filed 11/09/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 161
3

data to ensure the quality of its product. Id. After that review, metal elements of CHROME are 

created at a third-party facility and drop shipped to Helm and/or Westbrook in accordance with 

the order. Id. A data file is also provided to Helm and/or MicroDental from which they can 

print plastic elements of CHROME. Id. From the metal and plastic elements, Helm and/or 

Westbrook assemble the complete CHROME package. Id. 

Generally, before an independent business becomes an authorized dealer in CHROME, it 

must execute a non-disclosure agreement, after which its personnel undergo training on 

CHROME. See Exhibit A at p. 2. But, here, Defendants inherited Helm and Westbrook as 

authorized dealers from Watson Guide IP, LLC when Defendants licensed CHROME intellectual 

property from Watson Guide. Id. Because Helm and Westbrook were already experienced 

dealers in CHROME, Defendants neither have a non-disclosure agreement with Helm and 

Westbrook, nor did they provide training to Helm and Westbrook when they became authorized 

dealers. Id.

The venue discovery reveals that Defendants maintain no control over the making, using, 

selling or offering for sale of CHROME by Helm or Westbrook. See Exhibit A, at pp. 3-4. 

Defendants also do not have a process to ensure that their authorized dealers comply with any 

training they are provided. Id. at p. 5. Moreover, because Helm and Westbrook were existing 

CHROME dealers at the time they became Defendants’ authorized dealers, Defendants did not 

perform any due diligence when they made Helm and Westbrook authorized dealers. Id. at p. 5. 

Defendants have not provided Helm or Westbrook with any equipment, and they do not maintain 

any inventory or equipment at Helm or Westbrook. Id. at pp. 5-6. Defendants also do not offer 

any consumer warranties that would be serviced by Helm or Westbrook. Id. at p. 6. Finally, 

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 23 Filed 11/09/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 162
4

Defendants have no agreements for the inclusion of Helm or Westbrook on their website. Id. at p. 

7. 

II. The Facts Do Not Support Venue in this District

3D Scan bears the burden of establishing that venue is proper. In re ZTE (USA) Inc., 890 

F.3d 1008, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The facts revealed in venue discovery do not allow 3D Scan to 

show that Defendants exercise control over their authorized dealers Helm and Westbrook. As 

such, 3D Scan cannot show that that venue is appropriate under the test in In re Volkswagen, 28 

F.4th 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2022). In In re Volkswagen, the manufacture’s agreement with their dealers

imposed transfer restrictions, staffing and reporting restrictions, minimum inventory levels, 

employee training, and equipment requirements. Id. at 1206. The Federal Circuit held the 

agreements with the dealers failed to provide the kind of control over day-to-day activities of the 

dealers required to make them agents. Id. at 1210-1214. Here, discovery indicates that Defendants 

exercise even less control than was found insufficient to support venue in In re Volkswagen.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above and in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Complaint 

should be dismissed for improper venue, or alternatively transferred to the Norther District of 

Ohio.

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 23 Filed 11/09/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 163
5

Dated: November 9, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Melissa R. Smith

Melissa R. Smith

Texas Bar No. 24001351 

melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP

303 South Washington Avenue 

Marshall, Texas 75670

Tel: (903) 934-8450

Fax: (903) 934-9257 

Bruce G. Chapman

Marc Karish

KARISH & BJORGUM, PC

119 East Union Street, Suite B

Pasadena, California 91103

Telephone: (213) 785-8070

Facsimile: (213) 995-5010

bruce.g.chapman@kb-ip.com

marc.karish@kb-ip.com

Attorney for Defendants 

Chrome Full Arch Guided Systems 

And Roe Dental Laboratory, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in 

compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). As such, this document was served on all counsel 

who have consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system, on this 9

th day of

November 2023.

/s/ Melissa R. Smith

Melissa R. Smith

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JRG Document 23 Filed 11/09/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 164