ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

Spinelogik, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

v.

Zimmer Biomet Spine, Inc. and 

ZimVie, Inc.,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:23-cv-298

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Spinelogik, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) hereby files this Original Complaint for Patent Infringement against 

Zimmer Biomet Spine, Inc. and ZimVie, Inc. (“Defendant”), and alleges, upon information and belief, 

as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Spinelogik, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon

with its principal place of business at 1203 Willamette Street, Suite 200, Eugene, Oregon 97401.

2. Upon information and belief, Zimmer Biomet Spine, Inc. is a company organized and existing 

under the laws of the State of Delaware, and as shown below, with a place of business in this 

District Lufkin, Allen and Wylie, Texas. Upon information and belief, Defendant can be served 

with process upon its registered agent, United Agent Group Inc., located at 5444 Westheimer 

#1000, Houston, Texas 77056.

Case 2:23-cv-00298-JRG Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 2

3. Upon information and belief, ZimVie, Inc. is a company organized and existing under the laws 

of the State of Delaware, and as shown below, with a place of business in this District Lufkin, 

Allen and Wylie, Texas. Upon information and belief, Defendant can be served with process 

upon its registered agent, United Agent Group Inc., located at 3411 Silverside Road, Tatnall

Building #104, Wilmington, Delaware 19810.

4. Upon information and belief, Zimmer Biomet, Inc. completed its spinoff of ZimVie, Inc., 

“Zimmer Biomet’s former Dental and Spine business.” See 

https://investor.zimmerbiomet.com/news-and-events/news/2022/03-01-2022-120035502 (link to 

Zimmer Biomet’s press release of the spinoff).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant conducts business in and 

has committed acts of patent infringement in this District and the State of Texas and has 

established minimum contacts with this forum state such that the exercise of jurisdiction over 

Defendant would not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

7. Defendant is subject to this Court’s general and specific jurisdiction pursuant to due process 

and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute due at least to Defendant’s substantial business in the State 

of Texas and this District, including through its past and ongoing infringing activities, because 

Defendant regularly does and solicits business herein, and/or because Defendant has engaged in 

persistent conduct and/or has derived substantial revenues from goods and services provided in 

the State of Texas and this District.

8. Defendant transacts substantial business with entities and individuals in the State of Texas and 

this District, by among other things, willfully using the infringing methods and systems 

Case 2:23-cv-00298-JRG Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 2
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 3

throughout the State of Texas and this District. Defendant relies on the infringing methods and 

systems to introduce and sell millions of products into the stream of commerce with the 

knowledge and expectation that they will be sold in the State of Texas and this District. 

9. Defendant maintains regular, physical, continuous, and established places of businesses, 

including places of business for team leaders of sales, sales operation managers and system 

network architects, in this District, which Defendant has established, ratified, and controlled; 

have employed people to conduct their business from this District; and from which they have

willfully infringed the Asserted Patents in order to benefit themselves in this District. Defendant

commits acts of infringement in this District, including as explained further below by making 

and using the infringing systems in, and performing at least one step of the accused methods of 

the Asserted Patents, at their regular and established places of business in this District.

10. As shown below, Defendant has employees in the Eastern District of Texas, including East 

Texas sales team leaders for over 35 years:

Case 2:23-cv-00298-JRG Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 3
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 4

See https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurt-england-6482791ab/ (screenshot of Kurt England’s LinkedIn 

page, as Team East Texas Team Leader of Defendant).

See https://www.linkedin.com/in/sandra-ryan-102865a/ (screenshot of Sandra Ryan’s LinkedIn page, as 

Sales Operation Manager of Defendant).

See https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-c-lozano/ (screenshot of Robert Lozano’s LinkedIn page, as 

Network Architect of Defendant).

Case 2:23-cv-00298-JRG Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 4
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 5

11. As shown above, all three of these employees are located in this District in Lufkin, Allen and 

Wylie, Texas. Their locations within the Eastern District of Texas are important to the business 

performed and defendant had intention to maintain some place of business in the Eastern District 

of Texas in the event any employees decided to terminate their residences as a place there.

12. Defendant’s employees also not merely possess inventory. Their use in the Eastern District of 

Texas part of Defendant’s services to its Eastern District of Texas customers, a job that falls on 

these employees. When sample products or inventory arrive at these employees’ places of 

businesses, they then visit local customers to deliver or show the samples.

13. Defendant has further solicited salespeople in public advertisements to cover the challenged 

venue area and preferred that those employees live in their assigned sales area. Their locations

within the Eastern District of Texas are important to the business performed and defendant had

intention to maintain some place of business in the Eastern District of Texas in the event any

employees decided to terminate their residences as a place there.

14. Defendant has regular, physical presences of Defendant employees in this District conducting 

Defendant’s business. Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business at the 

Defendant defined places and separate areas by the regular, physical presence of its employees.

15. Venue is proper in this District 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. See In re Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 50 F.4th 157, 160 (Fed. Cir. 2022); see also 

AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00361-JRG, 2022 WL 1511757, at *9

(E.D. Tex. May 12, 2022)

Case 2:23-cv-00298-JRG Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 5
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 6

BACKGROUND AND PATENTS-IN-SUIT 

16. Plaintiff is the sole and exclusive owner, by assignment, of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,460,385 (“the 

’385 Patent”) titled “Fusion Member for Insertion Between Vertebral Bodies” relating to spinal 

implants and surgical procedures for spinal fusion and stabilization.

17. By operation of law, the ’385 Patent was originally issued and exclusively vested to the named 

inventor, Dr. Jeffrey Paris Wensel, as of the issue date of the ’385 Patent. 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). The inventors, in a written instrument, and filed with 

the United States Patent and Trademark Office, assigned all rights, title, and interest in the ’385

Patent to Spinelogik, Inc. 

18. The ’385 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the 

United States Code.

19. The inventions described and claimed in the ’385 Patent were invented individually and 

independently by Dr. Jeffrey Paris Wensel.

20. The ’385 Patent includes numerous claims defining distinct inventions. As represented in Figs. 

1A, 16 and 26A of the ’385 Patent below, the inventions generally relate to spinal implants and 

surgical procedures for spinal fusion and stabilization.

Case 2:23-cv-00298-JRG Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 6
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 7

Case 2:23-cv-00298-JRG Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 7
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 8

21. The priority date of each of the ’385 Patent is at least as early as May 1, 2008. As of the priority 

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

22. Back and neck pain are the leading causes of disability and lost productivity for American 

workers under the age of 45. Degenerative disc disease and its sequelae, whereby the 

fibrocartilaginous disc between adjacent vertebral bodies loses height, hydration and structural 

integrity, is one of the most common causes of back and neck pain and may develop secondary 

to traumatic injuries, inflammatory processes or various degenerative disorders. When 

conservative treatment fails, surgical fusion of the vertebral segments across the abnormal disc 

may be the only currently available procedure for pain relief. An increasing number of these 

spinal fusions are performed each year. It is estimated that over half a million of these 

procedures were performed in the United States last year alone.

Case 2:23-cv-00298-JRG Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 8
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 9

23. Before the inventions of the ’385 Patent, approaches often failed due to inadequate structural 

integrity. Subsequently, cortical bone dowels and femoral ring allografts were employed in an 

attempt to restore disc space height and augment structural integrity. Other prior art devices 

incorporated or were coated with human bone morphogenetic protein or other agents to promote 

new bone formation and accelerate fusion. Despite these advancements, failure rates for spinal 

fusion surgeries remain unacceptably high, greater than 10 percent in most series.

24. Therefore, there is a need in the art for an improved method to effect a more rapid, reliable 

fusion between unstable vertebral segments and avoid the considerable medical and economic 

impact of failed spinal fusions.

25. The inventor of the ’385 Patent conceived new an apparatus that (1) delivers a fusion member 

between two vertebral bodies after at least a portion of the fibrocartilaginous disc between the 

vertebral bodies has been removed, and (2) affixes the fusion member to the vertebral bodies. In 

some embodiments, the apparatus includes (1) a fusion member that is delivered and positioned 

between the vertebral bodies, (2) a delivery mechanism that delivers and positions the fusion 

member between the vertebral bodies, and (3) an anchoring member that affixes the fusion 

member to the vertebral bodies.

26. The ’385 Patent is a pioneering patent and has been cited as relevant prior art in 52 subsequent 

United States Patent Applications, including Applications Assigned to Defendant and such 

technology leaders and academia as Genesys Spine, Alphatec Spine, Inc., DePuy Synthes 

Products, Pinnacle Spine Group and In Queue Innovations.

27. The claims of the ’385 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. 

Case 2:23-cv-00298-JRG Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 9
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 10

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).

DEFENDANT’S INFRINGING PRODUCTS 

28. Upon information and belief, Defendant makes, sells, advertises, offers for sale, uses, or 

otherwise provides endoscopic targeting methods and systems, including, but not limited to, the 

Avenue T LIF Cage System (“Accused Instrumentalities”), that utilize the ’385 Patent’s patented 

spinal implants methods and systems. On information and belief, these spinal implants systems 

and methods include:

• a fusion member configured to position between first and second vertebral bodies, the fusion 

member comprising a first curved channel and a second curved channel;

Case 2:23-cv-00298-JRG Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 10
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 11

https://thespinemarketgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/ 07/Avenue-T.SGTZimmer-Biomet.pdf

Case 2:23-cv-00298-JRG Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 11
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 12

https://thespinemarketgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Avenue-T.SGTZimmer-Biomet.pdf

Case 2:23-cv-00298-JRG Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 12
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 13

Screenshot enlarged from 9:33 Time mark

https://fr.ldr.com/english/Products/Thoracolumbar/ 

Avenue%C2%AETPosteriorLumbarCage

(Note: Hyperlink no longer works)

Screenshot enlarged from 9:22 Time mark

https://fr.ldr.com/english/Products/Thoracolumbar/ 

Avenue%C2%AETPosteriorLumbarCage

(Note: Hyperlink no longer works)

• a first anchoring member configured to insert through the first curved channel and partially 

into the first vertebral body while a portion of the first anchoring member remains within the 

fusion member, in order to couple the fusion member with the first vertebral body;

Case 2:23-cv-00298-JRG Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 13
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 14

Screenshot from 7:34 Time mark

https://fr.ldr.com/english/Products/Thoracolumbar/ Avenue%C2%AETPosteriorLumbarCage

(Note: Hyperlink no longer works)

• a second anchoring member configured to insert through the second curved channel and 

partially into the second vertebral body while a portion of the second anchoring member 

remains within the fusion member, in order to couple the fusion member with the second 

vertebral body; and

Screenshot from 7:34 Time mark

https://fr.ldr.com/english/Products/Thoracolumbar/ Avenue%C2%AETPosteriorLumbarCage

(Note: Hyperlink no longer works)

• wherein the first curved channel has a first cross-sectional plane along a first path that is 

traversed by the first curved channel through the fusion member and the second curved 

channel has a second cross-sectional plane along a second path that is traversed by the 

Case 2:23-cv-00298-JRG Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 14
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 15

second curved channel through the fusion member, wherein the first and second crosssectional planes are parallel to each other, as invented in the ’385 Patent.

Screenshot enlarged from 9:33 Time mark

https://fr.ldr.com/english/Products/Thoracolumbar/ 

Avenue%C2%AETPosteriorLumbarCage

(Note: Hyperlink no longer works)

Screenshot enlarged from 9:22 Time mark

https://fr.ldr.com/english/Products/Thoracolumbar/ 

Avenue%C2%AETPosteriorLumbarCage

(Note: Hyperlink no longer works)

29. As shown above, Defendant’s products include each and every limitation of at least, but not 

limited to, claim 1 of the ’385 Patent and therefore literally infringe these claims. Plaintiff

reserves the right to assert additional claims and to assert infringement under the doctrine of 

Case 2:23-cv-00298-JRG Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 15
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 16

equivalents in light of information learned during discovery or in view of this Court’s claim 

construction order.

COUNT I

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,460,385

30. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs by reference.

31. Defendant without authority, continues to make, use, sell, offer to sell, and/or import into the 

United States its Accused Instrumentalities as shown above.

32. Defendant thus has infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 1 of the ’385 Patent literally 

and/or under the doctrine of equivalents.

33. Defendant has also actively induced and will continue to actively induce the infringement of at 

least one of claim 1 of the ’385 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by, among other 

things, actively and knowingly aiding and abetting infringement of others through activities such 

as creating and/or distributing videos of use such as the videos above, brochures, manuals,

instructional documents, and/or similar materials with instructions on creating, manufacturing, 

designing, assembling and/or implementing infringing products, with the specific intent to 

induce others to directly make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import into the United States 

products that fall within the scope of the ’385 Patent, without license or authority from Plaintiff. 

On information and belief, Defendant knows that the induced acts constitute infringement of the 

’385 Patent.

34. Defendant individually, collectively, or through others or intermediaries, has contributorily 

infringed, and/or is contributorily infringing, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), at least one 

claim of the ’385 Patent by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing, material 

parts of the inventions claimed in the ’385 Patent, which are not a staple article or commodity of 

Case 2:23-cv-00298-JRG Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 16
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 17

commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and knowing the accused parts to be 

especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ’385 claims.

35. Defendant has been on actual notice of the ’385 Patent at least as early as May 2016, as it was 

cited it in Defendant’s own patent file histories. Defendant’s direct and indirect infringement of 

the ’385 Patent has thus been committed with knowledge of the ’385 Patent, making Defendant

liable for direct, indirect, and willful infringement.

36. Defendant’s infringement of the ’385 Patent will continue to damage Plaintiff, causing 

irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless it is enjoined by this 

Court.

37. Plaintiff has been damaged because of the infringing conduct by Defendant alleged above. Thus, 

Defendant is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates it for such 

infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and 

costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.

38. Plaintiff and/or its predecessors-in-interest have satisfied all statutory obligations required to 

collect pre-filing damages for the full period allowed by law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court enter judgment against Defendant as 

follows:

1. Declaring that Defendant has infringed the ’385 Patent;

2. Awarding Plaintiff its damages suffered because of Defendant’s infringement of the ’385

Patent;

3. Awarding Plaintiff its costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and interest; 

Case 2:23-cv-00298-JRG Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 17
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 18

4. An award to Plaintiff of enhanced damages, up to and including trebling of Plaintiff’s 

damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 for Defendant’s willful infringement of the ’385

Patent;

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

further acts of infringement with respect to the ’385 Patent;

6. Awarding Plaintiff ongoing post-trial royalties for infringement of the non-expired ’385

Patent; and

7. Granting Plaintiff such further relief as the Court finds appropriate.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 38.

Respectfully Submitted

/s/ Christopher A. Honea

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

GARTEISER HONEA, PLLC

119 W. Ferguson Street

Tyler, Texas 75702

Telephone: (903) 705-7420

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 2:23-cv-00298-JRG Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 18