3D Scan Guide v. Chrome Full Arch & ROE Dental: Joint Dismissal With Prejudice After 693 Days
3D Scan Guide LLC brought a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas against Chrome Full Arch Guided Systems and ROE Dental Laboratory over reissue patent USRE047368E, covering a modular template for drilling dental implant holes. The parties jointly moved to dismiss all claims with prejudice after 693 days of litigation, each side absorbing its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Dental Implant Guide Patent Dispute Ends in Bilateral Walk-Away
On 27 April 2023, 3D Scan Guide LLC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:23-cv-00194) before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting infringement of reissue patent USRE047368E. The patent covers a modular template for drilling holes used in dental implant placement procedures. The defendants — Chrome Full Arch Guided Systems and ROE Dental Laboratory, Inc. — are participants in the guided dental surgery market, supplying systems and laboratory services for full-arch implant workflows.
After 693 days of litigation, all parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(2). Judge Gilstrap granted the motion in full on 20 March 2025, dismissing all claims and causes of action with prejudice and directing the clerk to close the case. Neither side was awarded costs, expenses, or attorneys’ fees, consistent with a negotiated resolution that avoided a definitive judicial ruling on the merits of infringement or validity.
A dismissal with prejudice following a joint motion of this kind typically signals that the parties reached a private resolution — most commonly a licensing agreement or covenant not to sue — though the public record is silent on specific terms. The 693-day timeline suggests substantive engagement, potentially including claim construction skirmishes or settlement negotiations, before the parties elected to exit. Whether any commercial arrangement underlies the dismissal remains undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 693 days
693 days — above the median for E.D. Texas patent cases that settle before trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion outcome means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(2) joint dismissal with prejudice explained
Under FRCP 41(a)(2), a plaintiff may seek court-ordered dismissal after the defendant has answered. When the motion is joint, the court typically grants it as a matter of course. Dismissal ‘with prejudice’ means 3D Scan Guide LLC is permanently barred from re-asserting the same claims against these defendants based on USRE047368E. The court made no ruling on infringement, validity, or damages.
Permanent bar on re-filing3D Scan Guide exits without a merits ruling — but forfeits re-litigation rights
For 3D Scan Guide LLC, dismissal with prejudice closes the door on future enforcement of USRE047368E against these specific defendants. The patent itself remains in force and can still be asserted against other parties. The joint nature of the motion, with each side bearing its own costs, is consistent with a private settlement in which the plaintiff secured some form of commercial consideration — though this is not confirmed by the public record.
Patent survives; these defendants protectedChrome Full Arch and ROE Dental achieve full release — no damages, no injunction
Chrome Full Arch Guided Systems and ROE Dental Laboratory obtain a dismissal with prejudice, meaning 3D Scan Guide cannot pursue these same infringement claims again. No damages were awarded, no injunction was entered, and no finding of validity was made. The defendants bear their own legal costs. Their freedom to operate commercially with respect to USRE047368E in relation to 3D Scan Guide is effectively resolved, though the patent’s enforceability against third parties is unchanged.
Full release from these claimsUSRE047368E remains a live enforcement risk for the broader dental guide market
The joint dismissal does not invalidate or narrow USRE047368E. Other manufacturers and laboratories in the guided dental implant surgery space — particularly those producing modular drill templates for full-arch workflows — remain exposed to enforcement. The absence of any court ruling on claim scope or validity means competitors cannot draw on this case to challenge the patent’s reach. Industry participants should treat this reissue patent as actively enforceable.
Sector-wide enforcement risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | 3D Scan Guide LLC | Company | Dental implant guide IP licensor — holder of USRE047368E covering modular drill templatesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Chrome Full Arch Guided Systems | Company | Chrome Full Arch Guided Systems and ROE Dental Laboratory — dental implant guided surgery system and lab services providersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | ROE Dental Laboratory, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Scott Fuller | Attorney | Counsel for 3D Scan Guide LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing 3D Scan Guide LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham | Attorney | Counsel for Chrome Full Arch Guided SystemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bruce G. Chapman | Attorney | Counsel for Chrome Full Arch Guided SystemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Marc Karish | Attorney | Counsel for Chrome Full Arch Guided SystemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Chrome Full Arch Guided SystemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Chrome Full Arch Guided SystemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Orbit IP LLP | Law Firm | Representing Chrome Full Arch Guided SystemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ joint framing verbatim, granting dismissal of ‘all claims and causes of action’ with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(2). The with-prejudice designation is the operative legal fact: it extinguishes 3D Scan Guide’s right to reassert these specific claims against these defendants, functioning as a final judgment on the right to relitigate — though not on the merits of infringement or validity. The cost-neutrality clause, explicitly ordering each party to bear its own fees, is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral concession by either side.
USRE047368E — Modular Dental Implant Drill Guide Template
USRE047368E is a U.S. reissue patent covering a modular template system for drilling holes, applied in the context of dental implant placement. Reissue patents undergo re-examination at the USPTO, allowing the patentee to correct errors or adjust claim scope relative to the original grant — typically to better capture infringing commercial products. The underlying application number US15/615417 reflects the reissue proceedings. The technology sits at the intersection of digital dentistry and surgical guidance, enabling precise implant positioning in full-arch dental restoration workflows.
In the competitive guided dental surgery market, modular drill templates are a foundational product category — used by dental laboratories, oral surgeons, and prosthodontists to ensure accurate implant angulation and depth. The reissue status of USRE047368E suggests 3D Scan Guide strategically refined claim coverage to address the commercial landscape at the time of reissuance. For laboratory service providers and guided-system manufacturers, this patent represents a non-trivial freedom-to-operate consideration, particularly as full-arch implant workflows become increasingly standardised across digital dentistry platforms.
Should you run an FTO against USRE047368E for your dental drill guide products?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or supplying modular drill templates for dental implant procedures — including full-arch guided surgery systems and dental laboratory services — should assess exposure to USRE047368E. The patent’s reissue history means its claims may be broader than those of the original grant, and the absence of any court-issued claim construction means the boundaries are shaped only by prosecution history. Product teams launching new guided surgery template configurations face material uncertainty.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map USRE047368E’s claim language against product specifications, surface relevant prior art that could inform design-around strategies, and benchmark against the reissue prosecution history. With no Markman order on record, a thorough FTO analysis is the primary tool available to competitors seeking to understand and manage their risk in this product category.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USRE047368E to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Infringement Cases: Dental Implant & Surgical Guide Technology
Browse related patent infringement actions involving dental implant guidance systems and surgical template technology filed in U.S. district courts, including the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the dental implant guide IP landscape
A joint with-prejudice dismissal in E.D. Texas after nearly two years suggests strategic resolution — not capitulation. The patent stays live.
Reissue patents in dental implant guidance carry heightened enforcement credibility
USRE047368E is a reissue patent, meaning the USPTO re-examined and broadened or corrected the original claims. In litigation, reissue patents often signal a patentee who has strategically shaped claim scope to capture commercial products. Competitors in the modular dental guide space should assess whether reissued claims now read on their current product architectures.
E.D. Texas remains the venue of choice for dental device IP enforcement
Judge Gilstrap’s docket is among the most active patent dockets in the country. Filing in E.D. Texas against dental laboratory and guided-surgery defendants signals a plaintiff prepared for aggressive enforcement. Defendants in this sector should ensure litigation-ready prior art and invalidity positions are developed before any demand letter is received.
3D v Chrome — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint motion under FRCP 41(a)(2), granted by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 20 March 2025. All claims were terminated, each party bore its own costs, and 3D Scan Guide LLC is barred from reasserting the same claims against these defendants. No merits ruling on infringement or validity was issued.
USRE047368E covers a modular template for drilling holes used in dental implant placement procedures. As a reissue patent, it was re-examined by the USPTO, allowing the patentee to adjust claim scope after the original grant. This typically signals broader or more commercially targeted claims, making FTO analysis more complex than for standard utility patents.
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims against the same defendants. Dismissal without prejudice allows re-filing, subject to statute of limitations. In this case, the with-prejudice designation means 3D Scan Guide LLC cannot reassert USRE047368E against Chrome Full Arch or ROE Dental Laboratory on these same grounds in any future action.
No. The joint dismissal has no effect on the patent’s enforceability against third parties. USRE047368E remains in force, and its claims have never been construed or invalidated by a court. Other competitors in the modular dental drill template market remain fully exposed to potential enforcement actions by 3D Scan Guide LLC.
The Eastern District of Texas, and Judge Gilstrap’s court in particular, is a historically preferred venue for patent plaintiffs due to its established patent litigation procedures, experienced judiciary, and plaintiff-friendly historical statistics. Filing there suggests 3D Scan Guide LLC was represented by counsel familiar with the court’s practices — consistent with Garteiser Honea PLLC, a Marshall, Texas-based firm specialising in patent litigation.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.