Versah & Huwais v. HaeNaem: Voluntary Dismissal of 7-Patent Osteotome Suit
Versah LLC and Huwais IP Holdings LLC filed a seven-patent infringement action against HaeNaem Co. Ltd. in Michigan covering autografting osteotome and fluted surgical tool technology. The case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs after just 119 days, with no defendant agents or law firm on record.
Seven-patent osteotome suit dismissed in 119 days — terms undisclosed
On 19 October 2022, Versah LLC and Huwais IP Holdings LLC jointly filed suit against South Korean manufacturer HaeNaem Co. Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The complaint asserted seven US patents — US10568639B2, US9526593B2, US9028253B2, US10980548B2, US9737312B2, US10039621B2, and US9022783B2 — covering autografting osteotome instruments, fluted osteotome designs, and related surgical methods of use. The plaintiffs were represented by Carlson, Gaskey & Olds PC; no defendant counsel appears in the record.
The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Versah LLC and Huwais IP Holdings LLC voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice. The specific terms that may have accompanied or prompted the dismissal are not disclosed in the available record.
A 119-day lifecycle for a seven-patent suit is notably short and may suggest that the parties reached a private resolution soon after filing, though the record is silent on any underlying arrangement. No defendant legal representation appears on the docket, which is consistent with early resolution but equally consistent with a default posture. What drove the dismissal and whether any commercial terms were exchanged remains unknown from the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 119 days
Case resolved in under 4 months — notably fast for a multi-patent infringement action
US10568639B2 and six further osteotome patents asserted
Any company designing, manufacturing, or importing autografting osteotome instruments, bone-condensing drills, or fluted implant preparation tools into the United States market should treat this seven-patent portfolio as a priority FTO target. The combination of apparatus and method claims creates exposure at multiple points in the supply and clinical chain. The plaintiffs have demonstrated willingness to file in US federal court against foreign manufacturers, and the portfolio remains fully intact following this dismissal.
Official order — verbatim text
The docket records a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice by which the plaintiffs unilaterally dismissed the action, characterising it as with prejudice. Because this procedural mechanism requires no court order and no defendant response, it produced no merits adjudication on validity, infringement, or claim construction. The operative legal effect — and specifically whether the with-prejudice characterisation in the order governs over the Voluntary dismissal basis of termination — is a question the available record leaves open.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 notice means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff's right to unilateral dismissal
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because no defendant counsel appears on record, this procedural threshold was almost certainly met. The verdict text styles the dismissal as being with prejudice, though the recorded basis of termination is simply Voluntary dismissal without specifying prejudice.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) noticeWith or without prejudice? The public record is ambiguous
The basis of termination recorded is Voluntary dismissal — it does not specify with or without prejudice. The verbatim docket order states the dismissal was with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs could not re-file the same claims against HaeNaem on these seven patents. Practitioners should note this discrepancy and consult the original docket for the operative filing. The specific terms underlying the dismissal are not disclosed in the available record.
Prejudice designation disputed in recordHaeNaem exits with no recorded judgment against it
HaeNaem Co. Ltd. has no defendant counsel on record and no adverse judgment entered against it in this proceeding. If the dismissal is ultimately confirmed as with prejudice, the plaintiffs' ability to re-assert these seven patents against HaeNaem in a US federal court is foreclosed. If treated as without prejudice, the litigation risk persists. The specific commercial terms, if any, are not disclosed in the available record.
No judgment enteredSeven osteotome patents remain active enforcement assets
This dismissal does not extinguish the asserted patents. US10568639B2, US9526593B2, US9028253B2, US10980548B2, US9737312B2, US10039621B2, and US9022783B2 remain in force and available to Versah and Huwais for enforcement against other parties. Manufacturers and distributors of autografting osteotome and fluted surgical instruments operating in or exporting to the US market should treat these patents as live enforcement risks.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Versah, LLC | Company | Dental/surgical IP holding entities — co-holders of seven osteotome patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Huwais IP Holdings, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | HaeNaem Co., Ltd. | Company | HaeNaem Co. Ltd. — South Korean manufacturer of dental surgical instrumentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Alexander Szypa , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Versah, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven C. Susser | Attorney | Counsel for Versah, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Carlson, Gaskey & Olds PC | Law Firm | Representing Versah, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Michigan Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the osteotome and osseodensification instrument space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Versah/Huwais portfolio and the HaeNaem litigation — relevant for dental implant R&D and IP teams.
Versah/Huwais osteotome portfolio: filing depth and family breadth
The seven asserted patents span application numbers from 2012 to 2018, suggesting a sustained prosecution programme over at least six years. The mix of apparatus and method claims across the family indicates a deliberate layering strategy. Monitoring continuation and continuation-in-part activity from these application families may reveal further claim expansion in adjacent tool geometries.
Portfolio depth analysisOsseodensification instrument filings: who else is patenting in this space?
Osseodensification has attracted growing patent activity from dental implant majors and specialists since the mid-2010s. Mapping filing trends around autografting osteotome designs and progressive-pitch flute geometries can reveal which companies are building competitive IP positions and where claim white space exists for design-around development.
Landscape filing trendsHaeNaem Co. patent position in dental surgical instruments
HaeNaem Co. Ltd. appeared in this action without any recorded legal representation. Understanding HaeNaem's own patent portfolio — if any — in dental drill and osteotome categories can clarify whether the company holds defensive IP assets or relies primarily on design-around manufacturing. This analysis is relevant both for competitive intelligence and for assessing future litigation posture.
Competitor patent auditDesign-around opportunities in bone-condensing drill geometry
The Versah/Huwais claims focus on specific flute profiles, progressive-pitch geometries, and autografting methods. Adjacent areas — including ultrasonic osteotomy, piezosurgery-compatible designs, and biodegradable osteotome coatings — may represent white space where competing innovations can be filed without crossing into the asserted claim scope. R&D teams should map these adjacencies before next-generation instrument development.
Adjacent innovation white spaceSimilar osteotome and dental surgical instrument patent cases
Explore patent infringement cases involving autografting osteotomes, fluted surgical instruments, and dental implant preparation tools in US federal courts.
What this case signals for the dental surgical instrument IP landscape
A 119-day, seven-patent suit with no defence on record raises questions any osteotome or implant-drill manufacturer should be asking.
Seven live patents create a broad enforcement perimeter in osteotome design
Versah and Huwais hold a portfolio spanning autografting osteotomes, fluted designs, and surgical methods. The portfolio's breadth — seven granted US patents across multiple application families — signals a deliberate IP strategy capable of targeting multiple competitors simultaneously. Any company making or importing comparable instruments into the US market faces overlapping claim risk.
Absence of defence counsel suggests early resolution, not lack of exposure
HaeNaem's lack of recorded representation and the sub-120-day closure are consistent with a swift private resolution, though the record does not confirm this. Competitors should not interpret the dismissal as a signal that these patents are weak or unenforced — the portfolio is intact and the filing demonstrates plaintiffs' willingness to litigate in US courts against foreign manufacturers.
Versah v HaeNaem — key questions answered
Seven US patents were asserted: US10568639B2, US9526593B2, US9028253B2, US10980548B2, US9737312B2, US10039621B2, and US9022783B2. All cover autografting osteotome instruments, fluted osteotome designs, and related surgical methods of use for dental implant preparation.
The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Versah LLC and Huwais IP Holdings LLC voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice. The specific terms, if any, underlying the dismissal are not disclosed in the available public record.
Yes. The voluntary dismissal does not invalidate or extinguish any of the seven asserted patents. US10568639B2, US9526593B2, US9028253B2, US10980548B2, US9737312B2, US10039621B2, and US9022783B2 all remain in force. Versah and Huwais retain the right to assert them against other parties in future proceedings.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The mechanism produces no merits ruling on validity or infringement. A dismissal with prejudice bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims against the same defendant; without prejudice it does not. The available record records the basis as Voluntary dismissal without further specification, while the docket order text states with prejudice.
Osseodensification is a dental implant preparation technique in which a specially designed fluted osteotome compacts and autografts bone laterally rather than drilling it away, improving implant primary stability. Versah's patented instruments and methods are widely adopted in implant dentistry globally. The portfolio's combination of apparatus and method claims creates layered infringement exposure for any manufacturer of comparable instruments entering the US market.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.