Versah LLC v. Guerrero PLLC: Default Judgment on 10 Dental Bur Patents in 100 Days
Versah LLC and Huwais IP Holdings LLC secured a default judgment and permanent injunction against Dr. Cesar Guerrero Facial and Oral Surgery PLLC for infringing ten osseodensification bur patents covering the ‘Bone Clock’ product. The Texas Southern District Court resolved the case in just 100 days, with no defense mounted by the defendant.
Ten-Patent Enforcement Action Ends in Full Default Victory for Versah
Filed on 12 November 2024 in the Southern District of Texas before Judge Keith P. Ellison, this infringement action was brought by Versah LLC and co-plaintiff Huwais IP Holdings LLC against Dr. Cesar Guerrero Facial and Oral Surgery PLLC. The suit asserted ten United States patents covering osseodensification bur technology — instruments used in dental implant surgery to densify rather than remove bone — and targeted the defendant’s ‘Bone Clock’ product as substantially similar to Versah’s patented designs.
The case closed on 20 February 2025 via default judgment, triggered by the defendant’s failure to appear or respond. Judge Ellison granted both the motion for default judgment and the accompanying motion for permanent injunction, finding infringement of all ten patents-in-suit and restraining Guerrero PLLC, its officers, agents, and all persons in active concert from manufacturing, selling, importing, marketing, or distributing the Bone Clock or any substantially similar osseodensification bur in the United States without written authorisation from Versah.
The 100-day resolution is notably swift for a ten-patent case, though this is consistent with default proceedings where no merits defence is tested. The public record does not reveal whether the defendant was served and chose not to respond or was otherwise unable to mount a defence. The breadth of the injunction — extending to insubstantial design-arounds — suggests Versah’s counsel pursued maximum enforcement scope, and the portfolio depth across ten patents reinforces the strategic durability of this outcome.
Filing to Default Judgment in 100 days
100-day resolution — well below the district court median of 24+ months for patent cases
Default judgment granted: what the court’s order means for both parties
Default judgment: infringement found without a merits trial
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond to a complaint. The court accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true and, upon satisfactory evidence, enters judgment. Here, all ten patent infringement claims were deemed admitted by Guerrero PLLC’s silence. This is not a finding after contested litigation — but the injunction carries full legal force regardless.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b) defaultVersah secures injunction across all ten patents and all US channels
The default judgment confirms infringement of the full ten-patent portfolio and issues a permanent injunction restraining the Bone Clock and substantially similar products. The order also bars circumvention through insubstantial design changes — a provision that raises the bar for any future workaround attempt. Versah now holds a court-ordered enforcement position without having litigated the merits.
Permanent injunction grantedGuerrero PLLC faces injunction and cannot relitigate infringement findings
Guerrero PLLC is now enjoined from all US activities involving the Bone Clock or substantially similar burs. While a defendant who defaulted may move to vacate under Rule 60(b) on grounds of excusable neglect or a meritorious defence, the threshold is high and the timeline is tight. Any future sale or distribution of the enjoined product risks contempt proceedings. The absence of counsel on record suggests the defendant may have lacked resources to contest the suit.
Default — vacatur window narrowTen-patent wall reinforces Versah’s dominance in osseodensification tooling
The injunction’s explicit anti-circumvention language — covering products ‘substantially similar’ to the Bone Clock — signals that Versah intends its portfolio to deter competitive bur designs, not just this specific product. For dental equipment manufacturers and distributors active in osseodensification, this outcome is a marker of Versah’s enforcement posture. Any competitor or distributor operating near this patent cluster should treat this ruling as a credible litigation risk signal.
Portfolio enforcement signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Versah LLC | Company | Dental implant IP licensing company — holder of 10 osseodensification bur patents including US9022783Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | HUWAIS IP HOLDINGS LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Dr. Cesar Guerrero Facial and Oral Surgery PLLC | Individual | Oral and facial surgery practice alleged to have sold the infringing ‘Bone Clock’ osseodensification burSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven Susser. | Attorney | Counsel for Versah LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Evia Law PLC | Law Firm | Representing Versah LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Keith P Ellison | Judge | Texas Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment order is unusually comprehensive for a default proceeding: it names all ten patents-in-suit individually, grants a permanent injunction, and includes an explicit anti-circumvention clause covering ‘insubstantial changes.’ This drafting reflects strategic intent — Versah’s counsel secured language that closes off the most common post-injunction workaround routes. Because the judgment was entered by default, no claim construction or invalidity analysis was conducted, meaning the patents remain untested on the merits — a consideration for any third party evaluating validity risk.
Ten Osseodensification Bur Patents — Versah’s Dental Implant Surgery Portfolio
The ten patents-in-suit collectively cover the design, geometry, and use of osseodensification burs — rotary instruments that compact and densify bone tissue during dental implant site preparation, rather than removing it. Application dates span 2012 (US13/427391 and US13/608307) through 2022 (US17/948424), reflecting a deliberate continuation strategy across fluted osteotome designs, autografting osteotome configurations, and enhanced flute profiles. The portfolio sits at the intersection of surgical instrument design and implant dentistry technique.
Osseodensification as a clinical technique has gained significant traction in implantology for improving primary implant stability, particularly in low-density bone. Versah’s portfolio, built around the Densah Bur system, is widely cited in the dental literature, which gives these patents commercial weight beyond their legal scope. For competing instrument manufacturers, the portfolio’s multi-layer structure — spanning early foundational claims and later refinements — creates a clearance challenge that is difficult to navigate with incremental design changes alone. The permanent injunction obtained in this case demonstrates that Versah is prepared to enforce these rights aggressively against distributors and practitioners alike.
Should you run an FTO against Versah’s osseodensification bur patent portfolio?
Any company developing, importing, distributing, or selling rotary burs intended for bone site preparation or osseodensification in the US should treat this ten-patent portfolio as a priority FTO target. The injunction language covers products ‘substantially similar’ to the Bone Clock — a standard broad enough to capture competing bur geometries that share functional characteristics with Versah’s claims. Dental device manufacturers, surgical instrument distributors, and online platforms supplying dental practices all fall within the risk perimeter established by this ruling.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map all ten patents-in-suit — US9022783, US9526593, US9028253, US9737312, US10568639, US11583294, US9326778, US10039621, US10980548, and US11712250 — against your product’s design parameters simultaneously. Eureka’s claim-level analysis identifies which specific claims pose the greatest overlap risk and flags continuation applications that may extend the portfolio’s reach. For a portfolio of this size and age, automated monitoring for new continuation filings by Huwais IP Holdings LLC is also advisable.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9326778B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: dental implant tools and surgical instrument enforcement
Explore comparable osseodensification, osteotome, and dental surgical instrument patent cases litigated in Texas federal district courts and beyond.
What this case signals for the dental implant tools IP landscape
Versah’s ten-patent default victory sets a clear enforcement precedent in the osseodensification surgical bur market.
A ten-patent portfolio creates a high clearance burden for bur manufacturers
With ten granted patents spanning applications from 2012 to 2022, Versah’s portfolio covers the osseodensification bur space at multiple claim layers. Any company developing or distributing competing bur designs must conduct freedom-to-operate analysis across all ten patents — a single-patent clearance approach is commercially insufficient given this portfolio’s breadth and the court’s willingness to enforce it.
Default judgments deliver injunctions — distributors should not rely on defendant inaction as a safe signal
The Bone Clock injunction extends to ‘all persons in active concert or participation’ with Guerrero PLLC who have actual notice. Distributors or sales agents handling enjoined products may be directly exposed to contempt risk. The anti-circumvention clause further limits the scope for design-around strategies without independent FTO clearance and written authorisation from Versah.
Versah v Dr. — key questions answered
Ten US patents were asserted: US9022783, US9526593, US9028253, US9737312, US10568639, US11583294, US9326778, US10039621, US10980548, and US11712250. All relate to osseodensification bur technology used in dental implant surgery. The court found infringement of all ten on a default judgment basis in February 2025.
The injunction prohibits Guerrero PLLC and all persons in active concert with it from manufacturing, buying, importing, shipping, advertising, offering to sell, selling, or using any osseodensification bur that is the same as or substantially similar to the ‘Bone Clock’ product in the US without Versah’s written authorisation. It also bars circumvention through insubstantial design changes.
Guerrero PLLC failed to appear or respond to the complaint. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b), a court may enter default judgment when a defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend. The court accepted Versah’s well-pleaded allegations as true and, upon reviewing the accompanying evidence, granted both the default judgment and the permanent injunction. No merits adjudication occurred.
A defaulted defendant may move to vacate under Rule 60(b), typically arguing excusable neglect, a meritorious defence, or lack of prejudice to the plaintiff. The standard is demanding and courts generally require a prompt motion after the defendant becomes aware of the judgment. Given the injunction is already in force, any delay in seeking vacatur increases the risk of contempt exposure for ongoing conduct.
The injunction’s ‘actual notice’ language means that any distributor, agent, or practice with notice of the order who continues supplying or using a substantially similar product may face contempt proceedings. The ruling signals that Versah is actively enforcing its ten-patent portfolio through litigation. Dental equipment distributors and competing manufacturers should conduct FTO analysis across the full Versah portfolio before commercialising any osseodensification bur in the US market.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.