Kicventures LLC v. Si Bone Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Kicventures LLC (Florida) and Nanisx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: SI-BONE, Inc. (Delaware) and JFK MEDICAL CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d/b/a HCA FLORIDA JFK HOSPITAL (Florida)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Devine Goodman & Rasco, LLP
• Case Identification: 9:26-cv-80811, S.D. Fla., 07/10/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as to Defendant SI-BONE based on its commission of infringing acts and its maintenance of a "regular and established place of business" in the district via local personnel, logistics, and customer-facing operations. Venue is alleged to be proper as to HCA Florida JFK Hospital because it is located, and has committed acts of infringement, within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's screw-based sacroiliac and sacropelvic fixation products infringe three patents related to bone fusing implants.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to surgical implants, specifically screw-based devices designed for sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion to treat joint dysfunction and pain.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant SI-BONE had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents. The basis for this allegation is that SI-BONE cited the application publications for the '655 and '154 patents as relevant prior art during the prosecution of its own unrelated patent application. The complaint also alleges SI-BONE was aware of the related Sacrix technology platform through its own FDA submissions.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-01-01	SI-BONE launches first-generation iFuse implant
2018-07-20	Earliest Priority Date for '655, '084, and '154 Patents
2021-01-01	SI-BONE launches iFuse TORQ
2021-09-28	U.S. Patent No. 11,129,655 ('655 Patent) issues
2022-01-01	SI-BONE launches iFuse Bedrock Granite
2023-11-28	U.S. Patent No. 11,826,084 ('084 Patent) issues
2024-01-01	SI-BONE launches iFuse TORQ TNT
2024-08-20	U.S. Patent No. 12,064,154 ('154 Patent) issues
2026-07-10	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 11,129,655 - System and Method for Bone Fusing Implants

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,129,655, titled "System and Method for Bone Fusing Implants," issued on September 28, 2021 Compl. ¶28

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a need for less invasive surgical options for sacroiliac joint (SIJ) fusion to avoid complications associated with traditional open surgeries, such as extensive muscle stripping, prolonged retraction of tissues, and potential neural injury ʼ655 Patent, col. 2:1-12
• The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a threaded, hollow bone-fusing implant designed to address this problem. The implant features an elongated body with distinct segments: a segment with "cortical threads" for anchoring in dense cortical bone and a segment with "cancellous threads" for anchoring in softer, porous cancellous bone '655 Patent, abstract The design also incorporates "elongated fusing gutters" on its outer surface and a "central opening" that allows bone graft material to be funneled through "through-openings" to the exterior of the implant, which is intended to promote bone growth and fusion '655 Patent, col. 4:36-42
• Technical Importance: This design aims to provide stable, multi-segment fixation across different bone types while simultaneously acting as a delivery vehicle for biologic materials to enhance the fusion process Compl. ¶5

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶40; Compl. ¶44; Compl. Exs. D-F).
• Independent Claim 1 of the '655 Patent recites:
  • An elongated body extending along a longitudinal direction.
  • The body comprises a first segment with cortical threads, a second segment with cancellous threads, a top segment, and a bottom segment.
  • The first segment is adjacent to the second and is configured to engage cortical bone; the second segment is configured to engage cancellous bone.
  • The body comprises one or more elongated fusing gutters, a central opening, and one or more through-openings that intersect with the gutters.
  • The cortical threads are more closely spaced than the cancellous threads.
• The infringement exhibits note that the provided evidence is "exemplary and nonlimiting" and that Plaintiffs reserve the right to rely on additional aspects of the products, which may suggest an intent to assert other claims, including dependent claims Compl. Ex. D, p. 2, n.1

U.S. Patent No. 11,826,084 - System and Method for Bone Fusing Implants

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,826,084, titled "System and Method for Bone Fusing Implants," issued on November 28, 2023 Compl. ¶32

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent shares a common specification with the '655 Patent and addresses the same need for improved, less invasive implants for SIJ fusion ('084 Patent, col. 1:19-22).
• The Patented Solution: This invention describes a bone fusing implant with a "star-shaped cross-section" '084 Patent, abstract The body of the implant features a "central through-opening" and an outer surface with "alternating elongated ridges and slit openings extending along the longitudinal direction" '084 Patent, abstract '084 Patent, col. 3:8-13 This geometry is designed to increase the implant's outer surface area.
• Technical Importance: By increasing the implant's surface area, the star-shaped design purports to achieve better joint fixation, minimize micro-motion, and thereby improve the conditions for successful bone fusion '084 Patent, col. 5:49-53

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶52; Compl. ¶56; Compl. Exs. G-H).
• Independent Claim 1 of the '084 Patent recites:
  • An elongated body extending along a longitudinal direction and having a star-shaped cross-section.
  • The body comprises a central through-opening extending through its center.
  • The body has an outer surface with alternating elongated ridges and slit openings extending along the longitudinal direction.
• The complaint includes the same reservation of rights as noted for the '655 Patent Compl. Ex. G, p. 2, n.1

U.S. Patent No. 12,064,154 - System and Method for Bone Fusing Implants

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,064,154, titled "System and Method for Bone Fusing Implants," issued on August 20, 2024 Compl. ¶30
• Technology Synopsis: The '154 patent, which shares a specification with the other asserted patents, describes a bone implant featuring "one or more elongated grooves" that alternate with "one or more elongated ridges" on its outer surface '154 Patent, abstract A key feature is that the implant's threads (both cortical and cancellous) are formed on the ridges and "do not extend into the one or more elongated grooves," creating distinct channels along the implant body '154 Patent, abstract
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶64; Compl. ¶68; Compl. Exs. I-K).
• Accused Features: The infringement allegations target the grooves, ridges, and thread placement on the iFuse TORQ, TORQ lag, and TORQ TNT implants Compl. ¶64

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Defendant SI-BONE's iFuse TORQ fully-threaded implants, iFuse TORQ lag implants, iFuse TORQ TNT implants, and iFuse Bedrock Granite implants Compl. ¶2

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are screw-based medical devices marketed for use in minimally invasive sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion and sacropelvic fixation procedures Compl. ¶2 Compl. ¶7 The product line includes variations such as "fully-threaded" versions for continuous engagement and "lag" versions with partial threading, presumably for compression Compl. ¶7 The iFuse TORQ TNT is marketed for pelvic trauma, while the iFuse Bedrock Granite is marketed for spinopelvic fixation applications Compl. ¶8 Compl. ¶9
• A promotional image from Defendant SI-BONE shows a set of five iFuse TORQ implants with varying surface textures and thread patterns Compl. ¶7
• An image from Defendant's marketing materials for the iFuse TORQ TNT product displays a "Hounsfield Thermal Map" of bone density in the pelvic region, illustrating the intended placement of the implants in areas of varying bone quality Compl. ¶9
• A marketing image included in the complaint's claim chart for the '655 patent shows helical flutes and fenestrations on the iFuse TORQ implant, labeled with the "IntelliHarvest" trademark, which are alleged to function as the claimed "fusing gutters" Compl. Ex. D, p. 4
• The complaint alleges that SI-BONE is a "large commercial participant" in the SI joint fusion market Compl. ¶7

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'655 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A bone fusing implant device comprising: an elongated body extending along a longitudinal direction;	The accused iFuse TORQ products are described as bone fusing implant devices with an elongated body extending in a longitudinal direction.	¶40	col. 3:5-6
wherein the elongated body comprises a first segment having an outer surface with cortical threads, a second segment having an outer surface with cancellous threads, a top segment and a bottom segment;	The accused products are alleged to have different thread patterns along their length, identified by Plaintiffs as corresponding to a first segment with cortical threads and a second segment with cancellous threads.	¶40	col. 3:20-27
wherein the first segment is adjacent to the second segment along the longitudinal direction and is configured to engage a cortical bone with the cortical threads and the second segment is configured to engage a cancellous bone with the cancellous threads;	The allegedly distinct segments are adjacent and are configured to engage different types of bone (cortical and cancellous) during and after insertion.	¶40	col. 3:27-33
wherein the elongated body comprises one or more elongated fusing gutters extending along the longitudinal direction on an outer surface... a central opening extending along the longitudinal direction... and one or more through-openings that extend horizontally and intersect with the one or more fusing gutters;	The accused products' "IntelliHarvest" helical flutes are identified as the "fusing gutters." The implants are also alleged to have a central opening (cannulation) and horizontal through-openings (fenestrations).	¶40	col. 3:36-42
wherein the cortical threads are more closely spaced than the cancellous threads.	The accused products are alleged to feature threads identified as "cortical" that are more closely spaced than the threads identified as "cancellous."	¶40	col. 4:44-52

'084 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A bone fusing implant device comprising: an elongated body extending along a longitudinal direction and having a star-shaped cross-section;	The accused products are alleged to have a star-shaped cross-section created by the pattern of slit openings on their outer surface.	¶52	col. 3:6-8
wherein the elongated body comprises a central through-opening extending through the elongated body's center along the longitudinal direction and an outer surface with alternating elongated ridges and slit openings extending along the longitudinal direction.	The accused products are alleged to have a central opening (cannulation) and an outer surface with alternating ridges and slit openings that extend longitudinally.	¶52	col. 3:8-13

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Question: A potential dispute for the '655 patent is whether the accused products' "helical flutes," marketed under the "IntelliHarvest" mark, meet the claim limitation of "fusing gutters." The patent illustrates gutters as linear slits '655 Patent, Fig. 2A, raising the question of whether a helical or spiral feature falls within the claim's scope.
• Technical Question: For the '084 patent, a central question is whether a cylindrical implant body with external grooves and openings possesses a "star-shaped cross-section" as required by the claim. The complaint alleges the shape is created by the openings Compl. Ex. G, p. 3, but the patent figures depict a body that appears to be inherently star-shaped '084 Patent, Fig. 4D The analysis may turn on whether the claim requires the entire body profile to be star-shaped or if the outer ridged surface alone is sufficient.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"fusing gutters" ('655 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This term appears critical to the infringement analysis of the '655 patent. The complaint maps this term to the accused products' "IntelliHarvest Helical Flutes and Fenestrations" Compl. Ex. D, p. 4 The outcome of the case may depend on whether these "flutes" are construed to be "gutters."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to the gutters functionally as "fusion channels" '655 Patent, col. 5:4 intended to "aid fusion" '655 Patent, col. 5:5-6, which could support an interpretation that covers any channel-like feature that promotes fusion, regardless of its specific geometry.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's drawings depict the "fusing gutters" as "elongated slit openings" that are linear and parallel to the implant's axis '655 Patent, col. 4:37 '655 Patent, Fig. 2A This could support a narrower construction that excludes the helical or spiral flutes of the accused products.

"star-shaped cross-section" ('084 Patent)

• Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for the '084 patent hinges on the accused product having this feature. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused product appears to be a cylindrical implant with surface features, whereas the patent figures show a body whose fundamental cross-section is a star.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any cross-section that shows alternating projections (ridges) and recesses (grooves) in a radial pattern is functionally "star-shaped," regardless of the underlying geometry of the core body.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures, particularly Figure 4D, show a body that is itself star-shaped, not a cylinder with grooves. A party could argue that the plain meaning of the term requires this inherent shape, not a surface texture applied to a different underlying shape.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges that SI-BONE induces infringement by providing the accused products along with "instructions for use, training, physician education, field support, case coverage, technical support," and other assistance that encourages and instructs physicians and hospitals to use the products in a manner that infringes the asserted patents Compl. ¶46 Compl. ¶58 Compl. ¶70

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges that SI-BONE's infringement has been willful because it "knew of, or was willfully blind to, the Asserted Patents" before the lawsuit was filed Compl. ¶42 Compl. ¶54 Compl. ¶66 The specific factual basis for this allegation is that SI-BONE cited the patent application publications corresponding to the '655 and '154 patents as prior art during the prosecution of its own patent application Compl. ¶36 The complaint also alleges SI-BONE was aware of the plaintiffs' related technology via FDA submissions Compl. ¶37

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "fusing gutters" and "star-shaped cross-section", which are depicted with specific linear and geometric forms in the patent documents, be construed broadly enough to read on the accused products' allegedly distinct helical flutes and grooved cylindrical bodies? The case may turn on whether these terms are defined by their function or by the specific structures disclosed in the patents.
• A second central question will relate to willfulness: the complaint alleges that the defendant cited the plaintiffs' patent family during its own patent prosecution. A key issue for the court will be to determine whether this act establishes pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents and their infringement, potentially exposing the defendant to enhanced damages, or if it was a routine part of patent prosecution without specific acknowledgment of infringement.