Choice Spine LLC v. Polsinelli

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Choice Spine LLC. (Tennessee)
  • Defendant: Roger P. Jackson, M.D., Thomas Gemmell, Iqra Iqbal, and Polsinelli, PC
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Egerton, McAfee, Armistead & Davis, P.C.; Williams Mullen
• Case Identification: 3:26-cv-00179, E.D. Tenn., 05/01/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Tennessee because a substantial part of the events, including the Defendants' sending of bad faith infringement assertions, occurred in the District, and because Defendants subjected themselves to personal jurisdiction by targeting a Tennessee-based company.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its spinal fixation products do not infringe fourteen of Defendants' patents, that the patents are invalid and/or unenforceable, that Defendant Jackson lacks standing to assert them, and that Defendants have engaged in bad faith patent assertion in violation of Tennessee state law.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns posterior spinal fixation systems, specifically medical devices like pedicle screws used to stabilize and correct deformities of the spine in a market that the complaint characterizes as mature and well-developed.
• Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action arises from a pre-suit patent licensing campaign initiated by Defendants in July 2022. The complaint alleges that many of the asserted patents were automatically assigned by Defendant Jackson to a third party, NuVasive, Inc., in a 2014 agreement, an interpretation allegedly supported by a March 2026 District of Delaware opinion in a related case (Jackson v. Highridge Medical LLC), which raises a fundamental question of Jackson's standing to assert them. Additionally, the complaint alleges that one of the asserted patents (the '873 Patent) was asserted against Plaintiff in March 2026, more than seven months after all of its claims were statutorily disclaimed by Jackson in a separate USPTO proceeding.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-03-05	Jackson and NuVasive, Inc. enter into "Original Agreement."
2014-12-31	Jackson and NuVasive enter into "2014 Agreement."
2022-07-14	Defendants send initial "Demand Letter" to Choice Spine.
2023-02-28	Defendants send cease and desist letter to Choice Spine.
2023-04-06	Choice Spine counsel responds to Defendants, requesting information.
2024-04-26	Defendants send letter with "exemplar claim charts" to Choice Spine.
2024-06-07	Choice Spine counsel requests meeting with Jackson.
2025-03-26	Seaspine Holdings Corp. files IPR petition against the '873 Patent.
2025-07-18	Jackson disclaims all claims of the '873 Patent.
2026-03-03	Defendants send email with infringement allegations for seven patents.
2026-03-25	District of Delaware issues Highridge Opinion on Jackson's standing.
2026-05-01	Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed.

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,039,577 - "Bone Anchor Receiver with Horizontal Radiused Tool Attachment Structures and Parallel Planar Outer Surfaces"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the challenges of performing spinal surgery using percutaneous or minimally invasive techniques, where bulky or poorly designed tools can increase trauma to the patient Compl. Ex. 6, '577 Patent, col. 1:15-53
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a set of tools, including guide tools and a multi-purpose installation tool, for implanting spinal screws and rods with minimal invasion Compl. Ex. 6, '577 Patent, col. 2:1-23 The guide tools feature specific attachment structures for connecting to bone screws and flexible walls to facilitate rod insertion, aiming to make percutaneous procedures more manageable for the surgeon Compl. Ex. 6, '577 Patent, abstract
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to reduce the invasiveness of spinal surgery, which can lead to shorter patient recovery times and fewer complications.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint references infringement allegations against Claim 1 of the '577 Patent Compl. ¶98
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • A receiver of a bone anchor, configured to accept a rod locked by a closure top.
  • The receiver comprises a receiver body with a longitudinal axis, a base, and opposed upright arms defining an open channel.
  • A horizontal radiused tool attachment structure formed into the lateral side outwardly facing surfaces of each upright arm, spaced from the top surface.
  • Each tool attachment structure includes upper, lower, and recessed radiused surfaces.
  • The receiver has first planar surface portions on its front and back faces, and second planar surface portions on its lateral side faces, with the first and second planar surfaces being perpendicular to each other.

U.S. Patent No. 10,245,078 - "Bone Anchor Receiver with Symmetrical Horizontally Extending Upper Tool Engaging Grooves"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background notes the difficulty in traditional polyaxial bone screws of setting and fixing the angle of the screw head relative to the shank independently of locking the spinal rod Compl. Ex. 7, '078 Patent, col. 1:60-col. 2:2
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a polyaxial bone screw assembly that includes a pressure insert. This insert allows a surgeon to frictionally set a desired angle of articulation between the screw shank and the receiver head before the final rod and closure top are placed, providing greater control during the procedure Compl. Ex. 7, '078 Patent, abstract Compl. Ex. 7, '078 Patent, col. 2:5-24
• Technical Importance: This invention provides surgeons with enhanced control over the implant's geometry during complex spinal alignment procedures before committing to a final, locked position.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint references infringement allegations against Claim 1 of the '078 Patent Compl. ¶88 Compl. ¶97
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • A receiver of a bone anchor, configured to accept a rod locked by a closure top.
  • The receiver comprises a receiver body with a longitudinal axis, a base, and a pair of upright arms defining an open channel.
  • At least one horizontally-elongated upper tool engaging groove formed into the side outer face of each upright arm.
  • Each groove is spaced an equal distance below the top surfaces and has downwardly-facing surfaces extending to the front or back outer face.
  • The front and back outer faces include first substantially planar surfaces, and the side outer faces include second substantially planar surfaces.
  • The first planar surfaces are perpendicular to the open channel's transverse axis, and the second planar surfaces are parallel to it.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,129,646

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,129,646, "Medical Implant Threaded Plug Having a Start Structure with Symmetrically Shaped Concave and Convex Leading Surfaces," issued September 28, 2021.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a threaded plug for a medical implant, featuring a "start structure" with specific concave and convex surfaces on its leading face. This design appears intended to facilitate easier and more reliable engagement of the plug with the threads of a bone anchor receiver during spinal surgery Compl. Ex. 8, '646 Patent, abstract
• Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of at least Claim 1 Compl. ¶126
• Accused Features: The allegations target the Lancer, Thunderbolt MIS, Thunderbolt EXTAB, Blackbird, and Proliant product lines Compl. ¶126

The complaint asserts infringement of eleven other patents: '689, '853, '292, '006, '452, '873, '638, '548, '977, '392, and '080. However, it does not provide sufficient detail for individual analysis of the technology or infringement allegations for these patents.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Plaintiff's "Lancer," "Thunderbolt MIS," "Thunderbolt EXTAB," "Blackbird," and "Proliant" product lines Compl. ¶29

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused instrumentalities are described as spinal posterior fixation products, such as pedicle screw systems, used in spinal surgery Compl. ¶29 The complaint presents them as part of Plaintiff's portfolio of "innovative, surgeon-focused systems designed with the best clinical outcomes in mind" Compl. ¶25 An image provided in the complaint shows the Lancer product, a polyaxial pedicle screw assembly designed for posterior spinal fixation Compl. ¶29 The complaint alleges that these products are part of a well-developed and crowded marketplace for spinal fixation technology Compl. ¶30

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the infringement contentions provided by the Defendants pre-suit are deficient, often consisting of images of the accused products placed next to claim language without detailed element-by-element analysis Compl. ¶¶100-101 For example, a provided claim chart excerpt for the '078 Patent allegedly repeats the same product image for nine separate claim limitations without specific analysis Compl. ¶102 In another example concerning the '080 Patent, the complaint alleges that approximately half of the figures in the defendants' chart were taken from an unidentified patent, not the accused products Compl. ¶103 An excerpt from a chart for the '638 patent allegedly shows a piecemeal analysis that shifts between different accused products without clearly identifying which product corresponds to which limitation Compl. ¶109

U.S. Patent No. 10,039,577 Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart for the '577 Patent but alleges that one was provided by Defendants Compl. ¶98 The complaint alleges these charts are deficient and often "mixed and matched disparate Choice Spine products within a single purported infringement analysis" Compl. ¶100 Without the chart exhibit, a detailed table cannot be constructed.

U.S. Patent No. 10,245,078 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A receiver of a bone anchor, the receiver being configured to accept a rod that is locked in the receiver via a closure top, the receiver comprising: a receiver body having a longitudinal axis, a base, and a pair of upright arms extending upwardly from the base to define an open channel for receiving the rod...	The complaint alleges Defendants provide an image of a Choice Spine bone anchor receiver body without specific annotation mapping it to this limitation.	¶102	col. 9:1-8
...the open channel having a transverse axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and opening through front and back outer faces of the receiver body,	The complaint alleges Defendants provide an image of a Choice Spine bone anchor receiver body without specific annotation mapping it to this limitation.	¶102	col. 9:8-11
...at least one horizontally-elongated upper tool engaging groove formed into the side outer face of each upright arm,	The complaint alleges Defendants provide an image of a Choice Spine bone anchor receiver body without specific annotation mapping it to this limitation.	¶102	col. 9:16-18
each upper tool engaging groove being spaced an equal distance below the top surfaces and having downwardly-facing surfaces...	The complaint alleges Defendants provide an image of a Choice Spine bone anchor receiver body without specific annotation mapping it to this limitation.	¶102	col. 9:19-22

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: A primary point of contention, as framed by the Plaintiff, is evidentiary. The complaint repeatedly alleges that the Defendants' pre-suit communications fail to provide a coherent, element-by-element mapping of the claim limitations to the accused products (Compl. ¶¶74; Compl. ¶101; Compl. ¶108). The core question for the court will be whether infringement can be proven with the specificity required by law.
• Technical Questions: For the '577 and '078 patents, a key technical question will be one of precise structural correspondence. The claims recite specific geometric arrangements, such as the "parallel" and "perpendicular" planar surfaces of the '577 patent's receiver Compl. Ex. 6, '577 Patent, claim 1 and the "equal distance" spacing of the '078 patent's tool grooves Compl. Ex. 7, '078 Patent, claim 1 Infringement will depend on whether the accused products embody these exact geometric relationships, a fact the complaint suggests the Defendants have not established Compl. ¶101 Compl. ¶102

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For U.S. Patent No. 10,039,577

• The Term: "horizontal radiused tool attachment structure"
• Context and Importance: The '577 patent claims a receiver with a very specific tool interface geometry. Practitioners may focus on whether the allegedly corresponding features on the Choice Spine products meet the "horizontal," "radiused," and specific surface requirements (e.g., "downwardly facing," "upwardly facing") of this "structure." The dispute may turn on whether minor differences in the shape, orientation, or function of the grooves on the accused products fall outside the scope of this term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's general statements about the tool set providing for "operably connecting" guide tools to a bone screw could be cited to argue for a more functional definition Compl. Ex. 6, '577 Patent, abstract
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides detailed figures (e.g., Figs. 12-16) and descriptions of this structure, including its specific recessed and radiused surfaces and orientation relative to the receiver body, which would support a narrow construction limited to that specific embodiment Compl. Ex. 6, '577 Patent, col. 13:25-col. 14:15

For U.S. Patent No. 10,245,078

• The Term: "pressure insert"
• Context and Importance: The '078 patent's claimed invention centers on a "pressure insert" that provides a specific function: allowing the shank's angle to be set before the rod is locked. Practitioners may focus on whether the internal components of the accused Choice Spine products function as this specific "pressure insert" or are merely conventional components of a polyaxial screw. The case may hinge on the operational and structural equivalence between the claimed insert and the components inside the accused products.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the insert functionally as pressing on the shank "to lock the assembly," which might support an interpretation covering any internal component that performs a locking function Compl. Ex. 7, '078 Patent, abstract
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description and figures (e.g., Figs. 1-8) illustrate a very specific multi-faceted, ratcheting insert. This detailed disclosure could support a narrow construction limited to an insert with that particular ratcheting structure and side-loading capability Compl. Ex. 7, '078 Patent, col. 9:1-col. 10:46

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general denial of indirect infringement, stating Choice Spine "has not caused, directed, requested, or facilitated any such infringement, much less with any specific intent to do so" Compl. ¶132
• Willful Infringement: Willful infringement is not alleged. However, the complaint makes extensive allegations of bad faith patent assertion against the Defendants. The factual bases for this claim include:
  • Asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,399,873 against Choice Spine on March 3, 2026, despite the Defendants allegedly having full knowledge that all claims of that patent had been statutorily disclaimed on July 18, 2025 (Compl. ¶¶118-121; Compl. ¶314).
  • Allegedly asserting patents ('292, '638, '977, '392) that Defendant Jackson had previously assigned to NuVasive, Inc., and therefore lacked standing to enforce, a fact allegedly confirmed by a court in a related litigation Compl. ¶¶66-70 Compl. ¶¶330-335
  • Providing infringement claim charts that are allegedly "woefully deficient," rely on images from unrelated patents, and fail to map claim limitations to accused products, suggesting a lack of reasonable pre-suit investigation (Compl. ¶74; Compl. ¶75; Compl. ¶76; Compl. ¶77; Compl. ¶78; Compl. ¶79; Compl. ¶80; Compl. ¶81; Compl. ¶82; Compl. ¶83; Compl. ¶84; Compl. ¶85; Compl. ¶86; Compl. ¶87; Compl. ¶88; Compl. ¶89; Compl. ¶90; Compl. ¶91; Compl. ¶92; Compl. ¶93; Compl. ¶94; Compl. ¶95; Compl. ¶96; Compl. ¶97; Compl. ¶98; Compl. ¶99; Compl. ¶100; Compl. ¶101; Compl. ¶102; Compl. ¶103).

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

• A threshold, and potentially dispositive, question will be one of standing and enforceability: does Defendant Jackson possess the exclusionary rights to assert the patents-in-suit, or were those rights automatically transferred to a third party under the 2014 NuVasive agreement, as a Delaware court has held for related patents? This question extends to whether asserting patents with disclaimed claims or without standing constitutes patent misuse or bad faith assertion under Tennessee law.
• A central evidentiary issue will be one of proof: can the Defendants, who are accused of providing deficient pre-suit infringement analyses, now produce competent, element-by-element evidence demonstrating that the specific and detailed geometric and functional limitations of the asserted claims read on the accused Choice Spine products?
• Should the case proceed to claim construction, a key issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claims, which recite specific tool-and-implant structures like a "horizontal radiused tool attachment structure" and a "pressure insert" with ratcheting features, be interpreted to cover the functionalities of the accused products, or do the particular embodiments disclosed in the patents narrowly limit the claim scope in a crowded technological field?