Untitled case

This patent infringement lawsuit involves plaintiff Spinelogik Inc., a medical device patent holder focused on monetizing its intellectual property in spinal implant technology. The primary defendant in case 2:23-cv-00298 is Zimmer Biomet Spine, Inc., a subsidiary of Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., a large publicly traded American medical device company specializing in orthopedic reconstructive products, surgical robotics, and related digital technologies, including a broad portfolio of spinal and musculoskeletal care products. The litigation targets Zimmer Biomet's spinal implant technology, specifically related to cervical standalone systems.

The case originally asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,460,385, which generally pertains to spinal implant design and structural configurations, and U.S. Patent No. 9,730,805, covering related spinal implant technology, building on foundational disclosures in the field. These patents relate to a spinal fusion cage system with an inserter. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs due to its reputation for a fast trial track, specific local rules for patent cases, and a perceived plaintiff-friendly jury pool, though Supreme Court rulings like TC Heartland have aimed to restrict venue options since 2017. This particular case, along with others filed by Spinelogik, was consolidated into case 2:23-cv-00297 and overseen by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Payne.

While the case is technically listed as ongoing in the prompt, the consolidated litigation (which included the claims against Zimmer Biomet Spine, Inc.) concluded with Spinelogik Inc. filing voluntary notices of dismissal. The lead case against defendants like Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. and LDR Spine was dismissed without prejudice on February 9, 2026, allowing Spinelogik the option to refile its claims in the future. Defendants such as Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., LDR Spine USA, Inc., Zimmer Biomet Spine, Inc., ZimVie, Inc., LDR Medical SAS, and Genesys Orthopedics were voluntarily or jointly dismissed before the court ruled on their motions to dismiss for improper venue or to transfer venue. This case is notable for highlighting the IP monetization strategies of patent holders in the competitive medical device market, particularly concerning spinal implant technology, and the strategic use of the Eastern District of Texas as a venue for such assertions.

Spinelogik Inc. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit, case number 2:23-cv-00298, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on June 22, 2023, asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,460,385. The initial defendant in this specific case was Zimmer Biomet Spine, Inc..

Here are the key legal developments and the outcome of the litigation:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2023-06-22): Spinelogik Inc. filed its complaint against Zimmer Biomet Spine, Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,460,385. On the same day, Spinelogik Inc. filed two other related lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas: 2:23-cv-00297 against Genesys Orthopedics Systems, LLC (also asserting Patent No. 9,730,805), and 2:23-cv-00296 against Choice Spine, LLC (asserting only the '385 Patent). All three of these cases were subsequently consolidated into Case No. 2:23-cv-00297.
• Pre-trial Motions of Substance (September - December 2023): In September 2023, defendants ZimVie, Inc. and Zimmer Biomet Spine, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue, failure to state a claim, or alternatively to transfer venue in the consolidated action (2:23-cv-00297). Genesys Orthopedics Systems, L.L.C. filed a similar motion to dismiss for improper venue that same month. In December 2023, defendant Choice Spine filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue or alternatively to transfer venue.
• Dismissals and Stay (Early 2025): Defendants Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., LDR Spine USA, Inc., Zimmer Biomet Spine, Inc., ZimVie, Inc., LDR Medical SAS, and Genesys Orthopedics were voluntarily or jointly dismissed from the consolidated lawsuit before the court ruled on the merits of their motions. The motion from defendant Choice Spine remained pending. On January 24, 2025, the Court, sua sponte, issued an indefinite stay of the entire consolidated "2023 Lawsuit" (including 2:23-cv-00298) "pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss" (presumably referring to Choice Spine's pending motion). This stay effectively halted all proceedings.
• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes: Due to the indefinite stay, no Markman hearing or claim construction ruling occurred in the consolidated 2023 lawsuit. A separate, later-filed case by Spinelogik against Globus Medical, Inc. (2:23-cv-00529, filed November 2023, also asserting the '385 patent), had a Markman hearing scheduled for February 12, 2025, but that scheduling order was also rendered null and void by a stay pending a transfer motion in that separate action.
• Discovery Milestones: Fact discovery in the consolidated 2023 lawsuit was minimal, largely limited to initial disclosures and preliminary contentions, as noted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (2025): Globus Medical, Inc., a defendant in a separate but related case (2:23-cv-00529) asserting the '385 patent, filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-00226, against claims 1-5, 7, and 9 of U.S. Patent 8,460,385. On June 12, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted the IPR, denying Spinelogik Inc.'s request for discretionary denial, after determining that Globus Medical, Inc. had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.
• Final Disposition (2026-02-09): The consolidated case, 2:23-cv-00297 (which included the initial 2:23-cv-00298 against Zimmer Biomet Spine, Inc.), was voluntarily dismissed by Spinelogik Inc. against multiple defendants on February 9, 2026. The case ran for approximately two years and seven months before its closure.

In summary, the specific case 2:23-cv-00298 against Zimmer Biomet Spine, Inc. was consolidated with other Spinelogik cases, experienced voluntary dismissals of several defendants, was subjected to an indefinite stay, and ultimately concluded with a voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff on February 9, 2026. A parallel IPR proceeding challenging the asserted patent was instituted by the PTAB in June 2025.

Spinelogik Inc. is represented by counsel from Garteiser Honea PLLC. The following attorneys are identified as representing the plaintiff:

• Randall T. Garteiser

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Garteiser Honea PLLC
  • Office Location: Tyler, TX and San Rafael, CA
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: A trial attorney with experience from Quinn Emanuel in Silicon Valley, he previously clerked for the Honorable James Ware in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and is licensed in California and Texas. He has represented clients in patent disputes involving smartphones, tablets, Chromebooks, dielectric fluids, and software.

• Christopher A. Honea

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Partner, co-chairs IP Litigation Group)
  • Firm: Garteiser Honea PLLC
  • Office Location: Tyler, TX and San Rafael, CA
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Co-chairs the firm's Intellectual Property Litigation Group, with extensive experience in patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret litigation. He notably represented i4i, Inc. against Microsoft in a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas, which resulted in a $290 million award. He has also worked at Quinn Emanuel and represented companies like Sony Electronics, IBM, Intuit, and Roche Molecular.

Garteiser Honea PLLC is a litigation boutique that handles complex intellectual property and business disputes as lead counsel, and often serves as local counsel in federal and state courts in East Texas. No separate local counsel from another firm or in-house counsel for Spinelogik Inc. have been explicitly identified in the available information.

Given the conflicting information between the case metadata (status: ongoing for 2:23-cv-00298) and the search results (which indicate 2:23-cv-00298 was consolidated into 2:23-cv-00297, and that 2:23-cv-00297 closed on February 9, 2026), this analysis will proceed by identifying the counsel who represented the defendants during the active phase of case 2:23-cv-00298 and its consolidated proceeding, 2:23-cv-00297.

Initially, Spinelogik Inc. filed separate lawsuits, including 2:23-cv-00298 against Zimmer Biomet Spine, Inc., and 2:23-cv-00296 against Choice Spine, LLC, all of which were later consolidated into 2:23-cv-00297. The defendants Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., LDR Spine USA, Inc., Zimmer Biomet Spine, Inc., ZimVie, Inc., LDR Medical SAS, and Genesys Orthopedics were voluntarily or jointly dismissed before the merits of their motions were ruled on. Choice Spine's case, as a "Member Case" within the consolidated litigation, was dismissed with prejudice, while the "Lead Case" (2:23-cv-00297) was dismissed without prejudice.

Therefore, while the case is listed as "ongoing" in the prompt, the active defendants originally named in 2:23-cv-00298, as well as Choice Spine, LLC, have been dismissed from the consolidated litigation. Identifying "counsel of record" for an "ongoing" case with all defendants dismissed requires looking at who represented them before their dismissals.

To provide specific counsel details, a direct docket search for counsel appearances within 2:23-cv-00298 or 2:23-cv-00297 for these defendants would be ideal. Without direct PACER access, identifying individual attorneys and their roles for each dismissed defendant is challenging. However, based on typical patent litigation practices, large firms often represent such corporate defendants.

Based on general knowledge of patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and the nature of the defendants, the following firms and individuals are likely to have represented the defendants:

• For Zimmer Biomet Spine, Inc. and ZimVie, Inc. (initial defendants in 2:23-cv-00298):
  Specific counsel for these entities in this particular case are not explicitly named in the provided search snippets. In similar large-scale patent disputes involving medical device companies, national law firms with strong patent litigation practices often represent such defendants. Without specific docket entries, naming individual attorneys would be speculative.

• For Choice Spine, LLC (defendant in consolidated case 2:23-cv-00297, originally 2:23-cv-00296):
  While the snippets confirm Choice Spine, LLC filed a motion to dismiss, specific counsel representing them are not named in the provided results. Given the common practice in the Eastern District of Texas, Choice Spine would have been represented by both national patent litigation counsel and local counsel.

Due to the lack of specific attorney names linked to docket appearances for the defendants in the provided search results, and without direct access to the PACER docket for 2:23-cv-00298 or its consolidated case 2:23-cv-00297, I cannot definitively provide names of counsel of record for the defendant(s) along with their specific roles and firms. The information suggests the defendants were dismissed, and the consolidated case is closed, which further complicates identifying currently "of record" counsel for an "ongoing" case.