Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. v. Fusion Orthopedics, LLC

Case Overview: Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. v. Fusion Orthopedics, LLC (No. 2:22-cv-00490, D. Ariz.)

The parties. Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. is a publicly traded (NasdaqGS: TMCI) medical-technology operating company headquartered in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, focused exclusively on the surgical treatment of hallux valgus (bunions). It pioneered the Lapiplasty® 3D Bunion Correction™ system — a combination of patented instruments, implants, and surgical methods that corrects all three planes of the bunion deformity at the unstable tarsal-metatarsal joint (per Treace's March 3, 2023 press release and the Business Wire joint release, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230302005938/en/). Fusion Orthopedics, LLC is a privately held foot-and-ankle medical-device company founded in 2014 and based in Mesa, Arizona, which markets the competing LapiLock 4D Advanced Bunion Surgery™ system. Both are direct competitors selling surgical systems to foot-and-ankle surgeons; this is an operating-company-versus-operating-company fight, not an NPE assertion.

The accused product and asserted patents. Treace sued Fusion on March 29, 2022, alleging patent, trademark, and copyright infringement plus false-advertising/unfair-competition claims based on Fusion's use, sale, and promotion of the LapiLock 4D Advanced Bunion Surgery system — specifically its LapiLock Jig, cutting blocks, spacers, and the surgical method taught in Fusion's brochures and instructional videos (complaint analysis at Ex Parte's docket page, https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/azd/2:22-cv-00490/treace-medical-concepts-inc-v-fusion-orthopedics-llc). The patent identified as at issue in this case is U.S. Patent No. 10,342,590 ("Tarsal-metatarsal joint procedure utilizing fulcrum," issued July 9, 2019; application 15/236,464, filed August 14, 2016; inventors including F. Barry Bays, Robert D. Santrock, Paul Dayton, and John T. Treace). Its independent claim 1 claims a bunion-correction method in which a fulcrum is inserted between the misaligned first and second metatarsals, the opposing ends of the first metatarsal and medial cuneiform are prepared, and the distal first metatarsal is moved toward the second metatarsal in the transverse plane so the proximal portion pivots about the fulcrum, reducing the intermetatarsal angle — Treace alleged Fusion's original LapiLock procedure instructed use of a "fulcrum" (later renamed "spacer") in exactly that manner (see the complaint's claim-1 element mapping in the Ex Parte analysis, and the patent abstract at uspto.report/patent/grant/10,342,590 and Google Patents). Note that Treace's complaint asserted a multi-patent portfolio — the Ex Parte complaint analysis also maps allegations to a '426 patent (bone-cutting-guide method) and a '670 patent (multi-planar realignment method) — but the '590 fulcrum-method patent is the one designated at issue in this case's metadata; the full asserted-patent list would need PACER verification of the original complaint.

Procedural posture, venue, and significance. The case was filed in the District of Arizona (Phoenix division, 2:22-cv-00490-PHX-SRB, per the caption of Fusion's August 27, 2022 invalidity contentions referencing "CV-2200490-PHX-SRB" on FreePatentsOnline) and was assigned to Judge Susan R. Bolton. Venue is straightforward: Fusion Orthopedics is an Arizona LLC headquartered in Mesa, making Arizona its home forum under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), and Treace sought injunctive relief and damages there. Fusion answered with counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of Treace's patents, invalidity of the LAPIPLASTY trademark, and unfair-competition/false-advertising claims aimed at Treace's Lapiplasty marketing. The case is notable because it pitted the category-leading Lapiplasty franchise (a core revenue driver for public-company Treace) against a challenger that Fusion itself marketed as "disruptive," with surgical-method claims requiring induced-infringement proof tied to surgeon training and instructional materials — including Treace's allegation that Fusion targeted surgeons already trained on Lapiplasty. It also resolved quickly and quietly: the parties jointly announced an "amicable resolution" in March 2023, roughly 11 months after filing, with confidential terms and settlement documents filed under seal (joint Business Wire release; Orthopedics This Week, https://orthotw.com/2023/04/treace-medical-concepts-and-fusion-orthopedics-reach-settlement). Broader context: Treace continues to enforce this patent family against other competitors (e.g., Paragon 28's PGR2026-00020 challenge, whose record includes Treace's settlement press release as Exhibit 2022), indicating the '590 fulcrum-method patent and its continuations remain central to Treace's competitive strategy in the bunion-surgery market.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome: Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. v. Fusion Orthopedics, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-00490-PHX-SRB (D. Ariz.)

Below is a chronological account based on the available public record. Where a development is not confirmed by a direct source, I flag it explicitly.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

Complaint — filed 2022-03-29

• Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. sued Fusion Orthopedics, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-00490, asserting patent, trademark, and copyright infringement, plus unfair-competition and false-advertising claims. (Business Wire joint release, 2023-03-02; Docket/AO, ExParte case page "Filed 03/29/22").
• The case was assigned to Judge Susan R. Bolton — docket citations in Fusion's invalidity contentions use "CV-2200490-PHX-SRB" (FreePatentsOnline citation of Fusion's Invalidity Contentions, Aug. 27, 2022).
• Treace's own press release announcing the suit is dated 2022-03-28 (GlobeNewswire: "Treace Files Patent Infringement Suit To Protect Lapiplasty® Bunion Technology").
• Patents asserted: The complaint invoked multiple patents directed to Treace's Lapiplasty® 3D Bunion Correction system. The ExParte complaint analysis identifies asserted patents including U.S. Patent Nos. 10,342,590 (the "'590 patent," listed in the case metadata), '426, and '670, with the complaint alleging five patents-in-suit total. The '590 patent — titled "Bone positioning and cutting system and method" (Bays et al.) — covers the Lapiplasty® Fulcrum and its method claim 1, which is a fulcrum-pivoting surgical method: moving the first metatarsal and "pivoting the proximal portion about the fulcrum to reduce the intermetatarsal angle" (ExParte complaint analysis; Treace patents page).
• Accused product: Fusion's LapiLock 4D Advanced Bunion Surgery system (LapiLock Jig, Cutting Blocks, Spacers, and the surgical method taught in its brochures/videos). Treace alleged that Fusion's instructional materials originally used the term "fulcrum" — later renamed "spacer" post-notice — in a way that practices the '590 method claim (ExParte complaint analysis ¶¶37, 188, 254; notice letters dated 2022-02-16 re: '590 and 2022-03-15 re: all five patents).

Fusion's Answer & Counterclaims — mid-2022 (exact docket date not confirmed in public sources)

• Fusion answered and filed counterclaims seeking: (i) declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of Treace's patents (including the '590 patent); (ii) declaratory judgment of invalidity of Treace's LAPIPLASTY trademark; and (iii) unfair-trade-practice counterclaims (false descriptions/false advertising) based on Treace's promotion of Lapiplasty 3D Bunion Correction (Business Wire/GlobeNewswire joint releases, 2023-03-02/03).
• The exact filing date of the answer/counterclaims is not publicly confirmed in my searches; the joint releases only say Fusion "subsequently filed counterclaims." (I could not verify the docket entry number/date without PACER.)

---

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

No publicly identified rulings on motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or summary judgment.

• My searches did not surface any motion-to-dismiss, venue/transfer, IPR-stay, or summary-judgment motion or order in this case. The docket (status: "Closed," per ExParte) reflects a case that settled before such substantive rulings.
• The closest "substance" filings documented are the invalidity contentions: Fusion served its Invalidity Contentions on 2022-08-27, a 153-page submission including claim charts (Exhibit B8) and obviousness charts (Exhibit C) referencing the '590 patent (FreePatentsOnline citation, "No. CV-2200490-PHX-SRB, US District Court for the District of Arizona, Aug. 27, 2022, 153 pages"). This is effectively Fusion's substantive non-infringement/invalidity position, though served as discovery contentions rather than a motion.

---

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

No Markman ruling was reached — the case settled first.

• No claim construction order or Markman hearing decision appears in the public record for this case.
• The ExParte complaint analysis identifies "fulcrum" as the pivotal claim term in the '590 patent (whether Fusion's renamed "spacer" falls within "fulcrum" as used in claim 1), plus sequencing issues under the '670 patent — indicating the dispute was heading toward construction of "fulcrum" had the case continued. But no construction was issued before settlement.

---

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• 2022-08-24: Fusion announced full commercial release of LapiLock 4D Advanced Bunion Surgery, shortly before serving its invalidity contentions (Orthopedics This Week; Fusion Orthopedics website press page).
• 2022-08-27: Fusion served 153 pages of Invalidity Contentions (with § 102/103 charts targeting the '590 patent), a standard but strategically loaded milestone in the D. Ariz. patent schedule (FreePatentsOnline).
• Pre-suit notice letters: Treace's complaint relied on notice letters dated 2022-02-16 (re: '590) and 2022-03-15 (re: all five patents), and alleged willful infringement based on Fusion's continuation of sales and its renaming of the "fulcrum" to "spacer" in marketing materials — a facts-intensive dispute flagged in the ExParte complaint analysis (¶¶37, 255, 265, including a "pre-complaint vs. post-complaint" video comparison).
• No other discovery milestones (e.g., summary-judgment motions on willfulness, expert reports, depositions) are publicly documented; discovery was cut short by the settlement.

---

5. Trial Events, Verdict & Post-Trial Motions

None. The case never went to trial. There is no verdict, and no JMOL/new-trial/fee motions were filed. The case was resolved by settlement before trial.

---

6. Settlement, Dismissal & Final Disposition

• March 2023: The parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement (joint press releases: Business Wire 2023-03-02; Treace GlobeNewswire/Investor release 2023-03-03; Fusion's own site).
• Terms: Confidential. Both sides stated they were "pleased with the outcome." Press coverage notes settlement documents were filed under seal (Orthopedics This Week; ODT Magazine; Becker's Spine Review).
• Case status: Closed (ExParte docket status: "Closed"). No publicly available dismissal order text was retrieved in my searches; the termination is documented via the parties' joint announcements and the closed docket status. No appeal was filed (no Federal Circuit docket identified).

---

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

No IPR/PGR on the '590 patent by Fusion was identified.

• I found no IPR or PGR petition filed by Fusion Orthopedics against U.S. Patent No. 10,342,590, and no PTAB institution decision affecting this litigation. The settlement in March 2023 likely obviated any such filing.
• Related later PTAB activity (not part of this case): The '590 patent has since surfaced in a different proceeding — PGR2026-00020, Paragon 28, Inc. v. Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. (filed 2026, challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,268,428, with the '590 patent cited as prior art/exhibit). In that proceeding, Treace submitted the 2023 settlement press release as Exhibit 2022 (DocketAlarm, PTAB PGR2026-00020, filed 2026-03-04). This confirms the Fusion settlement remained relevant to Treace's later PTAB disputes, but it is not a parallel proceeding on this case.
• Treace's patent page continues to list US 10,342,590 (with US 11,278,337) as covering the "Lapiplasty® Fulcrum," indicating the '590 patent survived this litigation and later challenges.

---

Bottom Line

This was a settled-before-claim-construction case: Treace filed on 2022-03-29 asserting patent (including the '590 fulcrum method), trademark, copyright, and false-advertising claims over Fusion's LapiLock 4D system; Fusion answered with declaratory-judgment non-infringement/invalidity and Lanham Act counterclaims; the parties litigated through invalidity contentions (Aug. 2022); and the case settled confidentially in March 2023 and closed with no trial, no Markman ruling, no summary judgment, no verdict, and no appeal. No Fusion-filed IPR on the '590 patent is documented; the '590 patent later appeared as an exhibit/reference in a separate 2026 Paragon 28 PGR against Treace.

Caveats: Specific docket entry numbers (e.g., answer date, dismissal order number/date, sealing order) and any unpublicized motion practice were not verifiable from free public sources; PACER/CM-ECF would be needed to confirm those entries.

Based on the searches I was able to run, I could not access the PACER docket or the complaint's signature block for Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. v. Fusion Orthopedics, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-00490 (D. Ariz.) directly, and I have not been able to verify the plaintiff's counsel of record from a primary source. I will not invent names. Here is what is sourced and what remains unverified:

Verified/partially sourced information

• Defense counsel (not plaintiff): The joint March 2023 settlement press release (Business Wire, "Dispute Between Treace Medical and Fusion Orthopedics Resolved," March 2, 2023) identifies Corby Vowell, Esq., "Lead Counsel," (817) 313-9548, corby@vowelllawfirm.com — but that contact block is for Fusion Orthopedics (the defendant), not Treace. So Vowell should not be attributed to the plaintiff.

• Treace in-house legal team (adjacent/parallel matters, not confirmed as counsel of record here):

  • Scot Elder — Chief Legal & Compliance Officer / Corporate Secretary of Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. (per a 2026 PTAB Power of Attorney in PGR2026-00031). He signed for the company in that matter, but there is no evidence he entered an appearance in this 2022 district court case.
  • Andres F. Arrubla — in-house attorney at Treace Medical Concepts (Ponte Vedra, FL), listed as back-up counsel in the same 2026 PTAB matter. Again, this is a 2026 PTAB filing, not proof of appearance in the D. Ariz. case.

• Parallel litigation clue (not counsel for this case): Treace filed a nearly contemporaneous suit, Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. v. Texas OrthoSolutions, LLC, No. 3:22-cv-00692 (N.D. Tex.), which also settled. Its docket is on CourtListener, but I could not pull attorney names for that case in the available search steps either, and even if I had, it would not establish counsel of record in the Arizona action.

What I could not confirm

• The names of the law firm(s) and individual attorneys who signed the March 29, 2022 complaint and entered appearances for Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. in 2:22-cv-00490.
• Whether Treace used lead local Arizona counsel, out-of-state lead counsel (e.g., from its Florida HQ region or a national patent firm), or in-house counsel for the Arizona case.
• Any specific docket entries (e.g., Notice of Appearance, Designation of Lead Counsel) for the plaintiff.

Recommendation for definitive answer

The reliable path to the plaintiff's counsel of record is the PACER docket for 2:22-cv-00490 (D. Ariz.) — specifically the complaint (Doc. 1, signature block), any attorney appearance/designation entries, and the "Attorneys" tab on the docket report. CourtListener/RECAP may have a free mirror if the docket was uploaded there; my searches surfaced only the docket feed for the Texas OrthoSolutions case, not this Arizona docket.

I'd be glad to complete the attorney-by-attorney table (name, role, firm, office, experience) once I can access the docket or complaint — but per the operating rules, I will not supply names without a source.

Based on my research, I can identify one attorney with a direct, sourced tie to representing Fusion Orthopedics in this matter. The full docket-based appearance list (PACER) is not publicly accessible in the sources I retrieved, so I flag gaps below rather than inventing entries.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

Corby Vowell, Esq. — Lead Counsel (per Fusion's own designation)

• Firm: Vowell Law Firm (vowelllawfirm.com)
• Office location: Texas (contact number 817-313-9548, Fort Worth/Dallas–Fort Worth metro area)
• Role: Listed as "Lead Counsel" in the joint March 2–3, 2023 BusinessWire/GlobeNewswire press release announcing settlement of this exact case (Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. v. Fusion Orthopedics, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-00490, D. Ariz.). He is also the designated media contact for Fusion Orthopedics in that release (corby@vowelllawfirm.com; (817) 313-9548).
• Experience note: I could not verify from public sources his specific patent-litigation track record or notable past patent cases. The designation "Lead Counsel" in the settlement release indicates he served as Fusion's lead attorney in this patent/trademark/copyright suit, but no docket entry or court opinion I found independently confirms his appearance. Treat the "lead counsel" label as Fusion's own characterization.

Gaps / Unverified

• Arizona local counsel: I could not verify the identity of any Arizona-licensed local counsel who appeared for Fusion Orthopedics. The docket entries for attorney appearances in this case (D. Ariz., No. 2:22-cv-00490) are not publicly mirrored in the sources I retrieved; PACER/CM/ECF access would be required to confirm all Notice of Appearance filings.
• In-house counsel: No in-house counsel for Fusion Orthopedics was identified in any public source. Fusion is a Mesa, Arizona-based LLC, but I found no evidence of a named in-house lawyer in this litigation.
• Additional outside counsel: It is common in a case like this for co-counsel (e.g., patent litigators and local counsel) to have appeared, but I found no reliable public record naming them. The press release lists only Corby Vowell for Fusion.

Key sources

• BusinessWire, "Dispute Between Treace Medical and Fusion Orthopedics Resolved" (Mar. 2, 2023) — lists "Corby Vowell, Esq / Lead Counsel / (817) 313-9548 / corby@vowelllawfirm.com" under Fusion's contacts: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230302005938/en/
• GlobeNewswire via IPR2026-00194 Exhibit 2025 (Treace's Mar. 3, 2023 press release confirming settlement): https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2026-00194/...
• Ex Parte case page confirming case number, filing date (03/29/22), and closed status: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/azd/2:22-cv-00490/treace-medical-concepts-inc-v-fusion-orthopedics-llc

Bottom line: The only defendant-side attorney I can source with reasonable confidence is Corby Vowell (Vowell Law Firm, TX), whom Fusion itself identified as Lead Counsel. If you need the complete roster (including any local counsel), PACER for D. Ariz. 2:22-cv-00490 would be the authoritative source — the case docket is closed and was not available in the public mirrors I searched.