Dental devices — US PTAB Patent Cases
19 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 19 total
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The USPTO denied ClearCorrect’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs against Align Technology’s patents, leaving the institution rulings intact.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 29 claims of Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists ten distinct grounds, each tying claim groups to references such as Black, Park, Baughan, Johnson, Hirsch, and Zheng.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc.'s IPR petition against Solmetex, LLC's dental device patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board ruled that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding obviousness over prior art references like Black and Park/Baughan/Johnson.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 25 claims of Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art references. The petition outlines eight grounds and requests institution of the review.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
The PTAB denied Ascentcare Dental Products' IPR petition against Solmetex, LLC's dental device patent due to procedural timing issues. The Board found the patent was a post-AIA patent and the petition was filed too early.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 12,290,418 intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of 25 claims covering the isolation mouthpiece.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Dr. Brian P. Black submits a declaration supporting Ascentcare’s IPR petition, asserting that the ’969 dental isolation mouthpiece patent is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references. He targets claims 1‑4 and 6‑19, concluding they are unpatentable.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Dr. Brian P. Black, the inventor of a prior dental isolation mouthpiece, filed a declaration supporting Ascentcare’s IPR petition against Solmetex’s 11,589,969 patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 12,290,418 intraoral device patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR covering 26 claims.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Solmetex’s 2023 intraoral mouthpiece patent, arguing obviousness over five prior‑art references.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,744,686 covering an intraoral mouthpiece. The petition asserts that claims 12‑21 are obvious over several prior‑art patents and that the patent owner broadened claim scope. The case is pending institution.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect challenges Align Technology’s dental aligner patent in a Director Review proceeding, arguing the patent owner’s request raises new RPI arguments and evidence that are barred. The petitioner seeks denial of the review.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect challenges Align Technology’s Director Review request, arguing the new RPI claim and trial‑date evidence are improper and that the Board’s institution decision was correct. The petitioner seeks denial of the Director Review.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect files an authorized response opposing Align Technology’s Director Review request, arguing the new RPI theory and trial‑date evidence are improper and that the Porter prior art issue was already rejected.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied ClearCorrect's request to review the institution decisions in several IPRs involving Align Technology's orthodontic patents, leaving the institution rulings in place.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The PTAB affirmed all claims of Align Technology’s ‘630 patent after finding ClearCorrect’s obviousness arguments unpersuasive. No claims were deemed unpatentable.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect seeks to invalidate Align Technology's 2023 patent on multilayer dental aligners, arguing that all claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Kalili, Porter, Texin 990R, Wen, and Tadros. The petition requests the PTAB to institute review and cancel the challenged claims.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect seeks PTAB review of Align Technology's 10,973,613 patent covering multilayer dental aligners, arguing all 22 claims are obvious over prior art. The petition cites Tadros, Kalili, Porter, Wen, and Texin 990R as teaching the same polymer layers and configurations.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect seeks an IPR to invalidate Align Technology’s 11,648,090 patent covering multilayer dental aligners. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over prior‑art polymer aligner references. No institution decision has been made yet.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.