Dental technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
8 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 8 total
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of Align Technology’s orthodontic treatment‑planning patent (US 10,524,879), alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues that the round‑tripping collision‑avoidance technique is well‑known.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
Align Technology seeks Director review to vacate the institution of IPR2025-00817 against its intraoral scanner patent. The petitioner’s earlier trial‑date projection is shown to be inaccurate, the cited prior art does not teach the claimed limitation, and the petitioner failed to disclose all foreign real parties in interest.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC seeks a Director Review to vacate the institution of an IPR concerning Align Technology's orthodontic aligner patent. The request hinges on a revised Fintiv analysis, alleged re‑hash of prior art under §325(d), and failure to name all real parties in interest.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect seeks Director review to overturn an IPR institution on Align Technology’s Invisalign patent, arguing the Fintiv analysis now favors denial and that the petitioner failed to name all real parties in interest.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,245,374. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under patent‑law confidentiality provisions.
Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation et al. v.3Shape A/S
Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation's IPR petition against 3Shape A/S was denied institution by the PTAB. The Board found that despite some arguments, the similarities to prior proceedings and resource constraints warranted denial under discretionary authority.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenging U.S. Patent 10,076,391 B2. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims related to bite registration methods.
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.