Short Summary
The USPTO denied ClearCorrect's request for Director Review of institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving Align Technology's orthodontic aligner patent 11,648,090.
Detailed Summary
In a rehearing order dated March 3, 2026, the United States Patent and Trademark Office denied ClearCorrect Operating, LLC's petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions across five inter partes review proceedings (IPR2025-00817 through IPR2025-00821). The petitions, which challenged the institution of Align Technology, Inc.'s patents—including U.S. Patent No. 11,648,090—were considered and ultimately rejected, leaving the institution decisions in place. The order underscores the Board's discretion in limiting Director intervention in institution rulings.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. vs Align Technology, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
The PTAB terminated the IPR against MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement with BirchTech Corp., while the case continues for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al.vsAmerican GNC Corporation
Nintendo’s reply argues that claims 1 and 3 of American GNC’s MEMS gyroscope patent are obvious over several prior‑art references, supported by extensive expert testimony, and rejects the Patent Owner’s time‑bar and secondary‑consideration defenses.
Apple Inc.vsTelcom Ventures LLC
Apple filed a motion to dismiss its IPR petition against Telcom Ventures' 9,462,411 patent, citing good cause and the early stage of the proceeding. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
Microsoft Corp.vsVirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). They argue the agreement contains highly sensitive business information that could harm their interests if disclosed.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
Petitioners and the patent owner jointly move to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.