Short Summary
Dentsply Sirona has filed a petition for inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s ‘262 patent covering dental and orthopedic CT densitometry. The petitioner relies on three grounds—Massie, Arai, and Pelc—to argue that claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 are anticipated or obvious.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2025-00772, Dentsply Sirona seeks institution of inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,944,262, which claims a digital modeling system for dental and orthopedic densitometry using computed tomography. The petitioner asserts that the Massie publication anticipates the claims under 35 U.S.C. §102 and renders them obvious under §103, and that both Arai and Pelc render the same claims obvious in combination with other references such as Xu, Milestone, and Cann. The petition mirrors the arguments that previously led the Board to institute a prior IPR (IPR2020‑00672) that was later settled. Dentsply requests that the Board institute the present proceeding and find claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 unpatentable.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Dentsply Sirona Inc. vs Osseo Imaging, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al.vsAtossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals and Atossa Therapeutics filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 327 and to terminate the ongoing post‑grant review of Patent 12,071,391.
MediaTek Inc.vsDAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled all disputes surrounding U.S. Patent 10,740,281. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and the lack of a merits decision. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsEmpire Technology Development LLC
Samsung has filed a preliminary reply opposing Empire Technology’s narrow claim construction of “idle power consumption” in U.S. Patent 8,798,120. The argument centers on the patent’s disclosure of leakage‑current power draw during sleep mode, which Samsung says renders the proposed construction unsupported.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The USPTO Director denied TSMC’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute an IPR against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s patent, leaving the institution denial in place.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al.vsMOSAID Technologies Inc.
Infineon contests MOSAID’s late Director Review request, asserting that claim‑construction issues were disclosed before the IPR petition and can be reconciled with district‑court constructions. The petitioner offers stipulations to avoid any inconsistent outcomes.
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.