3Shape A/S et al. v. Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation

IPR2024-00549

Petitioner 3Shape A/S et al. filed a petition challenging the validity of Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation's patent claims, asserting that all 20 claimed features are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The arguments rely heavily on combining prior art references such as Zhang and Babayoff to demonstrate predictable improvements in dental imaging technology.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-00549
Decision Date
15 February 2024
Filing Date
15 February 2024

Detailed Summary

Petitioner 3Shape A/S et al. initiated a Petition challenging the validity of Patent No. 11234798, asserting that all twenty claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. The core argument is that the claimed system for generating a 3D model of dentition by removing soft tissue components from contiguous occlusal scans would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). Specific grounds detail how combining Zhang and Babayoff provides the foundation, with additional references like Fisker, Dillon, and Johnson providing necessary limitations for specific claim sets. The petitioner contends that these combinations represent expected improvements within the field of medical imaging/dentistry.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in 3Shape A/S et al. vs Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentPGR2026-00042

Wealth, Inc.vs--

Wealth, Inc. has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Vanilla Technologies’ U.S. Patent 12,353,917, alleging ineligibility, obviousness, indefiniteness, and an improper dependent claim. The petition relies on prior‑art references Racanelli, Bateman, Dintenfass, McMillen and Kwak.

patentIPR2026-00325

Microsoft CorporationvsQomplx LLC

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Qomplx’s U.S. Patent 12,301,627 covering graph‑based network anomaly detection. The challenger asserts obviousness over prior‑art references Stokes, Crabtree, and Sekar under 35 U.S.C. §103.

patentIPR2026-00297

Microsoft CorporationvsToutVirtual, Inc.

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of ToutVirtual’s ‘667 patent covering virtual system management, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

patentIPR2026-00187

Cisco Systems, Inc.vsGOLDEN EYE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 13‑15 of Golden Eye Technologies' 9,717,037 patent. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over earlier Wi‑Fi standards and patents (Choudhary, Hasty, Chen). The petition requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the challenged claims.

patentIPR2026-00186

Cisco Systems, Inc.vsGolden Eye Technologies LLC

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 9‑11 of Golden Eye’s ’556 Wi‑Fi scanning patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over three earlier patents. The petition emphasizes that the patent was allowed despite acknowledging the same prior‑art concepts.

patentIPR2026-00334

Pinterest, Inc.vs--

Pinterest has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of OpenTV’s ’703 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Orr, Hsu, Lim, and Hervey.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call