Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2025-00821, ClearCorrect Operating, LLC challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,648,091, which claims multilayer polymer sheets and dental aligners with specific mechanical properties. The petitioner contends that the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kalili (a two‑layer aligner), Porter (Tritan copolyester properties), Texin 990R (TPU properties), Wen (advantages of thinner sub‑layers), and Tadros (soft‑hard‑soft configurations) to arrive at the claimed inventions. The petition also notes a lack of written description and enablement under §112, though this does not affect the obviousness analysis. ClearCorrect requests that the Board institute inter‑ partes review and cancel claims 1‑23 and 25‑26.
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
Cisco Systems, Inc.vs--
Cisco Systems has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,780,887, asserting that its ten claims are obvious over the Pankratov prior‑art reference. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsOura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) against the smart ring patent. The Board upheld the validity of the claims, finding that the combination of prior art references required non-obvious structural overhauls and lacked proper nexus to the claimed invention.
Google LLCvsK.Mizra LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of K.Mizra’s ’705 patent covering network quarantine and remediation. The petition relies on obviousness over Freund, Ball, Pujare, and Lewis, and cites a Federal Circuit remand of a prior Cisco IPR.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al.vsPantech Wireless, LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR for OnePlus Technology against Pantech Wireless, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 10 challenged claims. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references Zeira and Yi taught the necessary elements to overcome obviousness rejections.
Eunsung Global Corp.vsHydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. requests Director Review of the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against HydraFacial's hydrodermabrasion patent, arguing errors in Fintiv factor analysis and emphasizing efficiency. The Board had denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
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.