Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00817, Align Technology challenges the Board’s decision to institute review of U.S. Patent No. 10,791,936 covering composite models from intraoral scans. The petitioner, ClearCorrect Operating, LLC, argued that a district‑court trial would not occur until November 2027, a premise the Director relied on to deny discretionary denial under Fintiv. Subsequent court filings reveal a hard trial date of June 22, 2026, rendering the Fintiv analysis favorable to denial. Moreover, the Board’s reliance on Boerjes and Geng references is misplaced because neither reference discloses the required “stitching together before‑and‑after models” limitation. Finally, the petitioner failed to identify all real parties in interest, including Bay Materials and foreign affiliates, violating 35 U.S.C. §312(a)(2) and recent Corning precedent. Align Technology requests the Director vacate the institution.
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
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLCvsPayRange LLC.
The PTAB instituted trial on grounds of eligibility (101), anticipation (102), and obviousness (103) for all 20 claims related to mobile payment processing. The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a likelihood of unpatentability, despite some claim limitations being construed favorably to the Patent Owner.
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al.vsMasaba, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Solaris against Masaba's aggregate handling patent (11780689), finding a reasonable likelihood that key claims are obvious over Waldner and Dynatek.
Sterlite Technologies Inc.vsAFL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Court decision.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc.vsEXELIXIS, INC.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals failed to convince the PTAB that EXELIXIS's drug formulation patent was unpatentable, resulting in a denial of institution for IPR2025-00210. The Board rejected anticipation arguments based on prior art family relationships and dismissed obviousness claims regarding impurity control.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al.vsLiTL LLC
The PTAB denied Dell, HP, and Asus’s request for rehearing of its earlier decision not to institute an IPR on patent 9,563,229. The Board concluded the petitioners failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success, particularly regarding the accelerometer claim limitations.
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.