DCT
1:21-cv-01165
SmileDirectClub LLC v. Candid Care Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: SmileDirectClub LLC (Tennessee)
- Defendant: Candid Care Co. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Foley & Lardner LLP
- Case Identification: 6:20-cv-1115, W.D. Tex., 12/08/2020
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s direct-to-consumer clear aligner business model, which utilizes physical "Candid Studios" for intraoral scanning and remote orthodontist oversight, infringes a patent covering a distributed system for managing such a teledentistry process.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to the teledentistry market, specifically methods and systems that coordinate the distributed steps of orthodontic treatment—from initial patient contact and data capture to remote treatment planning and direct-to-consumer aligner fabrication and delivery.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit was issued on December 8, 2020, the same day the complaint was filed. The complaint alleges that Defendant was aware of the corresponding patent application upon its publication on August 13, 2020, and that Defendant was generally aware Plaintiff was seeking patent protection for its business methods when Defendant launched its competing service in 2018.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-06-21 | Earliest Priority Date for '599 Patent |
| 2018 | Defendant Candid begins opening "Candid Studios" |
| 2020-08-13 | '599 Patent application published |
| 2020-12-08 | '599 Patent issued |
| 2020-12-08 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,861,599 - "Arrangements for Intraoral Scanning"
- Issued: December 8, 2020
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the traditional method for obtaining dental impressions for orthodontics as requiring significant time, cost, and multiple in-person visits to a dental office, creating "significant inconvenience to the patient" (Compl. ¶29; ’599 Patent, col. 1:39-55).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a distributed method and system that coordinates the entire clear aligner process without requiring the patient to physically see a dental professional for approval or treatment (Compl. ¶29; ’599 Patent, Abstract). The system integrates an online appointment management system for scheduling a scan at a physical scanning site, a treatment plan computing system where a remote professional approves the plan, and a fabrication site that produces and sends the aligners directly to the user, as depicted in the system architecture of Figure 1 (’599 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 2:45-67).
- Technical Importance: This system facilitates a teledentistry model that aims to lower costs and remove the geographic and logistical barriers associated with traditional, in-office orthodontic care (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15, 18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 16 (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 53).
- The essential elements of independent claim 16 include:
- Receiving a request via an appointment management system to schedule a scan at an intraoral scanning site, where a technician, not a dentist, will conduct the scan.
- Scheduling the appointment with the system.
- Generating and transmitting a confirmation message to the user.
- Conducting the intraoral scan at the site to generate 3D data.
- Generating a treatment plan using a treatment plan computing system based on the 3D data.
- Receiving approval of the plan from a dental professional who has not physically seen the user.
- Producing a plurality of user-specific aligners at a fabrication site.
- Sending the aligners directly to the user, who receives treatment without ever physically seeing the approving professional.
- The complaint states infringement of "one or more claims... including at least independent claim 16," reserving the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶58).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendant Candid’s "systems and methods" for its direct-to-consumer clear aligner business, specifically the operation of its "Candid Studios" (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 39).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Candid’s process begins with a consumer scheduling an appointment online at a Candid Studio (Compl. ¶41). At the studio, a "care specialist," not an orthodontist, performs a 3D intraoral scan (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 46). This scan data, along with other diagnostic records, is then submitted to a remote, state-licensed orthodontist for review (Compl. ¶47). The orthodontist approves and designs a treatment plan without physically meeting the patient (Compl. ¶49). Based on this plan, aligners are custom-fabricated and shipped directly to the consumer (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 52).
- The complaint positions Candid as a direct competitor and "copyist" that followed SDC's entry into the market (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 26).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’599 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving, by an appointment management system, a request to schedule an appointment at an intraoral scanning site... without a dentist or orthodontist physically seeing the user... | Candid's website allows a user to visit candidco.com/studios and click a "Book Now" link to schedule an appointment at a Candid Studio, where a technician, not an orthodontist, performs the scan. | ¶41, ¶43 | col. 1:61-65 |
| scheduling, by the appointment management system, the appointment at the intraoral scanning site based on the request | Candid's appointment management system allegedly schedules appointments at its studio locations. | ¶44 | col. 1:65-67 |
| generating and causing transmission of, by the appointment management system, a message to a device of the user, the message including a confirmation confirming the scheduled appointment | Candid's system is alleged to generate and send a message to the customer confirming the appointment. | ¶45 | col. 1:67-2:3 |
| conducting, using the intraoral scanner, the intraoral scan at the intraoral scanning site... the intraoral scan generating three-dimensional data of the mouth of the user | A Candid "care specialist" allegedly uses an intraoral scanner (iTero®) at a Candid Studio to conduct a scan that generates a "high-definition 3D image" of the user's mouth. | ¶42, ¶46 | col. 2:4-7 |
| causing generation of, by a treatment plan computing system located at a treatment plan site, a treatment plan for the user based on the three-dimensional data | After the scan, a treatment plan is allegedly generated by a "treatment plan computing system" based on the 3D scan and other diagnostic records. | ¶47, ¶48 | col. 2:7-10 |
| receiving an indication of an approval of the treatment plan by a dentist or an orthodontist, wherein the approval is received without the approving dentist or orthodontist having physically seen the user | An orthodontist in Candid's network allegedly approves the treatment plan without having seen the user in person. | ¶49 | col. 2:10-14 |
| producing, at a fabrication site, a plurality of aligners based on the treatment plan... specific to the user and... configured to reposition one or more teeth | Candid's aligners are allegedly "custom-fabricated" at a fabrication site and are designed as a series of unique 3D-printed models to move teeth according to the plan. | ¶50, ¶51 | col. 2:14-18 |
| sending the plurality of aligners from the fabrication site directly to the user, wherein the user receives orthodontic treatment without ever having physically seen the approving dentist or orthodontist | The aligners are allegedly sent from the fabrication site directly to the user, who undergoes treatment without having physically seen the approving orthodontist. | ¶52 | col. 14:14-17 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Claim 16 recites a series of steps performed by distinct systems (e.g., "appointment management system," "treatment plan computing system") and locations ("intraoral scanning site," "treatment plan site," "fabrication site"). The litigation may explore whether Candid's technology architecture truly maps onto these discretely claimed components or is integrated in a manner that falls outside the claim's literal scope.
- Technical Questions: A key legal and factual question is one of attribution for direct infringement. The asserted method claim involves actions by multiple parties (the user, an in-studio technician, a remote orthodontist, and the aligner manufacturer). The court will have to determine whether the complaint provides sufficient facts to suggest that Defendant "directs or controls" the performance of all steps of the claimed method, as required to establish liability for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) for a multi-actor claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "without... physically seeing the user"
- Context and Importance: This phrase appears twice in claim 16 and is central to the patent's asserted novelty over traditional, in-office orthodontics. Its construction will be critical in determining whether Candid's teledentistry model, which uses remote orthodontists, meets this negative limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with traditional methods requiring "many repeat visits to a dentist or orthodontist office" (’599 Patent, col. 4:1-4). It further explains that "the doctor may approve of the treatment plan for the user without having to physically see the user in person," which avoids the inconvenience of "a trip to a doctor's office" (’599 Patent, col. 15:21-26). This language may support an interpretation that "physically seeing" means being co-located in the same physical room for an examination.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also discloses an embodiment where "the doctor may 'see' the user remotely prior to approving the treatment plan" via "a video conference or a video of the user" (’599 Patent, col. 15:17-20). A party could argue about the meaning of "see" in this context and how it relates to "physically seeing," though the patent still frames this as an alternative to the user being "inconvenienced with a trip to a doctor's office."
Term: "appointment management system"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the system responsible for the first three steps of asserted claim 16. Practitioners may focus on this term because demonstrating that a single, identifiable "system" in Candid's infrastructure performs these specific functions is necessary for infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the system as a "computing system 102" which can be accessed via a "website (or other network-based portal)" (’599 Patent, col. 5:7-11). This may support a broad construction covering any combination of software and hardware that performs online scheduling and messaging.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 depicts the "appointment management system 100" as containing several specific functional blocks, including a "scheduler 122," "message generator 136," and "portal manager 140" (’599 Patent, Fig. 1). A party could argue that the term should be construed to require these specific, interconnected functionalities, potentially narrowing the claim scope.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint's prayer for relief seeks to enjoin inducement and contributory infringement (Compl. p. 15, ¶B). However, the factual allegations in the body of the complaint are directed at a theory of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), where Defendant is alleged to perform or control all steps of the claimed method (Compl. ¶58).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges willfulness based on pre- and post-suit knowledge. It claims Defendant was aware SDC was seeking patent protection when it launched its business in 2018 (Compl. ¶6) and alleges Defendant had knowledge of the published patent application since August 2020 (Compl. ¶38). It further alleges actual notice of the issued patent as of the filing date of the lawsuit, December 8, 2020 (Compl. ¶57).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of attribution: As the asserted claim is a method performed by multiple actors (patient, technician, doctor), can Plaintiff prove that Defendant directs or controls the performance of every step to such a degree that Defendant is liable for direct infringement of the entire claim?
- A second key issue will be one of architectural mapping: Does Defendant's technology platform, as it actually operates, align with the distributed, multi-system architecture described in the patent (e.g., a distinct "appointment management system" vs. a "treatment plan computing system"), or is its infrastructure sufficiently different to fall outside the literal claim scope?
- Finally, a critical question for damages will be one of scienter: Given the patent issued on the same day the suit was filed, can Plaintiff demonstrate that Defendant's alleged awareness of the pending application and its alleged copying of the business model constitute the type of egregious conduct necessary to support a finding of willful infringement?