DCT

0:20-cv-61596

Centre De Recherche Medico Dentaire Am Inc v. Digital Smile Design BY Coachman

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:20-cv-61596, S.D. Fla., 08/05/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of Florida because Defendant DSD Applications LLC maintains a place of business in Florida, and the other two defendants are alien corporations, which may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ digital dentistry software and related services infringe a patent related to a system and method for designing dental restorations.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves computer-aided design for cosmetic dentistry, enabling practitioners to visualize and plan dental restorations by manipulating 2D patient images and corresponding 3D models.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-07-12 ’910 Patent Priority Date
2016-08-09 ’910 Patent Issue Date
2020-08-05 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,411,910 - "Dental Analysis Method and System," issued August 9, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that traditional aesthetic principles like the "Golden Proportion," when applied to dentistry, are often inadequate because they do not accurately account for the proper proportions of all visible teeth in a smile (e.g., centrals, laterals, and canines) ('910 Patent, col. 1:40-49). This creates a need for a more comprehensive system for evaluating and planning dental modifications ('910 Patent, col. 1:49-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-implemented system that addresses this problem by linking 2D visual smile design with 3D model modification. A user can select a 2D smile image from a library, superimpose it on a photo of the patient's own smile, and use positioning indicators to adjust it ('910 Patent, Abstract). Crucially, the system then modifies a 3D dentition model that is associated with the selected 2D library image, allowing for the creation of a "virtual wax-up" of the final proposed dental restoration ('910 Patent, col. 2:11-17).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a method to bridge the gap between aesthetic 2D smile design, which is intuitive for patients and dentists, and the technical 3D modeling required to physically create crowns, veneers, or other restorations ('910 Patent, col. 7:11-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('Compl. ¶ 22).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • An input for providing an image of a patient’s smile.
    • A memory storing a library of digital smile images, where each image is associated with a corresponding 3D dentition model.
    • A user interface for selecting a library smile image to apply to the patient's smile image.
    • A processor configured to:
      • apply positioning indicators over the patient's smile image;
      • modify the 3D dentition model associated with the selected library image based on the indicators; and
      • provide a virtual wax-up of a dental restoration based on the modified 3D model.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "NemoDSD software," "DSDApp," and "DSD Planning Center Services" (collectively, the "Accused Products and Services") (Compl. ¶ 6).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these products are software and services used for the design of dental restorations (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 19). Their functionality is described as involving the input of a patient photograph, the selection of "predesigned templates" from a library, the application and modification of these templates over the patient's image using software tools, and the generation of a virtual treatment plan (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 30, 32). A screenshot from a promotional video shows the NemoDSD system's user interface for inputting a patient photo (Compl. p. 8). The complaint positions the Defendants as direct competitors to the Plaintiff in this market (Compl. ¶ 19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’910 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
[a] an input for providing an image of the patient's smile to the system The accused systems allow a user to import a patient photograph, including a smile, to serve as the basis for the design process. ¶¶28, 42 col. 17:64-65
[b] a memory having stored therein a library of digital images of smiles and of corresponding 3D dentition models wherein, in the library, each digital image of a smile is associated to a corresponding 3D dentition model The accused systems include "predesigned templates" stored in memory, which the complaint alleges are a library of digital smile images and associated 3D models. ¶¶30, 44 col. 17:66-18:2
[c] a user interface for selecting a digital image of a smile to be applied to the image of the smile of the patient The accused systems provide a user interface with software tools for selecting a template from the library and applying it to the patient's photo. ¶¶32, 46 col. 18:3-4
[d] a processor for: applying a set of positioning indicators over the image of the patient's smile, the positioning indicators providing adjusted teeth positioning... The processor provides adjustable positioning indicators and overlays that allow the user to modify the positioning of the template teeth over the patient's image. ¶¶34, 48 col. 18:5-9
[e] modifying, based on the positioning indicators, a 3D dentition model associated with the selected digital image of a smile The processor modifies a 3D dentition model based on the adjustments made to the positioning indicators on the 2D image. A screenshot shows a modified 3D model. ¶¶36, 50 col. 18:10-12
[f] providing a virtual wax-up of a dental restoration of the dentition of the patient based on the modified 3D dentition model The processor provides a "virtual wax-up," shown in a screenshot as a final 3D rendering of the proposed dental restoration. ¶¶38, 52 col. 18:13-16
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused "predesigned templates" (Compl. ¶ 30) satisfy the claim requirement of a "library of digital images of smiles and of corresponding 3D dentition models." The defense may argue that their system does not rely on a library of pre-associated 2D images and 3D models, but instead uses a different architecture, potentially raising a non-infringement or claim construction dispute. The screenshot on page 9 of the complaint, showing a gallery of tooth shapes, will be key evidence on this point (Compl. p. 9).
    • Technical Questions: The infringement theory hinges on the allegation that adjusting 2D indicators modifies an associated 3D model from the library. A technical question will be what evidence demonstrates this specific link. Does modifying the 2D template in the accused products (as shown on p. 11 of the complaint) cause a modification of a pre-existing, associated 3D model, or does it trigger the generation of a new 3D model based on the adjusted 2D parameters? The distinction may be critical for element [e].

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a library of digital images of smiles and of corresponding 3D dentition models"

    • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed system architecture. The infringement case depends on whether the accused "predesigned templates" fall within its scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defense could argue their system uses a different method, such as algorithmic generation of 3D models from 2D parameters, rather than retrieving and modifying a pre-associated 3D model from a "library."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Abstract describes a "library of 2D digital images of smiles and associated 3D dentition models" without tightly defining the structure of the library or the term "associated" ('910 Patent, Abstract). This could support an interpretation where the association is functional rather than a rigid, pre-linked data structure.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "each digital image of a smile is associated to a corresponding 3D dentition model" ('910 Patent, col. 18:1-2) suggests a specific, paired relationship. This could support a narrower construction requiring a one-to-one mapping stored in memory, which the accused products may not have.

  • The Term: "positioning indicators"

    • Context and Importance: The patent's specification heavily discusses deriving positioning lines from a specific "M Proportion" ('910 Patent, col. 4:14-24). The infringement case will turn on whether the accused products' general-purpose alignment and adjustment tools meet the definition of "positioning indicators."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not tie the "positioning indicators" to any specific mathematical formula; it only requires that they provide "adjusted teeth positioning" ('910 Patent, col. 18:7-9). This could support a broad interpretation covering any graphical overlay used for alignment.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the "positioning lines" as being calculated based on the novel "M Proportion" to solve the problems of the prior art ('910 Patent, col. 3:14-25). A court could be persuaded to limit the term to indicators that embody this inventive concept, potentially distinguishing them from generic design tools.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendants provide "product information and other materials providing instructions for infringing use" (Compl. ¶ 12). This allegation is supported by references to publicly available YouTube videos demonstrating the use of the accused software (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 40).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a request for a finding of willful infringement in the prayer for relief (Compl. p. 21, ¶ d). However, the factual allegations in the body of the complaint do not specify any pre-suit knowledge of the ’910 Patent by the Defendants. The claim for willfulness may therefore be based on alleged infringement continuing after the complaint was filed.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "a library of digital images of smiles and of corresponding 3D dentition models" be construed to cover the accused systems' "predesigned templates"? The outcome will depend on whether the court requires a tightly pre-associated data structure or allows for a more functional relationship between 2D and 3D assets.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused software, when a user adjusts 2D overlays, perform the specific function of "modifying... a 3D dentition model associated with the selected digital image of a smile," as required by Claim 1? Or does it follow a different technical pathway, such as generating a new 3D model from scratch based on the 2D adjustments, which could represent a fundamental mismatch with the claimed method.