PTAB

IPR2025-00814

ClearCorrect Operating LLC v. Align Technology Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Staged Orthodontic Treatment with Collision Avoidance
  • Brief Description: The ’217 patent describes a computer-implemented method for generating a staged orthodontic treatment plan. The system designs a series of clear aligners to move a patient's teeth from an initial to a final arrangement, incorporating techniques to automatically detect and avoid collisions between teeth during movement.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Chishti-511, Chishti-876, Sachdeva, and Becker - Claims 1-20 are obvious over the combination of these references under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon:
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of the four references taught all limitations of the challenged claims. Chishti-511 was presented as the primary reference, disclosing a base computerized system for generating a multi-stage orthodontic treatment plan, including creating digital tooth models, defining treatment paths, and ensuring the paths do not result in collisions. To this base system, a POSITA would have added known, desirable features from the other references. Chishti-876, which shares common inventors with Chishti-511, taught selecting a movement pattern from a library of predetermined patterns to define the schedule of tooth movement, fulfilling limitations in independent claim 1. Sachdeva taught an automated system that simulates tooth movement, identifies potential collisions (“conflicts”), and automatically modifies the treatment schedule to resolve them, for example by delaying the movement of one tooth relative to another. This allegedly met the limitations requiring collision identification and subsequent modification of the movement schedule. Finally, Becker, a reference not considered during prosecution, allegedly disclosed the specific collision-avoidance technique of “round-tripping,” which was the basis for allowance of the ’217 patent. Becker described treating transposed teeth by first moving one tooth (the “first dental object”) further out of position to allow a second, blocking tooth to pass by, and then moving the first tooth back to its previous position before proceeding to its final desired position. Petitioner asserted this combination rendered independent claims 1 and 11, and all dependent claims, obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a POSITA would combine these references to create a more robust, efficient, and automated treatment planning system. All references are analogous art from the same field of endeavor—computer-implemented orthodontic treatment planning—and address the same problem of moving teeth while avoiding collisions. A POSITA would combine Chishti-876 with Chishti-511 to improve efficiency by using pre-defined, successful movement patterns. A POSITA would integrate Sachdeva’s automated collision detection and resolution to improve upon Chishti-511’s more general disclosure of creating collision-free paths. Finally, a POSITA would incorporate the well-known “round-tripping” technique taught by Becker as a necessary clinical option for complex cases, such as transposed teeth, where other avoidance methods are insufficient. The ’217 patent itself describes round-tripping as a “last resort,” confirming its status as a known, albeit less-preferred, option a POSITA would want available in a comprehensive system.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references. The combination involved integrating known software modules and techniques into a base system. Chishti-511, Chishti-876, and Sachdeva all described similar computer-implemented systems using digital tooth models, making their features compatible. Integrating Becker’s clinically established round-tripping technique into such a system would be a predictable application of a known orthodontic principle to a software-based planning tool, yielding predictable results.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner stated that the grounds render the claims obvious under any reasonable construction. For the purpose of the petition, Petitioner adopted the constructions agreed upon by the parties in parallel district court litigation for key claim terms:
    • round-tripping / round-trip: “[moving / move] a first tooth out of the path of a second tooth, and once the second tooth has moved sufficiently, [moving / move] the first tooth back to its previous position before proceeding to a desired final position of that first tooth.”
    • slowing / slow: “[having / have] one or more teeth scheduled to move at a rate less than the rate of other teeth, or even [stopping / stop] using interim key frames, so that collisions and/or obstructions do not occur.”
  • These constructions mirror the definitions provided in the ’217 patent’s specification.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under §314(a). Petitioner stipulated that, if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue in the parallel district court case any invalidity ground that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in the petition. Petitioner contended that this stipulation mitigates concerns of duplicative efforts and potentially conflicting decisions between the district court and the Board, weighing strongly in favor of institution per the guidance in Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’217 patent as unpatentable.