PTAB

IPR2025-00815

ClearCorrect Operating LLC v. Align Technology Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Generating Orthodontic Treatment Plans
  • Brief Description: The ’879 patent is directed to computer-implemented methods and software for generating orthodontic treatment plans for use with clear aligners. The system automates aspects of the planning process, including modifying tooth movement schedules to avoid collisions.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Chishti-511, Chishti-876, Sachdeva, and Becker - Claims 1-24 are obvious over [Chishti-511](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00815/doc/1004) in view of [Chishti-876](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00815/doc/1005), [Sachdeva](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00815/doc/1007), and [Becker](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00815/doc/1006).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chishti-511 (Patent 6,471,511), Chishti-876 (Patent 6,729,876), Sachdeva (Patent 6,250,918), and Becker (a 1998 publication titled The Orthodontic Treatment of Impacted Teeth).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the combination of these four analogous art references renders all challenged claims obvious. The primary reference, Chishti-511, allegedly disclosed the foundational system for generating a staged orthodontic treatment plan using digital models of teeth, including calculating tooth paths and modifying them to avoid collisions. Petitioner argued that the remaining references teach the specific automated features claimed in the ’879 patent. Chishti-876, which shares common inventors with Chishti-511, was cited for its disclosure of selecting a treatment plan from a database of predetermined movement patterns to improve efficiency. Sachdeva was presented as teaching an automated system that simulates tooth movement, identifies potential collisions (termed "conflicts"), and automatically modifies the treatment schedule to resolve them, specifically by delaying the initial movement of one tooth until another has cleared its path. The final reference, Becker—which Petitioner emphasized was not considered during the original prosecution—allegedly disclosed the specific "round-tripping" collision-avoidance technique that was the basis for the allowance of the ’879 patent claims. Becker described treating transposed teeth by first moving one tooth (the "first tooth") out of the path of another (the "second tooth"), allowing the second tooth to pass, and then moving the first tooth back to its previous position before proceeding to its final desired position. Petitioner contended that combining these teachings results in the method claimed in independent claims 1, 9, 15, and 20.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the teachings of these references to create a more robust, efficient, and automated treatment planning system. A POSITA starting with the foundational system of Chishti-511 would have looked to other known techniques to enhance its collision avoidance capabilities. They would have incorporated Sachdeva’s automated conflict detection and delaying technique as a predictable improvement. Furthermore, to handle more complex cases like transposed teeth, a POSITA would have integrated the well-known clinical technique of round-tripping, as taught by Becker. The inclusion of selectable movement patterns from Chishti-876 would be a natural addition to improve workflow efficiency and consistency. The combination was framed as the simple application of known techniques and technologies to yield predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because all references operate in the same field of computer-aided orthodontic planning and use similar digital models and processes. Integrating the features from Chishti-876, Sachdeva, and Becker into Chishti-511's system would have involved routine software modifications and the application of known orthodontic principles to an existing automated framework.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the grounds render the claims obvious under any reasonable construction consistent with Phillips. However, it highlighted a key term for which the parties had agreed upon a construction in related district court litigation:
    • round[-]tripping / round-trip (claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 20): Petitioner adopted the agreed-upon construction of "[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." This construction was central to the petition's argument, as Becker was alleged to explicitly teach this specific sequence of movements to resolve a collision.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under §314(a) based on the parallel district court litigation involving the ’879 patent.
  • To mitigate concerns of duplicative efforts and potentially conflicting decisions, 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 asserted that this stipulation, consistent with the precedential PTAB decision in Sotera Wireless, weighs strongly in favor of institution.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-24 of the ’879 patent as unpatentable.