Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc.

Background

Dental Monitoring SAS alleged that Align Technology, Inc.’s remote methods for treating patients with dental aligners infringed two patents: U.S. Patent No. 10,755,409 and U.S. Patent No. 11,049,248. The order addressed claim 12, which depends on claim 1 of the ’409 patent, and claim 14, which depends on claim 1 of the ’248 patent.

The ’409 claims concern acquiring an image of a patient’s dental arch, analyzing it with a trained deep-learning device, determining an image attribute, comparing that attribute with a target, and sending a message about image quality or how the image was taken. The ’248 claims concern using images of an aligner worn by a patient, a learning base containing more than 1,000 images, and a trained deep-learning device to assess the separation between the aligner and a tooth.

Dental Monitoring argued that Align infringed the claims as a matter of law. Align argued that the claims were invalid under Section 101 and Section 112 of the Patent Act and that, if valid, Align’s products did not infringe.

Summary judgment and patent eligibility

Summary judgment is a ruling entered when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court began and ended with Align’s Section 101 argument because a patent must be valid before infringement can be established.

The court applied the two-step test from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. First, it asked whether the claims were directed to an abstract idea. If so, it asked whether the claims included an “inventive concept”—additional features that transformed the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.

For claim 14 of the ’248 patent, the court characterized the claim as collecting information about aligner fit, analyzing that information, and presenting the results. The court said those functions represented an abstract idea and that the claim did not identify a specific improvement to deep-learning technology. In the court’s view, using generic neural networks and training them with dental images merely applied an abstract process to the field of dental aligners. The claim therefore did not add an inventive concept.

For claim 12 of the ’409 patent, the court similarly characterized the claim as acquiring an image, analyzing its contents, and giving the camera operator information intended to help obtain a better image. The court found that using a cellphone or another camera-equipped device, a trained deep-learning device, and a learning base did not provide an inventive concept. The court also noted that dental practitioners had long assessed aligner treatment using images provided by patients.

The court rejected Dental Monitoring’s argument that the claims were eligible because they improved speed, ease, or measurement precision. It also rejected the argument that applying deep learning to dental aligners was enough to make the claims patent eligible. The court distinguished a treatment method that specifies what treatment to provide from the claims here, which stopped at evaluating images and aligner fit.

Disposition

The court held that claim 14 and claim 1 of the ’248 patent, and claim 12 and claim 1 of the ’409 patent, were invalid under Section 101 because they recited an abstract idea without an inventive concept. To that extent, Align’s summary-judgment motion was GRANTED. The remainder of the parties’ motions were DENIED AS MOOT. Because the claims were invalid, the court did not decide the written-description or infringement issues. The court stated that it would address Align’s pending motion to stay after the motion was fully briefed.