Untitled case

Federal Circuit Rules on Dental AI Patent Eligibility in Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc.

This ongoing patent infringement litigation, currently before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under case number 25-1752, involves Dental Monitoring SAS as the patentee and appellant, and Align Technology, Inc. as the alleged infringer and appellee. Dental Monitoring SAS is an operating company specializing in AI-powered remote monitoring solutions for orthodontics. Align Technology, Inc. is a global medical device company known for its Invisalign clear aligners and associated digital tools, including the accused Invisalign Virtual Care AI platform and related apparatuses.

The central intellectual property at issue is U.S. Patent No. 10,755,409, titled "Method for analyzing an image of a dental arch." This patent generally describes a method for acquiring and analyzing an image of a patient's dental arch using a deep learning device, such as a neural network, to determine tooth or image attributes. A related patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,049,248, covering a method for assessing the shape of an orthodontic aligner using a deep learning device, was also involved in the underlying district court proceedings but 10755409 is the sole patent listed as at issue in the prompt.

The procedural posture of this case began in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where Dental Monitoring SAS filed a lawsuit in November 2022 against Align Technology, Inc. before Judge William Alsup. The district court, framing the matter as a "patent showdown," directed the parties to select representative claims for cross-motions for summary judgment. Align Technology chose claim 12 of the '409 patent. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment of ineligibility, finding the asserted claims, including those of the '409 patent, invalid as directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, concluding that the claims covered abstract ideas without an inventive concept. Dental Monitoring then appealed this decision to the Federal Circuit. On July 7, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming the district court's ruling that several patent claims, including those from the '409 patent, were invalid due to subject matter ineligibility.

This case is notable for its focus on patent eligibility under Section 101, particularly concerning deep learning and artificial intelligence in the medical and dental fields. The Federal Circuit's affirmation of ineligibility for claims related to AI-based dental image analysis highlights the ongoing challenges and scrutiny faced by software and AI patents. This decision provides further guidance on the evolving standards for patentability in rapidly advancing technological areas and underscores the importance of demonstrating an inventive concept beyond merely applying an abstract idea with generic computer hardware.

The patent infringement litigation concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,755,409 involves a district court case and a parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, both leading to appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcomes:

I. District Court Litigation (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 5:22-cv-07335)

• Filing of Complaint: On November 18, 2022, Dental Monitoring SAS filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Align Technology, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Dental Monitoring asserted infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,755,409; 11,049,248; and 11,109,945 by Align Technology's Invisalign Virtual Care AI platform and related apparatuses.
• Pre-trial Motions (Motion to Dismiss): Following the complaint, Align Technology filed a motion to dismiss. Dental Monitoring SAS filed its opposition to this motion on February 17, 2023.
• Summary Judgment on Patent Eligibility: In July 2023, the district court, presided over by Judge William Alsup, structured the case as a "patent showdown" and granted summary judgment, finding several patent claims, including those from U.S. Patent No. 10,755,409 and 11,049,248, invalid as directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For the '409 patent, the court specifically found independent claim 1 directed to the abstract idea of acquiring and analyzing an image and generating a message to guide a user.
• Appeal to Federal Circuit (CAFC Case No. 24-2270): Dental Monitoring SAS appealed the district court's summary judgment ruling. The appeal, docketed as Federal Circuit Case No. 24-2270, was filed on August 29, 2024.
• Federal Circuit Decision (District Court Appeal): On July 7, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment that the asserted patent claims, including those from U.S. Patent No. 10,755,409 and 11,049,248, were invalid as directed to ineligible subject matter under Section 101. Judge Lourie authored the opinion.

II. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (IPR2023-01369)

• IPR Petition Filing: On August 31, 2023, Align Technology Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition (IPR2023-01369) challenging the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 10,755,409 B2.
• Institution of IPR: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted the IPR proceeding on March 5, 2024.
• Final Written Decision (FWD): The PTAB issued its Final Written Decision on March 3, 2025, finding the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,755,409 B2 to be "Unpatentable."
• Appeal to Federal Circuit (CAFC Case No. 25-1752): The PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2023-01369 was appealed to the Federal Circuit under case number 25-1752. This appeal is currently active litigation.

Dental Monitoring SAS, the plaintiff-appellant in this patent infringement case, is represented by counsel from several prominent law firms, including Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, for the IPR appeal (25-1752) and by Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP for the district court appeal (24-2270).

For the appeal of the district court's summary judgment ruling (CAFC Case No. 24-2270), Dental Monitoring SAS's counsel included:

• Mark Andrew Perry (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Mr. Perry argued for Dental Monitoring SAS before the Federal Circuit.
• Adam W. Mitchell
  • Firm: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
  • Note: Also represented Dental Monitoring SAS.
• Caroline Voelker
  • Firm: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
  • Note: Also represented Dental Monitoring SAS.
• Rocco Joseph Recce
  • Firm: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
  • Office Location: New York, NY
  • Note: Also represented Dental Monitoring SAS.

For the active IPR appeal (CAFC Case No. 25-1752), the following attorneys are listed as representing Dental Monitoring SAS:

• Adrian Percer
  • Firm: Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
• Jaysen Chung
  • Firm: Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
• Andrew Blythe
  • Firm: Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
• Charlotte Jacobsen
  • Firm: Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
  • Note: Ms. Jacobsen was involved in filings related to claim construction in the underlying district court case.

Align Technology, Inc., as the appellee in the Federal Circuit case 25-1752, is represented by a team of experienced patent litigators.

Counsel of Record for Align Technology, Inc. (Appellee):

• Dan L. Bagatell (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP, Hanover, NH.
  • Note: Argued for Align Technology, Inc. in the related Federal Circuit appeal 24-2270.

• Hari Santhanam (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP, Chicago, IL.
  • Note: Filed an amended entry of appearance on August 27, 2025, in case 25-1752.

• Kaitlin Dryden (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP, Madison, WI.

• John H. Gray (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP, Phoenix, AZ.

Align Technology also had counsel from other firms in previous related proceedings:

• Joseph R. Re

  • Firm: Knobbe Martens, Irvine, CA.
  • Note: A nationally recognized trial attorney with extensive experience in high-stakes medical device patent litigation, including numerous appeals before the Federal Circuit. He has secured significant jury verdicts and settlements for clients.

• Richard S.J. Hung

  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Note: A registered patent lawyer, former Federal Circuit clerk, and seasoned IP trial lawyer with nearly 30 years of experience in patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret litigation. He has tried over a dozen cases to verdict or final award.

• Peter Kang

  • Role: Formerly a partner at Baker Botts LLP (Palo Alto, CA) and Sidley Austin, he joined the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as a Magistrate Judge in March 2023.
  • Note: Before becoming a judge, he was a first-chair patent and IP trial lawyer, having tried dozens of bench and jury trials, and represented clients before the PTAB.

• James R. Kyper

  • Firm: K&L Gates LLP, Pittsburgh, PA.
  • Note: Practices in IP Litigation.

• Julie Coletti (In-house counsel)

  • Role: Executive Vice President, Chief Legal and Regulatory Officer at Align Technology, Inc.
  • Note: Leads Align's legal, regulatory, and quality teams and has a strong background in medical technology, dental, and healthcare industries. She began her career in litigation.