Litigation

Align Technology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission et al.

reversed and remanded

2013-1240, 2013-1363

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Terminated: 2014-07-18

Patents at issue (3)

Plaintiffs (1)

π Align Technology, Inc.

Defendants (7)

Summary

Appeal from the ITC's ClearCorrect enforcement proceeding. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded on procedural grounds, holding the ITC exceeded its authority by reviewing an ALJ's order denying a motion to terminate. The narrative treats the '840 patent connection as family-level and unconfirmed; the enforcement dispute is described as involving the 2006 Consent Order and the '880 and '511 patents.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 6629840-2013-1240-2013-1363 · edit in Admin

Further reading

Obviousness under § 103
Most patented inventions are combinations of existing ideas. The modern KSR standard makes those combinations easier to attack than they used to be.
Patent law glossary
Sixty-plus patent-law terms, defined in one or two sentences each, with a link to the deeper article. The universal landing pad when an article uses a term you don't know.
Patent reviews: IPR, PGR, and reexamination
Suing in district court to invalidate a patent costs $3-5M and takes years. The USPTO's post-grant review system does it for $200-500k and 12-18 months. For a defendant facing a weak patent, the choice is usually obvious.
The Patent Scam (2017): a documentary on the patent troll industry
Most people learn about patent trolls only when they get sued by one. The Patent Scam does the work of making the problem concrete before that happens.
KSR International v. Teleflex (2007)
Pre-KSR, an obviousness rejection required explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art. Post-KSR, common sense, design needs, and predictable variations all do the work — and most patents don't survive.

All resources →