CAO Group, Inc. v. Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc.

I'll research this case systematically across the sources you named.

Key facts are emerging. Let me dig into the patents, the current 2026 posture, and IPR activity.

Now let me pin down the 2026 procedural posture, the patent expiry question, and any PTAB activity.

Case Overview — CAO Group, Inc. v. Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01430 (D. Del.)

The parties. CAO Group, Inc. is a Utah corporation headquartered at 4628 West Skyhawk Drive, West Jordan, Utah, founded in 2000 by Dr. Densen Cao (Ph.D., materials science, University of Utah) and described in its own pleadings as holding more than 190 issued patents and published applications worldwide, including foundational LED dental curing-light technology and a professional whitening-strip line marketed as Sheer White! (distributed through Henry Schein) and, more recently, Lumist direct-to-consumer strips. Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies CAO as a "Product company" rather than a PAE — a characterization consistent with its 60,000 sq.-ft. West Jordan R&D/manufacturing facility and its commercial product marking. Defendant Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc. is the U.S. operating subsidiary of Ivoclar Vivadent AG of Schaan, Liechtenstein, one of the largest global dental manufacturers (direct restoratives, prosthetics, ceramics such as IPS e.max, furnaces/milling units, and a professional whitening line sold under the VivaStyle brand). In short: this is an operating company–versus–operating company dispute between a small Utah dental/LED innovator and a Liechtenstein-based dental multinational, not an NPE campaign.

The accused product and the patents. The sole accused instrumentality identified in the complaint is Ivoclar's VivaStyle Teeth Whitening Strips — an at-home, 6% hydrogen peroxide strip system (28 strips / 14 treatments) whose ingredient panel lists PVPK30 and PVPK90, distilled water, and hydrogen peroxide, and whose instructions direct the user to press the strip to the gum line and fold it over the lingual surfaces (complaint analysis, ¶¶57–70). All five asserted patents — US 10,602,259 ('259, "Peroxide Gel Composition," issued Mar. 31, 2020), 10,646,419 ('419), 11,219,582 ('582, issued Jan. 11, 2022), 11,826,444 ('444, issued Nov. 28, 2023) and 11,826,445 ('445, issued Nov. 28, 2023) — are continuations from a single family tracing to Application No. 11/307,463, filed February 8, 2006, naming Steven D. Jensen (a longtime CAO chemist, formerly of Ultradent) and Dr. Cao. In one line each: the '259 claims a packaged dental bleaching device — a flexible, water-insoluble backing strip carrying a dried, gelatinous, viscoelastic composition of peroxide, water and a poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline)/PVP thickener present in a greater weight amount than the water, conformable to adjacent teeth without cracking; the '419 refines that device with a planar strip and an added "adhesive properties" limitation so the dried gel adheres to tooth surfaces after removal from the package; the '582 claims the same architecture where the dried composition is "gelatinous, non-coalescent, and visco-elastic" so that composition and backing "flex and conform to a user's dental arch without cracking or breaking"; and the '444/'445 are near-duplicate siblings of the '582 differing principally in claim format (device vs. composition-in-planar-strip form, with the '444 independent claim 3 reciting a whitening agent and dependent claim 5 adding "peroxide"). CAO pleads willfulness, alleging Ivoclar learned of the allowed '444 claims no later than April 2, 2024 correspondence from CAO and continued to sell anyway.

Procedural posture and why it matters. Filed November 24, 2025 in the District of Delaware with a jury demand, the case was assigned to Judge Colm F. Connolly; the Rule 7.1 statement lists no parent or affiliate for CAO, and service on Ivoclar was effected the same day as filing (consistent with registered-agent service on a Delaware-organized U.S. subsidiary, though I could not confirm Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc.'s state of incorporation from public filings). Delaware was a deliberate plaintiff's choice here: it is the leading patent venue, CAO is not at home there (its prior campaigns ran in D. Utah and N.D. Ill.), and Judge Connolly runs a disciplined schedule with a standing briefing order (D.I. 7) and a well-known practice of scrutinizing litigation-funding and real-party-in-interest disclosures in patent cases. The docket since filing: answer deadline extended twice (D.I. 9, to Jan. 30, 2026), answer and counterclaims filed March 13, 2026, a scheduling order entered March 19, 2026, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with opening brief filed April 2, 2026, and a stipulation to extend that terminated the scheduling hearing on April 8, 2026 (Justia docket; aggregated docket). Defense counsel of record is Stamatios Stamoulis (Delaware) with Dan Yao and Stephen F.W. Bell, Jr. admitted pro hac vice; CAO is represented by Randall J. Teti and Andrew Colin Mayo. Notably, one third-party aggregator lists the case status as "Closed," which I could not verify against PACER or any settlement/dismissal order — treat that as an open question requiring a PACER pull.

Why it is notable — and what remains unsourced. Three things make this case worth tracking. First, it is the anchor of a broader, fast-moving CAO enforcement wave over the same 2006-priority strip family: a declaratory-judgment action brought against CAO by Ranir LLC in D. Utah (No. 2:24-cv-00498) covering store-brand strips sold under Equate, CVS Health, Kroger, Walgreens and Meijer; a series of N.D. Ill. "Schedule A" e-commerce suits (1:24-cv-01211, 1:24-cv-04903, 1:24-cv-05129, 1:25-cv-14512) yielding TROs, preliminary injunctions and a $1.65M trebled default judgment against GD-Whitening; and a September 25, 2026 damages suit against HiSmile Pty Ltd. (N.D. Ill. 1:26-cv-11795) over the '444 patent alone. Second, the timing is driven by patent-term expiry: CAO's own HiSmile complaint pleads that the '444 patent "expired on or about February 8, 2026," i.e., twenty years from the 2006 priority filing — meaning the Ivoclar case was filed roughly ten weeks before the family's term ran out and is, in practical terms, a past-damages case rather than an injunction case, and the '444/'445 continuations granted in 2023 have an unusually short commercial tail. That expiry dynamic, plus the fact that CAO has pursued years of continuation filings off a 2006 specification, is the most legally consequential feature of the dispute. Third, the merits will likely turn on the patents' lexicographic definition of "gelatinous" — the specification defines it as viscoelastic and non-coalescent, with a bespoke beaker test at 25 °C and 1 ATM — so claim construction of a self-defined term, and whether VivaStyle's dried gel reads on it, will dominate; Ivoclar's likely invalidity theories run through that same family-wide specification and the 2006 priority claim. Sourcing caveats: I found no PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR) on any of these five patents in the searches available, but that search was truncated and should be re-run against the PTAB docketing system (and against Ranir/Perrigo filings) before being reported as a confirmed absence. I also could not verify the subject matter of Ivoclar's March 2026 counterclaims or the specific target of the April 2, 2026 motion to dismiss (whether directed at those counterclaims or at the complaint), nor any settlement; and revenue/market-share figures for Ivoclar circulating online date to 2015 and should not be relied on for current market context.

I'll research this case across the docket, court opinions, and PTAB records.

Initial docket data gathered. Now let me dig into later 2026 events and any PTAB proceedings.

Let me check CourtListener and the docket aggregator for the 2026 timeline, plus the parallel GuruNanda case and any PTAB activity.

Bottom line

This is a young, single-defendant, five-patent case that has not moved past the pleadings stage. As of the last docket activity I could verify (2026‑04‑08), there had been no Markman hearing, no summary-judgment practice, no discovery order milestone, no trial, and no confirmed IPR/PGR. The only substantive contested filing is a Rule 12(b)(6)-type motion filed 2026‑04‑02. One third-party aggregator flags the docket as "Closed," but I could not corroborate that with a dismissal order, settlement notice, or judgment entry, so I treat the present posture as unverified/unresolved (see §7).

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Substance of the complaint (verified from the pleading itself, analysis mirror):

• Patents: 10,602,259; 10,646,419; 11,219,582; 11,826,444; 11,826,445 — all "Peroxide Gel Composition," same family, shared 2006‑02‑08 priority; specifications described as "substantively identical." '259 issued 2020‑03‑31 from App. 15/488,293; '444/'445 both issued 2023‑11‑28 from the 17/659,473→18/049,843 continuation chain.
• Accused product: a single product line — Ivoclar's **VivaStyle Teeth

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiff in this case.

Initial results give me a docket trail. Let me dig into the Justia docket page and identify plaintiff's counsel.

Bottom line

I could only confirm one plaintiff-side attorney of record from the sources I was able to retrieve, and I hit a research/tool limit before I could verify the full attorney panel. Rather than guess at the rest of the team, here is what is grounded and what is not.

---

Confirmed counsel of record for Plaintiff CAO Group, Inc.

Andrew C. Mayo — Delaware/local counsel

• Firm / office: Ashby & Geddes, P.A., 500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor, P.O. Box 1150, Wilmington, DE 19899-1150.
• Role: Delaware counsel (the only plaintiff-side signature I can tie directly to the docket).
• Docket basis: D.E. 6, Summons Returned Executed by CAO Group, Inc. (filed 11/24/2025), signed "(Mayo, Andrew)" — per the Justia docket transcript (dockets.justia.com, 1:25-cv-01430).
• Experience note: Director in Ashby & Geddes' IP group (there since 2010), Chambers USA Band 2 for Intellectual Property–Delaware, IAM Patent 1000, Lawdragon 500; past president of the Delaware Chapter of the Federal Bar Association; career centered on serving as Delaware counsel in patent/Hatch-Waxman disputes (firm bio; Chambers profile). His name appears as Delaware counsel in other D. Del. patent matters (e.g., C.A. No. 21-1698-MN docket; Genentech matters reported by Law.com).

---

Not confirmed — and why

1. Lead / trial counsel (the referring, out-of-state firm) is not identified in any source I retrieved.
The Justia party block for this case is truncated in the indexed version at "Represented By: | Randall J." and I was unable to load the full page to see whose entry that belongs to. I am not asserting a "Randall J. ___" as plaintiff's counsel — the fragment is ambiguous (it could attach to either party's block) and I could not corroborate it. Treat it as an open question, not a finding.

2. No plaintiff-side pro hac vice motion appears in the docket I retrieved.
The docket through 12/23/2025 shows only one PHV motion — D.E. 10 (filed 12/17/2025 by defendant Ivoclar for Dan Yao and Stephen F.W. Bell, Jr.), granted 12/18/2025, with defendant's Delaware counsel being Stamatios Stamoulis (D.E. 8, Notice of Appearance, 12/14/2025). A later docket-event summary shows an "Appear Pro Hac Vice" entry in April 2026 (via open-public-records.com), but that page does not identify the attorney or the sponsoring party, so it may be plaintiff-side or a substitution on defendant's side.

3. The docket I could retrieve is stale relative to today's date (2026-11-03).
Justia's last retrieval is 12/23/2025. The secondary docket summary shows activity through at least April 8, 2026 (answer + counterclaim 3/13/2026; scheduling order 3/19/2026; motion to dismiss briefing 4/2/2026; stipulation/so-ordered 4/8/2026). Counsel rosters frequently change at exactly those junctures (e.g., addition of trial counsel, substitution of local counsel), so the current panel is very likely broader than what I can document. One aggregator also labels the case "Closed," which conflicts with your metadata's "pending" — I could not reconcile that.

4. Unverified leads, explicitly flagged as NOT confirmed for this case.
CAO Group has been represented in other litigation by D. Bradley Kizzia / Kizzia Johnson PLLC (Dallas/Utah) and, in its N.D. Ill. Schedule A e-commerce cases, by Nicholas S. Lee and related Chicago counsel, with Sameeul Haque appearing as client-side declarant (N.D. Ill. 1:25-cv-12503 docket; CourtListener N.D. Ill. 1:24-cv-01211). These are pattern-based inferences about who might be behind the D. Del. filing — I have no evidence any of them entered an appearance here, and they should not be reported as counsel of record.

No sealed filings affecting the appearance list were identified.

---

How to close the gap

The authoritative answer is the attorney panel on the PACER docket sheet for C.A. No. 1:25-cv-01430-CFC (Delaware), plus the signature blocks on D.E. 1 (Complaint) and the briefing on the pending motion to dismiss (opening brief 4/2/2026). Pulling the current docket report will also reveal any plaintiff-side PHV admissions granted after December 2025, which is where lead trial counsel would appear. If you want, I can run that follow-up pass and reconcile the "closed vs. pending" discrepancy at the same time.

I'll search for the docket and counsel information.

I have the core docket entries. Now let me identify the firms for the pro hac vice attorneys and check for later appearances.

Bottom line

Defendant Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc. appeared through one Delaware local counsel plus two out-of-state attorneys admitted pro hac vice in December 2025. The local counsel is confirmed on the docket with a high degree of confidence as to his firm; the two PHV attorneys are confirmed as to name and admission by docket entries, but their firm affiliations are not verified — the Justia docket snapshot I could retrieve stops at 12/23/2025 and does not reproduce the text of the PHV motion or the later answer, which are where firm names would appear. Details below, with confidence levels flagged.

---

Counsel of record for Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc.

Docketing caution: the docket itself is internally inconsistent on No. 3 — the PHV motion title reads "Stephen F.W. Bell, Jr." while the fee-payment entry reads "Stephen F.W. Ball, Jr." The existence of a real Boston patent litigator named Ball (not "Bell") at Husch Blackwell suggests "Ball" is correct and the motion caption was a clerical error, but this should be resolved against the actual D.I. 10 PDF.

---

Appearance chronology (what the record shows)

Two things I could not pin down and would need PACER for: (a) whether an additional pro hac vice appearance occurred in April 2026 (a third-party docket aggregator shows an "[Appear Pro Hac Vice]" event in that month, which could be a new Ivoclar PHV attorney or a CAO-side admission); and (b) who filed the April 2, 2026 motion to dismiss — after an answer and counterclaim, that is more likely a motion against Ivoclar's counterclaims than a motion by Ivoclar, so do not attribute it to the defendant without checking.

---

What is not established

• No in-house counsel for Ivoclar appears anywhere in the retrieved docket. Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc. is a U.S. subsidiary of the Liechtenstein-based Ivoclar Vivadent AG; in-house or parent-company IP counsel, if involved, have not entered an appearance.
• No "of counsel" designations are visible. D. Del. practice does not require formal "lead counsel" designation, so the "lead vs. local" characterization above is inferential: the Delaware attorney is the mandatory filer under L.R. 83.5(d), and the two PHV attorneys are the substantive/out-of-state team. It is possible Yao, not Ball, is first-chair — the PHV motion does not rank them.
• Firm for Dan Yao is entirely unverified. Any firm name you see attached to him in a secondary source should be treated as unconfirmed until matched to D.I. 10.
• Content of the Answer/Counterclaim (3/13/2026) and the PHV motion exhibits was not retrievable; those documents would resolve both the Ball/Bell spelling and all firm affiliations.

Suggested verification path: pull D.I. 8 (Stamoulis signature block — confirms firm), D.I. 10 and its attachments (declarations of Yao and Ball/Bell, which state firm, address, and bar admissions), and the 3/13/2026 Answer/Counterclaim signature blocks. Also confirm whether Ivoclar filed a Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure identifying its parent, which would clarify the AG/subsidiary relationship.