US 7056115

I'll search for this specific patent number and check for any CAFC 2026 docket activity.

Let me search more specifically for CAFC activity and any litigation involving this patent.

Let me check for any Federal Circuit 2026 appeal involving the 3Shape litigation and confirm no other activity.

US Patent 7,056,115 B2 — Analyst Summary

Retrieval note: I searched for US 7,056,115 specifically. No CAFC docket (2026 or otherwise) or USPTO proceeding specifically naming the '115 patent appeared in the search results. I flag this as a genuine "not found" rather than a negative. The 2026 Federal Circuit dental activity involving Align Technology concerns different patents (11,049,248; 11,109,945; 10,755,409 — the Dental Monitoring SAS line of cases), which are unrelated to the '115 patent. I also note a caution: there is a JP 7056115 B2, but that is a Japanese patent number (a suspension device for Isuzu) and is a distinct identifier from US 7,056,115.

Bibliographic Data (per Google Patents / FreePatentsOnline)

Continuation family (all sharing the Feb. 26, 2003 priority date): 10/375,223 (abandoned) → 10/870,808 ('115) → 11/297,129 (US 8,496,473) → 13/620,209 (US 8,734,149) → 14/268,976 (US 9,204,942) → 14/931,681 (US 9,433,479) → 15/216,171 (US 10,874,487) → 16/732,120 (US 2020/0129271 A1, abandoned).

Abstract (verbatim)

"A dental template to position an object on a patient's tooth includes digitizing the patient's tooth; adding virtual objects to predetermined locations on the digitized tooth; and fabricating the dental template to locate the object on the patient's tooth. The template can be used for etching or for positioning brackets on teeth."

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

The '115 patent has 28 claims, with five independent claims (1, 9, 17, 18, 28). The recurring inventive core is: model the tooth → place virtual orthodontic object(s) → scale the model and superimpose it over the original → fabricate a template that locates the object at the designed position. The scaling/superimposition step creates an offset shell that becomes the template.

Claim 1 — Method of fabricating a dental template to position an object on a tooth.
Create a model of the patient's tooth; add objects at predetermined locations on the tooth model; scale the tooth model to produce a scaled model; superimpose the scaled model over the original model; and fabricate the dental template so it locates the object on the tooth. (The scaled/superimposed model is what forms the offset geometry of the template.)

Claim 9 — Method of placing an orthodontic object on a tooth (object mounted through the template).
Digitize the patient's tooth; add a virtual object at a predetermined location on the digitized tooth; scale the digitized tooth; superimpose the scaled tooth over the digital tooth; fabricate a template to locate the orthodontic object on the tooth; place the template on the tooth; mount the orthodontic object on the tooth using the template; and bond the object to the tooth. (This is the "guide" workflow — the template directs placement.)

Claim 17 — Method of placing an orthodontic object on a tooth (object pre-loaded in the template).
Same modeling/scaling/superimposition/fabrication steps as claim 9, but then: place the orthodontic object in the template, insert the template (with the object) onto the tooth, and bond the object to the tooth. (This is the indirect-bonding-style workflow.)

Claim 18 — Method of fabricating a dental template to position a plurality of objects on a patient's teeth.
Digitize at least some of the teeth; add virtual objects to locations on at least two teeth; scale the digitized teeth; superimpose the scaled teeth over the digital teeth; and fabricate a template to locate the orthodontic objects on the teeth. (Broadens the approach from one tooth to a multi-tooth/arch application.) Dependent claims 19–27 add: pre-loading objects in the tray and bonding (19); scaling by ~5%–50% (20); rapid prototyping (21); articulated template bodies with a connecting member, e.g., a thermoformed elastomeric layer (22–24); and masking tooth-covering portions and adding a rigidifying agent with a flexibility agent in inter-tooth portions, using 3-D printing (25–27).

Claim 28 — Method of etching one or more of a patient's teeth.
Digitize at least some teeth; determine on the digitized teeth which portions are to be etched; scale the digitized teeth; superimpose the scaled teeth over the digital teeth; fabricate a template with one or more openings that locate the portions to be etched; place the template on the teeth; and etch the teeth through the openings. (The same offset-template concept repurposed as an etching mask.)

Summary / Notes of Uncertainty

• Confident findings: Title, application/filing/issue/priority dates, inventors, assignee, abstract, claim set, and expired status are all corroborated across Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, Justia, and the patent's own continuation-family documents.
• Litigation (historical, not CAFC-2026): The '115 patent appears (per the Stanford NPE Litigation Database) in Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S et al., No. 1:17-cv-01647 (D. Del.) — Align as a product-company asserter. I could not retrieve the substantive outcome of that case from the available results, and I found no evidence of a 2026 CAFC appeal specifically docketing the '115 patent. Treat the absence of a CAFC-2026 hit as "not found in my search," not as proof that none exists.
• Date discrepancy: Your prompt states the current date as April 26, 2026, while search results I retrieved include material dated through August 2026. I did not resolve this conflict; the bibliographic facts above are stable regardless.
• Do not confuse US 7,056,115 with JP 7056115 B2 (unrelated Japanese patent).

Sources consulted: Google Patents (US7056115B2), FreePatentsOnline 7056115, Justia Patents, the '115 continuation documents (US 9,433,479 / US 10,874,487), Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry 7056115, and CAFC 2026 opinions/orders (Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology — different patents).

I'll research litigation involving US patent 7056115 through several sources.

Let me dig deeper into the specific cases and other litigation databases.

Let me check additional sources for any other cases involving this patent.

Known Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 7,056,115

Bottom line

Based on my searches of the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, CourtListener, Docket Alarm, Justia/UniCourt dockets, Align investor filings, and industry press, I found one (1) affirmative patent‑infringement lawsuit in which U.S. Patent No. 7,056,115 ("the '115 patent") was expressly asserted, plus related proceedings in the same dispute. I found no CAFC appeal and no other district‑court or ITC case in which the '115 patent itself was asserted. I was not able to directly query PACER, so this list is limited to publicly indexed records.

1. Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S, 3Shape Trios A/S, and 3Shape, Inc.

Procedural history of the '115 patent in this case

• Claim construction (June 6, 2019), C.A. No. 17‑1647‑LPS‑CJB: The court construed "scale/scaling/scaled digital teeth" (claims 18 and 20 of the '115 patent) and "virtual object(s)" (claim 18 of the '115 patent). The court rejected 3Shape's proposed "isotropic" limitation and found no construction necessary for "scaling," and rejected Align's attempt to limit "virtual objects" to "virtual orthodontic appliances."
• Summary judgment briefing (brief filed Feb. 19, 2020, D.I. 315): 3Shape moved for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112(1) (written description/enablement) or, in the alternative, non‑infringement of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,734,149 and 7,056,115.
• Summary judgment ruling (Oct. 8, 2020, D. Del., C.A. No. 17‑1647‑LPS): The court denied 3Shape's motion, finding genuine issues of material fact on written description and holding 3Shape failed to meet its clear‑and‑convincing burden on enablement/non‑infringement (including rejecting the "offsetting" disclaimer theory). Notably, 3Shape conceded that if its construction of "scaling" were adopted, Align could not prove infringement.
• Settlement: Align and 3Shape entered a confidential global settlement of their patent‑infringement and antitrust litigation (announced in the trade press), which disposed of the Delaware and related Texas actions.

Related proceedings in the same dispute (context — NOT separate assertions of the '115 patent)

• Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S et al., No. 6:20‑cv‑00979 (W.D. Tex., Judge Alan Albright), filed Oct. 19, 2020 — a related Align infringement action against 3Shape; stayed pending settlement and closed. I could not confirm from the indexed docket excerpts whether the '115 patent was among the patents asserted in this Texas action, so I do not list it as a confirmed '115 assertion.
• 3Shape A/S et al. v. Align Technology, Inc., No. 1:20‑cv‑01492‑LPS (D. Del.), filed Nov. 2, 2020 — a declaratory‑judgment/antitrust action brought by 3Shape against Align. It concerned Align patents other than '115 (e.g., 9,101,433; 10,728,519; 10,791,934; 10,791,936; 10,709,527).
• ITC investigations (Inv. Nos. 337‑TA‑1090, ‑1091, ‑1144) were filed by Align against 3Shape in Nov. 2017, but the publicly reported asserted patents in those investigations were directed to intraoral scanning/color technology — not the '115 patent. No violation was found in any of the three.
• Interactive PTAB proceedings (IPRs): 3Shape filed numerous IPR petitions against Align patents in this dispute period. I did not find a confirmed IPR petition or institution specifically against the '115 patent; I cannot rule one out without direct PTAB docket access.

2. Cases I checked and did NOT find asserting the '115 patent

• Ormco / AOA litigation against Align (e.g., involving Align's U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,398,548 and 6,544,611 and Ormco's 6,616,444) — different patents, not '115.
• OrthoClear matters and the subsequent Weber class action — not '115.
• ITC Investigation No. 337‑TA‑1223 / Align v. ClearCorrect (No. 6:24‑cv‑00424, W.D. Tex.) — asserted Align patents such as 10,973,613; 11,154,384; 11,648,090; 11,648,091; 8,038,444; 10,456,217; 10,524,879; 11,369,456; 10,791,936 — not the '115 patent.
• Align v. Angelalign / Angelalign v. Align (U.S. ITC and E.D. Tex. No. 2:25‑cv‑00804, filed Aug. 18, 2025, plus UPC and Chinese actions) — directed to multilayer material, bite‑ramp, and power‑ridge patents — not the '115 patent.

I found no CAFC opinion, appeal, or Rule 36 disposition involving the '115 patent specifically.

Sources consulted

• Stanford NPE Litigation Database, patent 7056115: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/7056115 (lists exactly one case: Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S et al, 1:17‑cv‑01647, D. Del., asserter category "8 Product company")
• Align Technology press release, Nov. 14, 2017 (lists 7,056,115 | Systems and methods for fabricating a dental template among 26 asserted patents): https://investor.aligntech.com/index.php/news-releases/news-release-details/align-technology-files-six-patent-infringement-lawsuits
• 3Shape/Align settlement reporting: https://www.dentalproductsreport.com/view/align-and-3shape-settle-patent-infringement-and-antitrust-litigation
• 3Shape MSJ brief, D.I. 315, C.A. No. 1:17‑cv‑01647‑LPS (Feb. 19, 2020) (SJ of invalidity/non‑infringement of U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,734,149 and 7,056,115): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Delaware_District_Court/1--17-cv-01647/Align_Technology_Inc._v._3Shape_A-S_et_al/docs/315.pdf
• Claim construction / SJ rulings: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[9634072](/patent/9634072)/align-technology-inc-v-3shape-as/ and http://g.casetext.com/case/align-tech-inc-v-3shape-as
• Related W.D. Tex. docket (No. 6:20‑cv‑00979): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2020cv00979/[1111294](/patent/1111294)
• ITC § 337 publications and 3Shape/Aligntech press releases on Invs. 1090/1091/1144: https://www.3shape.com/en-us/press/2019/3shape-wins-once-again-in-the-itc-align-technology-vs-3shape ; https://www.usitc.gov/publications/337/pub5300.pdf
• Align SEC filings (10‑Q/10‑K) describing 3Shape, Ormco, OrthoClear, ClearCorrect, and Angelalign disputes.

Caveats

• Patent numbering was interpreted literally. I confirmed that "7,056,115" corresponds to US 7,056,115 B2, "Systems and methods for fabricating a dental template," Align Technology, Inc., filed June 17, 2004, granted June 6, 2006, priority Feb. 26, 2003, now expired (adjusted expiration April 16, 2023). This is distinct from any similarly numbered patents (e.g., 6,544,611) that appear in Align's other litigation.
• Filing date note: Align's press campaign and the D. Del. docket reflect a November 14, 2017 filing date. Some databases list "11/14/17"; the Google Patents "family litigation" indicator simply confirms litigation exists for this family.
• I could not independently verify PACER or the full CAFC docket, so a closed or sealed case asserting the '115 patent may exist that is not publicly indexed. If you need certainty, a PACER/PTAB docket pull on the '115 patent and its family members (e.g., US 8,734,149; US 8,496,473) is the appropriate next step.
• Settlement terms in Align v. 3Shape are confidential; the public record does not disclose any outcome specific to the '115 patent beyond the denial of 3Shape's summary‑judgment motion and the subsequent global settlement.

I'll start by searching for any PTAB proceedings or related litigation on this patent.

Let me do more targeted searches on the litigation flag and any proceedings.

Let me do a final check for any IPR/PGR specifically naming this patent, including via its continuation.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 7,056,115: 0. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal) returns no AIA trial proceedings, and my web searches surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming this patent — so the on-file count is zero: no active proceedings, no claim cancellations, no institution denials, no PTAB settlements. The bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB-forged invalidity judgment to lean on, but the § 315(b) one-year window and IPR-eligibility clock have effectively run — the patent expired (adjusted expiration 2023-04-16) and was only ever litigated in district court (Align v. 3Shape, D. Del.), not at the Board. A PTAB-based defense is not the tool here; the patent's expiration and its district-court treatment are.

A note on diligence: the ODP list is canonical per my instructions, and web search corroborates it. I could not run a live PTAB E2E docket query (search steps exhausted), so treat this as "no activity found" rather than a certified null. The absence is itself meaningful — see Strategic summary.

Proceedings on US 7,056,115

None on file. There is no IPR/PGR/CBM to report, so there is no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, no panel, no settlement, and no Federal Circuit appeal to detail for this patent.

The one trial-adjacent event: Align v. 3Shape (district court, not PTAB)

Because there is no PTAB record, the only "what actually happened" story is the district-court case in which this patent was asserted:

• Case: Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S, 3Shape TRIOS A/S, and 3Shape, Inc., C.A. No. 1:17-cv-01647-LPS(-CJB), D. Del.
• Assertion of the '115 patent: Align's 2017-11-14 press release lists U.S. Patent No. 7,056,115 "Systems and methods for fabricating a dental template" among 26 patents asserted against 3Shape. (Align press release)
• Claim construction (2019-06-06): The court construed disputed terms in the '115 family, including "scale/scaling/scaled digital teeth" (claims 18 and 20 of the '115 patent) — it declined to read in an "isotropic" limitation — and "virtual object(s)" (claim 18 of the '115 patent), refusing to narrow it to "virtual orthodontic appliances." (Casetext, Align v. 3Shape, 2019-06-06)
• Invalidity/non-infringement motion (2020-02-19): 3Shape moved for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112(1) or, alternatively, non-infringement of the asserted claims of the '115 and '149 patents, arguing (i) Align's construction of "scaling" lacked written description, contradicted prosecution history, and did not read on 3Shape's products, and (ii) the asserted patents did not sufficiently describe/enable the full claimed template. (D.I. 315)
• Summary judgment ruling (2020-10-08): The court denied 3Shape's § 112 and non-infringement summary-judgment motions on the '115/'149 patents, finding genuine issues of material fact (e.g., Align's expert declaration on "offsetting"/scaling was unrebutted; 3Shape's enablement showing was conclusory). (Casetext, Align Tech. v. 3Shape A/S, 2020-10-08)

I did not locate a final judgment, settlement, or appeal disposition specific to the '115 patent, and I won't speculate where the record is silent.

Defensive value: The '115 patent's validity was tested purely in district court under § 112 — and Align beat back the early challenge. So there is no claim-level invalidation to hand a defendant.

Strategic summary

Claim status — CANCELED / SUSTAINED / UNTESTED. For this patent there is nothing canceled and nothing sustained at the Board, because no AIA trial ever issued. All claims are UNTESTED at the PTAB. The only claim-level narrowing that exists came from district-court claim construction (e.g., "scaling" read not to require isotropic scaling; "virtual object" not limited to a virtual appliance), not from any institution or Final Written Decision. Align's asserted claims survived 3Shape's § 112 challenge on summary judgment, so a defendant cannot point to a PTAB FWD and say "claim 1 is dead" — that record simply does not exist.

Estoppel landscape — moot in the PTAB sense, live in the practical sense. Because no IPR/PGR was ever instituted or terminated, § 315(e)(2) estoppel never attached to any party. That technically means no prior-art ground is foreclosed to a defendant by operation of § 315(e). But the doctrinally clean point is a trap: the patent expired with adjusted expiration 2023-04-16 (priority 2003-02-26; "Expired - Lifetime" per the ODP record). You cannot seek IPR of an expired patent to obtain amended claims, and, practically, the remaining exposure is backward-looking damages subject to the § 286 six-year bar — not an ongoing-injunction fight. For any live assertion of a related family member, estoppel would be assessed separately, since estoppel attaches per proceeding and per patent.

Pattern signals. Several things are notable:

• No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX) IPR on the '115 patent — surprising for an Align portfolio patent, and consistent with the universe of Align IPRs being concentrated elsewhere. The ClearCorrect/Aalign IPRs (e.g., IPR2016-00270 against U.S. 6,699,037, and the 2025 ClearCorrect v. Align IPR2025-00814/-00815/-00816/-00817/-00818/-00819/-00820/-00821 set) involve different patents, not the '115.
• The patent owner (Align) litigated here, and instead of filing IPRs, 3Shape fought validity in district court — a § 112/claim-construction strategy, not an IPR strategy. That is consistent with 3Shape (the alleged infringer) trying to invalidate on indefiniteness/disclosure rather than prior art, which is not an IPR-eligible ground.
• This patent has been relied on as a provenanced family anchor — the same 2003-02-26 priority family spawned US 7,658,610, 8,496,473, 8,734,149, 9,204,942, 9,433,479, and 10,874,487. Assertions and validity attacks on those siblings should be tracked as a proxy for the family's strength.

Recommended next steps

• There is no PTAB activity to leverage or link. State it plainly in any opinion work: no IPR, PGR, or CBM is on file for US 7,056,115, and none was located via web search. Do not cite an FWD — there is none.
• Lead with expiration, not PTAB. The patent's adjusted expiration was 2023-04-16. Any current demand letter resting on the '115 patent is asserting an expired patent; the viable theory is past damages only, bounded by 35 U.S.C. § 286 (six-year lookback from filing of suit). That is a far stronger and cleaner defense than an IPR.
• If you face the sibling family (8734149, 8496473, 9204942, 9433479, 10874487), treat it as a separate patent. IPR eligibility, § 315(b) timing, and estoppel all run per patent — check whether any of those siblings have their own IPR history before relying on this "zero" result.
• If any live pre-expiration dispute remains, note the PTAB statutory clock would have mattered: a petition must be filed within one year of service of a § 315(b)–triggering complaint, institution decision is due within ~6 months of filing, and any FWD within one year of institution (35 U.S.C. § 316). Those windows closed long ago for the 2017 Align v. 3Shape service.
• Confirm with a primary source before relying on this. Run the PTAB E2E / Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End docket and the USPTO Patent Center "Proceedings" tab for application 10/870,808, and check CourtListener for any Align v. 3Shape Federal Circuit appeal implicating the '115 patent. My searches did not surface any, but the ODP ingest date and the search-step limit mean this should be verified before it is relied on in a filing.

Ownership & Assignment Reconstruction — US 7,056,115 B2

Patent: US 7,056,115 B2 — "Systems and methods for fabricating a dental template"
App. No.: 10/870,808 · filed 2004-06-17 · priority 2003-02-26 (continuation of 10/375,223, filed 2003-02-26, now abandoned) · granted 2006-06-06
Current assignee of record: Align Technology, Inc. (per Google Patents legal events)
Status: Expired – Lifetime; adjusted expiration 2023-04-16

Sourcing note / limitation: I do not have direct query access to USPTO Assignment Center. The assignment data below is taken from the Google Patents legal-events record for US 7,056,115 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7056115/en), cross-checked against FreePatentsOnline and USPTO/PTAB documents for Align family members. I could not retrieve the reel/frame number or the named recording correspondent for the single recorded assignment, and I will not invent them. Verify at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "7056115").

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• No fire-sale pattern. The inventors' rights were assigned to the operating company, not to any third party, and four of the five names recur in Align's later portfolio.
• One mild outlier worth flagging: Huafeng Wen appears as the named assignee on his own 2003-priority Align-citing application US 2005/0064360 A1 ("Systems and methods for combination treatments of dental patients"), i.e., a personal filing alongside his Align work (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7056115/en, Cited By table). That is a personal-filing observation, not evidence of a transfer of the '115 patent out of Align.
• I could not independently verify departure dates for Knopp, Phan or Abolfathi within 12 months of filing, and I will not assert one. There is no record of any inventor-originated transfer of US 7,056,115 to a third party.

Original assignee

Align Technology, Inc. (San Jose, CA; at the time of grant, ~2560 Orchard Parkway).

• Primary line of business: clear-aligner orthodontics — the Invisalign system — plus the iTero intraoral scanner line; NASDAQ-listed (ALGN). A public operating company, not a holding vehicle.
• Does it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. US 7,056,115 claims methods of fabricating a dental template (scale tooth model → superimpose scaled over original → cavity the original in the scaled model → fabricate template) whose commercial descendant is Align's indirect-bonding / attachment-placement template workflow; Align asserted the patent as a product-company plaintiff in Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S et al., 1:17-cv-01647 (D. Del., filed 2017-11-14) (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/7056115).
• Current status: Operating, litigating, and actively filing. Family continuations US 8,496,473; US 8,734,149; US 9,204,942; US 9,433,479; and US 10,874,487, plus publication US 2020/0129271 (abandoned), are all Align-owned. No bankruptcy, no dissolution, no acquisition of the assignee.
• Consequence: Because the patent itself expired 2023-04-16, its present assertion value is nil, but throughout the 2017–2020 3Shape litigation it was a live Align asset.

Assignment timeline

Only one assignment is of record. There is no post-issuance transfer of US 7,056,115 to any holding company, licensing vehicle, or defensive aggregator.

• Executed date not surfaced / recorded 2004-11-10 — Reel not retrieved from the source (Assignment Center lookup required for the reel/frame)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)") — i.e., an ordinary Assignment, not a Security Agreement, Merger, Change of Name, License, Release, or Correction
  • Assignor: KUO, ERIC; ABOLFATHI, AMIR; KNOPP, PETER G.; PHAN, LOC X.; WEN, HUAFENG (all five named inventors)
  • Assignee: ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC. (original assignee; the same entity remains current assignee per Google Patents)
  • Correspondent: not extractable from the sources fetched. Separately, the attorney/correspondent of record for Align's prosecution of this family is Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (WSGR), 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304 — the same address appears on Align filings including the appeal in App. 13/605,949 (https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2017005675-09-25-2018-1) and App. 17/902,445 (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1557676](/patent/1557676)/...). WSGR is Align's long-running outside patent counsel and does operating-company prosecution work; one appearance here is not an NPE signal.
  • Context: In-house capture of inventors' rights by the operating company; routine, 8 months after the '808 continuation was filed and ~19 months before grant. Not a fire-sale, not a privateering transfer.

Subsequent timeline items are litigation/legal events, not assignments (no ownership change):

• 2017-11-14 — Align files Align Tech. v. 3Shape, C.A. 1:17-cv-01647 (D. Del.), asserting the '115 patent.
• 2018-12-11 — Align announces ten additional patents asserted against 3Shape (https://aligntech.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/align-technology-asserts-ten-additional-patents-against-3shape).
• 2020-10-08 — Court construes "scaling" in Align's favor, denying 3Shape summary judgment of § 112 / non-infringement on US 7,056,115 and US 8,734,149 (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[9634072](/patent/9634072)/align-technology-inc-v-3shape-as/).
• 2023-04-16 — Patent expires.

⚠️ Identifier transposition to flag: 3Shape's Appendix A lists the asserted patent as "7,065,115" (Appendix A, 1:20-cv-01492, D.I. 5-13). Literally, 7,065,115 is a different number; the surrounding documents (3Shape's SJ brief titled "…U.S. PATENT NOS. 8,734,149 AND 7,056,115"; the Stanford NPE record) establish that US 7,056,115 is the patent actually asserted. Not corrected silently — noted.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7056115
    2003 : Priority application filed by five inventors
    2004 : Continuation 10 870 808 filed by Align
         : Inventors assign rights to Align Technology
    2006 : Patent US 7056115 issues to Align
    2017 : Align sues 3Shape in Delaware
    2018 : Align asserts ten more patents v 3Shape
    2020 : Court upholds Align scaling construction
    2023 : Patent expires

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The sole recorded conveyance (recorded 2004-11-10) runs to Align Technology, Inc., a NASDAQ-listed operating company, and Align is still the current assignee. No "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" assignee, no registered-agent address, no single-purpose LLC anywhere in the chain.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or Spangenberg entity appears as assignor or assignee. Align does appear in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database — but expressly categorized as "8 Product company," i.e., an operating-company plaintiff (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/7056115).
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present (insufficient entries). The chain has exactly one link, so recurrence cannot be assessed. The prosecution correspondent of record, WSGR (650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto), is Align's general patent counsel across many Align applications; that is the opposite of the anonymous-shell-filer tell. No WSGR name surfaced on any Unified Patents / RPX NPE-assertion list in my review.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. One assignment in the entire 20-year life: 2004-11-10. No chained LLCs, no sub-24-month sequence, no shared correspondent addresses across assignees.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The only assignment (2004) precedes the first suit naming this patent (1:17-cv-01647, filed 2017-11-14) by roughly 13 years. There is no venue- or standing-cleansing transfer.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Align Technology has operated continuously as a public company and has never filed Chapter 7/11; there is no assignment into or out of any estate. The patent expired on its own term (2023-04-16), not via sale.
7. Privateering — not present. Align asserts this patent in its own name against a direct market competitor (3Shape A/S / 3Shape Trios / 3Shape Inc.), and separately against ClearCorrect/Straumann and Angelalign. Nothing is transferred to a proxy.
8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. (Note the inverse trap: Unified Patents' portal merely hosts a data page for US 7,056,115 — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-[10874487](/patent/10874487)-B2 — which is a database listing, not an assignment.)

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Align Technology, Inc. is the original and continuing assignee of US 7,056,115 under the single recorded Assignment of Interest (recorded 2004-11-10, assignors Kuo/Abolfathi/Knopp/Phan/Wen), and there is no recorded post-issuance transfer — no shell LLC, no known asserter, no cascading chain, no pre-suit transfer, no bankruptcy sale, and no defensive-aggregator endpoint. Align ships products (Invisalign, iTero) and deployed this patent as a product-company plaintiff against a genuine competitor in Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S et al., 1:17-cv-01647 (D. Del., filed 2017-11-14), which the Stanford NPE database classifies as "8 Product company." The patent has since expired (adjusted expiration 2023-04-16), so it is now non-assertable regardless of ownership.

Verify: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 7056115) · Google Patents legal events — https://patents.google.com/patent/US7056115/en

Caveat: the reel/frame number and recording correspondent for the 2004-11-10 assignment were not retrievable from the sources I could reach; the Assignment Center will show both. I did not estimate them.

I'll research US patent 7056115 and its cited prior art.

Let me get the complete list of references cited in US 7056115.

Let me retrieve the complete cited-references list for US 7056115.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 7,056,115 B2

"Systems and methods for fabricating a dental template" — Align Technology, Inc. — Inventors: Phan, Knopp, Kuo, Abolfathi, Wen. Appl. No. 10/870,808, filed 2004‑06‑17, granted 2006‑06‑06. Priority 2003‑02‑26 (continuation of 10/375,223). Status: Expired – Lifetime.

Sourcing note: The authoritative full text (including the complete claims and the "References Cited" section) was supplied in the prompt. I verified the record against Google Patents and FreePatentsOnline (freepatentsonline.com/7056115.html). The FPO "US Patent References" list is truncated in the retrievable view, so the table below covers the references I could confirm plus the references expressly incorporated by reference in the specification. I flag anything I could not fully verify.

1. What the claims actually require (the anticipation screen)

The independent claims all cluster around one distinctive limitation:

• Claim 1 — creating a model of the patient's tooth; adding objects to predetermined locations; scaling the tooth model to provide a scaled tooth model; superimposing the scaled tooth model over the tooth model; fabricating the template.
• Claim 9 / Claim 17 — digitize tooth; add virtual object; scale; superimpose; fabricate; then place template and bond (9) or place object in template and insert (17).
• Claim 18 — same scaling/superimposing core for a plurality of objects/teeth; dependents add RP fabrication (21), articulated connecting members (22–24), masking + rigidifying agent (25–27).
• Claim 28 — etching variant of the same digitize → scale → superimpose → fabricate → etch sequence.

Critical § 102 screen: The "scaling … then superimposing the scaled model over the original" step (the "scale‑and‑shell" construction, 105–150 % per ¶ [0041]/claim 20) is the point of novelty. No single cited reference that I can verify discloses all claim‑1 elements including that scaling/superimposition step. Accordingly, on the record available, no cited reference appears to fully anticipate independent claims 1, 9, 17, 18, or 28 under § 102. The cited art is overwhelmingly § 103 (obviousness) art and art relevant to dependent limitations. I map each below and state that conclusion explicitly rather than over-claiming anticipation.

2. Patent references cited in the 7,056,115 record

3. Non-patent literature cited (verified partial list, uspto.report/7056115)

Kesling, "The Philosophy of the Tooth Positioning Appliance," Am. J. Orthod. Oral Surg. 31(6):297‑304 (1945) and 32:285‑293 (1946); Nahoum, "The Vacuum Formed Dental Contour Appliance," N.Y. State Dent. J. 30(9):385‑390 (Nov. 1964) — directly relevant to claim 1/‑8 "vacuum-formed" template fabrication; Nishiyama et al., "A New Construction of Tooth Repositioner by LTV Vinyl Silicone Rubber," J. Nihon Univ. Sch. Dent. 19(2):93‑102 (1977); Ponitz, "Invisible Retainers," Am. J. Orthod. 59(3):266‑272 (1971); McNamara et al., "Invisible Retainers" (1993); Rekow, "Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing in Dentistry: A Review of the State of the Art," J. Prosthet. Dent. 58(4):512‑516 (1987); Leinfelder et al. (1989); Moermann et al. (1987); Procera Research Projects (1993). These are § 103 background art for the digitize-and-fabricate concept, not § 102 anticipatory of the scaling/superimposing limitation.

4. § 102 Conclusion (explicit)

• No verified cited reference anticipates independent claims 1, 9, 17, 18, or 28 under § 102. The scaling-then-superimposing limitation (claims 1, 9, 17, 18, 28; "105–150 %" per claim 20 / ¶ [0041]) is not disclosed by any single cited reference I can verify.
• Closest to anticipation (but still short): US 6,554,613 / US 2003/0194677 / US 6,918,761 (Sachdeva) and the Andreiko jig family (esp. US 5,368,478 / 5,683,243). These disclose nearly every element except the scaling/superimposition step, so they are properly § 103 art (e.g., combined with the vacuum-forming/template art of Nahoum), not § 102.
• Dependent-claim exposure: If the scaling limitation were read narrowly or omitted, claims 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15 (gingiva/interproximal/lingual removal) map closely to the applicant's own incorporated references (US 6,386,878 et al.); claims 8, 16, 21, 27 (rapid prototyping) map to US 5,733,126 / 5,607,305 / 5,587,912; claims 22–24 (tooth-fitting members + connecting member) map to US 6,296,481 / 5,971,754 / 5,791,896. These are § 103 combinations.
• Anomaly flagged, not corrected: "US 5,971,574 – Automobile headlight – Taniuchi et al." appears in the record verbatim; it has no dental claim mapping.

Caveats: (1) I could not retrieve the complete 87-item "References Cited" list in the truncated FPO view, so additional cited references may exist beyond those tabled above; (2) § 102(e)/date determinations for the Sachdeva and Rubbert families (published/issued after the 2003‑02‑26 priority date) depend on their underlying filing dates and cannot be finally resolved from the sources available here; confirm against USPTO PatentCenter/Global Dossier before relying on any date.

I'll analyze this using the prior art references cited on the patent page. Let me first verify the content and dates of the key references I plan to rely on.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,056,115 B2

"Systems and methods for fabricating a dental template"
Assignee: Align Technology, Inc. · Priority: 2003‑02‑26 · Filed: 2004‑06‑17 · Granted: 2006‑06‑06
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7056115](/patent/US7056115)/en

Scope note. What follows is a technical obviousness assessment under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), not a legal opinion or a formal invalidity contention. All patent numbers, dates, and titles are taken literally from the "Citations (87)" and "Cited By" sections and the specification of US 7,056,115 ("the '115 patent") as they appear on the page you supplied. Where a limitation is not clearly taught by an on‑page reference, I say so explicitly rather than filling the gap from memory.

1. Governing framework

Statutory provision: 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (scope/content of prior art; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations); K.S.R. Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (predictable combination of known elements; design incentives; "obvious to try" in bounded, finite design spaces).

Effective filing date / critical dates.

• Priority date (per page): 2003‑02‑26, via continuation of Ser. No. 10/375,223 (published as US 2004/0166462 A1, now abandoned).
• § 102(a)/(e) critical date: 2003‑02‑26.
• § 102(b) critical date: 2002‑02‑26.

Most references in the "Citations (87)" list (Kesling 1949, Andrews 1972, Scheu‑Dental 1976, Hickham 1985, Moermann 1986, Brandestini 1989, Dolphin WO 1990/008512, Riley 1992, etc.) are more than one year before the priority date and therefore § 102(b) prior art free of any common‑ownership disqualification. The Align patents expressly incorporated by reference in the '115 specification (e.g., US 5,975,893 issued 1999; US 6,217,325 issued 2001; US 6,398,548 issued 2002; US 6,450,807 issued 2002; US 6,471,511 issued 2002) are likewise early enough to be § 102(b) art and are not removable under the common‑ownership proviso of § 103(c), since that proviso reaches only §§ 102(e)/(f)/(g) art.

Level of ordinary skill (proposed). A person having ordinary skill would hold a B.S. in mechanical/software engineering or a D.D.S./D.M.D., with 2–3 years of experience in at least two of: (i) intra‑oral/optical digitizing of dental anatomy; (ii) dental CAD manipulation of 3‑D surface models (the Rekow/Riley Minnesota work, which is itself cited as prior art); (iii) laboratory CAD/CAM fabrication, including stereolithography/3‑D printing; and (iv) indirect‑bonding tray‑making, which the '115 Background itself acknowledges as a decades‑old orthodontic technique. The '115 specification reinforces this level by stating that its "component identification and component manipulation software is designed to operate at sophistication commensurate with the operator's training level," including an operator "lacking orthodontic training."

The point of novelty. The parent application (Ser. No. 10/375,223, abandoned) and the '115 Summary/Abstract recite only digitize → add virtual objects → fabricate the template. The '115 claims add the two limits that are absent from the Abstract/Summary: "scaling the tooth model to provide a scaled tooth model" and "superimposing the scaled tooth model over the tooth model." This strongly implies the scaling/superimposition pair was the feature relied upon for allowance. Any § 103 attack must therefore be aimed squarely at that pair.

2. Claim 1 — limitation‑by‑limitation mapping

Reading of claim 1's core. The claim, in essence, is: (i) model the tooth (§ 102(b) art everywhere), (ii) put a bracket in a chosen spot on that model (Scheu‑Dental, Andrews, Dolphin), (iii) scale the digital model and lay the scaled copy over the original (Riley's scale+superimpose), and (iv) fabricate a template (Scheu‑Dental + rapid prototyping). Each element, and the arrangement, is taught or suggested.

3. Proposed § 103 grounds

Ground 1 — Claims 1–8 and 18–21: Riley + Scheu‑Dental + Chishti (Align), optionally + Moermann/Brandestini

• Riley, US 5,121,333 (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5121333A](/patent/US5121333A)/en) discloses: acquiring dental scan data; constructing a computer‑based 3‑D model; superimposing an "ideal geometry" on that model; scaling the representation by a factor derived from measured gaps/heights/widths; checking for interference between adjacent objects; and generating the reproduction. This is the closest art to the two limitations that appear to be the point of novelty.
• Scheu‑Dental, US 3,949,478 (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US3949478A](/patent/US3949478A)/en) discloses generating a positive jaw model, transferring/positioning model teeth, attaching orthodontic brackets to the model teeth in a predetermined desired orientation, and making a negative mold from which the brackets are bonded to the patient's teeth. That is "adding objects to predetermined locations on the tooth model" plus "fabricating a template to locate the object."
• Chishti et al., US 5,975,893 (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5975893A](/patent/US5975893A)/en) — expressly incorporated by reference into the '115 specification — teaches the digital‑data‑driven fabrication loop: providing digital data sets representing tooth arrangements and controlling a fabrication machine to produce positive models, over which appliances are formed.

Motivation to combine. Riley and Scheu‑Dental are both in the dental‑prosthesis/orthodontic laboratory field and both address the same problem the '115 Background recites — precise, reproducible placement of orthodontic hardware independent of operator skill and of arch geometry. Riley supplies the computational technique (scale + superimpose + interference‑check a digital dental model); Scheu‑Dental supplies the clinical goal (a bracket‑transfer template). A PHOSITA seeking to automate Scheu‑Dental's labor‑intensive stone‑model workflow (a drawback the '115 Background expressly identifies) would look to the Rekow/Riley Minnesota CAD/CAM line and to Chishti's fabrication‑machine teaching. K.S.R. makes this a textbook predictable combination of two known approaches to the same field.

Ground 2 — Claims 9–17 (and 19, 34): Ground 1 + Hickham, US 4,501,554

• Hickham, US 4,501,554 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US4501554) discloses a two‑tray indirect‑bonding system: brackets are embedded in a flexible/soft tray that is placed on the patient's teeth, with a rigid second tray stabilizing the first during curing. This supplies claim 9's "placing the template on the patient's tooth; mounting the orthodontic object on the tooth, using the template; and bonding the orthodontic object to the tooth," and claim 17's "placing the orthodontic object in the template; inserting the template… onto the patient's tooth; and bonding."
• Motivation. Hickham's stated purpose — "eliminat[ing] drifting of the brackets during insertion of the trays" and enabling transfer of brackets "in their ideal position" — is the same problem the '115 specification uses to motivate its template ("minimal risk of displacing the brackets upon removal of the matrix"). Combination with Ground 1 is a routine substitution of a known indirect‑bonding tray for the "fabricate a template" step.

Ground 3 — Claims 22–27 (articulated / variable‑stiffness templates): Ground 2 + Hickham (rigid/soft pair) + Kesling/US 3,949,478

• Claims 22–24 recite tooth‑fitting members with bracket openings joined by connecting members, including thermoforming an elastomeric substance over the members. This is the Hickham flexible‑tray-plus‑rigid‑tray architecture expressed in segmented form; the flexible connection between adjacent tooth segments is the same design choice Hickham makes to allow the appliance to seat over malposed teeth while resisting distortion.
• Claims 25–27 (mask tooth‑covering portions, add rigidifying agent to them; add flexibilizing agent to inter‑tooth portions; form by 3‑D printing) are a maker‑technique overlay on the same rigid‑body/flexible‑hinge concept. Independent support for multi‑property/multi‑material fabrication would be helpful; note that the '115 specification itself describes this as optional ("One way of achieving this…"), which under K.S.R. cuts toward obviousness of the alternatives.
• Motivation. The '115 specification states the articulated design provides "greater adjustment flexibility" — a result Hickham already achieves and for which a PHOSITA had a known mechanism.

Ground 4 — Claim 28 (etching template): Ground 1 + the openings/"port‑hole" concept of the cited tray art

• Claim 28 recites: digitize teeth; determine portions to be etched; scale; superimpose; fabricate a template with openings to locate the etch regions; place on teeth; etch through the openings.
• The "template with openings at predetermined tooth locations" concept is the same windowed‑template geometry discussed in the '115 specification and in the bracket‑placing art: Diamond, US 4,850,864 ("Bracket placing instrument") and the window/port‑hole trays discussed relative to FIGS. 4A–4B. The remaining steps are computer‑implemented versions of Riley's scale/superimpose plus routine fabrication.
• Motivation. Converting a bracket‑locating template into a pre‑etching "window" template is a predictable, non‑technical variation: the '115 specification itself says the template "may also be a guide for enamel etching or adhesive placement," i.e., the two uses are described as interchangeable on the same structure — strong evidence of obviousness (a disclosed alternative use).

Ground 5 (dependent computational claims 2–6, 10–15)

4. Why a PHOSITA would combine these references (motivation, stated affirmatively)

1. Same field, same problem, same technique. Every reference above is dental/orthodontic laboratory apparatus or CAD/CAM. The '115 Background itself frames the problem — bracket placement is hard on crowded/obscured teeth; indirect bonding is labor‑intensive; trays distend and brackets dislodge on removal. That framing is an admission of the problem the prior art was already solving.
2. Express incorporation of the very techniques used. The '115 specification incorporates by reference ~25 Align patents, several of which (US 5,975,893; US 6,217,325; US 6,398,548; US 6,450,807; US 6,471,511) disclose digital dental modeling, manipulation, and machine fabrication. A PHOSITA is thereby on notice that the claimed computational steps are the applicant's own admitted prior art.
3. Predictable results. Scaling a solid model and superimposing it over the source to define a shell/clearance is a standard CAD operation — Riley does the scale and the superimposition explicitly, and Riley's interference‑check step is functionally the same clearance‑defining exercise.
4. Finite, predictable design space (K.S.R.). The template architecture — unified vs. articulated; direct vs. indirect; rigid body plus flexible connector — is a small, enumerated set of mechanical alternatives. The '115 specification lists exactly four template embodiments (Direct‑Articulated, Indirect‑Articulated, Direct‑Unified, Indirect‑Unified), each a known construction.
5. Alternative uses disclosed as equivalents. The specification itself equates the bracket‑locating template with an etching template and the windowed template with the concave/gel‑loaded template — an admission that these variants are design choices, not inventions.

5. Weaknesses / where the obviousness case is thinnest (candor section)

• The precise "scale‑the‑same‑tooth‑then‑superimpose‑on‑itself" step. Riley's scaling targets a generic form fitted to a unique form, and its offset step is a tool‑path offset, not a shell definition. No reference I located on the page discloses the identical "scale a single tooth model and overlay the scaled copy on the original to define the template wall" operation. This is the limitation most likely to survive an obviousness challenge unless a secondary reference (e.g., die‑spacer/cement‑gap offsetting in crown CAD, or an Align aligner‑forming patent) is added.
• The 105–150% scaling figure as a claim‑scope anchor (claim 20 / specification). A range alone is easy to attack as optimization, but the purpose (creating a template wall thick enough to guide bracket depth) is a result‑effective variable, favoring the challenger.
• Claims 25–26 (rigidifying/flexibilizing agents applied after masking). This is a manufacturing technique, and I did not locate a squarely on‑page reference disclosing it. Absent a secondary "localized stiffness variation in a dental appliance" reference, this pair is the most defensible.
• Claim 28 (etching). The etching‑through‑openings step is old, but the specific "determine portions on the digitized teeth to be etched" workflow is a genuinely narrow computer‑implemented combination; it will require a clean secondary reference for etching templates.

6. Secondary considerations (Graham factor 4)

The '115 specification asserts advantages — precise placement independent of arch geometry, less operator training needed, reduced perception variance, improved patient‑to‑patient consistency. The record on the page shows no evidence of unexpected results, licensing due to the claimed subject matter, or industry praise tied to the scaling/superimposition step specifically. These asserted advantages are the expected consequences of using a machine‑fabricated locating guide rather than freehand placement, which the case law generally treats as insufficient to rebut a prima facie obviousness case. (Note: the page shows the family has been subject to litigation — "First worldwide family litigation filed" — so objective evidence may exist off‑page and would need to be developed.)

7. Bottom line

• Claims 1–21 are, on this record, strongly vulnerable under § 103(a) over the combination of Riley US 5,121,333 (scale + superimpose a computer‑based dental model) + Scheu‑Dental US 3,949,478 (brackets on a model → negative mold → transfer) + Chishti US 5,975,893 / Align's incorporated‑by‑reference fabrication patents (digital‑data‑driven machine fabrication). Adding Hickham US 4,501,554 (flexible/rigid indirect‑bonding tray) supplies the "mount/bond using the template" limitations of claims 9 and 17.
• Claims 22–27 are vulnerable over Ground 3 (Hickham's rigid/soft architecture + segmented‑arch constructions), with claims 25–26 the most defensible.
• Claim 28 is vulnerable over Ground 4 (windowed bracket‑placing templates; the specification's own etching‑template disclosure).

Primary references, with URLs

• Riley et al., US 5,121,333 — https://patents.google.com/patent/US5121333A/en
• Rekow et al., US 5,027,281 — (scan/superimpose dental coordinates)
• Scheu‑Dental, US 3,949,478 — https://patents.google.com/patent/US3949478A/en
• Hickham, US 4,501,554 — https://patents.google.com/patent/US4501554
• Kesling, US 2,467,432 — cited on the '115 page
• Andrews, US 3,660,900 — cited on the '115 page
• Dolphin Imaging, WO 1990/008512 — cited on the '115 page
• Moermann, US 4,575,805 — cited on the '115 page
• Brandestini, US 4,837,732 — cited on the '115 page
• Chishti et al., US 5,975,893 — https://patents.google.com/patent/US5975893A/en (incorporated by reference in the '115 spec)
• Align, US 6,217,325 / US 6,398,548 / US 6,450,807 / US 6,471,511 / US 6,386,878 — incorporated by reference in the '115 spec

Again: this is a technical obviousness assessment, not a legal opinion, and the strength of any ground would depend on the full intrinsic record (the abandoned parent's prosecution history, the exact secondary references located in a formal search, and any objective evidence of non‑obviousness).