USPTO finds significant questions of patentability exist relative to Align Technology’s patents and moves to cancel key claims
Round Rock, TX - June 17, 2015 - ClearCorrect, LLC, a leading manufacturer of clear aligners, announced today that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has granted ClearCorrect’s request for reexamination of U.S. Patents 6,217,325 (the “’325 patent”); 8,070,487 (the “‘487 patent”); and 6,722,880 (the “‘880 patent”), assigned to Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect’s evidence of unpatentability has been accepted by the USPTO across all challenged patents. A formal rejection of the claims of the ‘325 patent has been issued. Align must respond to this notice within two months’ time if reversal of the USPTO’s determination is to be pursued. The USPTO is set to issue formal rejections in the ‘487 and ‘880 patents in the weeks ahead based upon some of the same evidence.
“It has been our longstanding position that Align’s patents offered nothing new or novel given the historic inventions made by orthodontists over the years.” said Jarrett Pumphrey, CEO, ClearCorrect. “At ClearCorrect we are committed to promoting competition and using the USPTO to further true innovation and invention.”
ClearCorrect has filed four reexamination requests concerning patents held by Align Technology. Acceptance of the fourth request is expected in due course.
"The USPTO has found that the prior art submitted with these reexaminations is not only important in reassessing patentability of these patents, but in fact, renders the challenged claims unpatentable. We look forward to the ultimate cancellation of these claims," said Scott McKeown, a partner at Oblon and lead counsel for ClearCorrect’s reexamination effort.
“Align’s claims are all very similar and revolve around a core concept of orthodontic treatment that has existed for more than seven decades,” said Mark Gilbreth, attorney for ClearCorrect. “As such, all of the patent claims ClearCorrect has challenged—and those it intends to challenge in the future—are unpatentable by virtue of the same prior art.”