IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Mass.: Dental AI company dispute survives motion to dismiss, (Apr 1, 2025)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

Claims of copyright infringement, unfair competition, false designation and patent infringement survived motion to dismiss as the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded its claims.

The federal district court in Boston, Massachusetts denied VideaHealth, Inc.’s (Videa) motion to dismiss claims against it by its competitor Overjet, Inc. (Overjet). The court determined that Overjet has pled facts that substantiated its claims of copyright infringement, unfair competition and false designation under the Lanham Act, unfair competition under Massachusetts law and common law, and patent infringement (Overjet, Inc. v. VideaHealth, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-10446-ADB (D. Mass. Mar. 28, 2025)).

Background. Overjet and Videa are both dental artificial intelligence (AI) companies and direct competitors that use AI to scan dental radiographic X-rays and detect dental diseases. Overjet has obtained U.S. Patent No. 11,158,046 (the ’046 Patent) on October 26, 2021, that discloses a novel system and method for providing segmentation and measurements of dental radiographic images. Overjet uses an FDA-approved technology that marks up x-rays into colored segments to show the extent to which teeth diseases exist (white for enamel, purple for the pulp of the tooth, green markings to indicate bone levels, and red to mark areas of decay). VideaHealth, Inc., meanwhile, holds FDA clearance for various indications and adopted naming conventions such as “Videa Caries Assist,” “Videa Perio Assist,” and “Videa Dental Assist” for its software products. Beginning in early December 2023, Videa started to use and/or to advertise its ability to use segmentation instead of bounding boxes. Overjet alleged that Videa shifted away from its historical bounding approach to a segmentation approach in a manner that directly copies the design and intellectual property of Overjet. On February 23, 2024, Overjet brought an action against Videa for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, patent infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition. Videa filed a motion to dismiss the claims of copyright infringement, unfair competition and false designation under the Lanham Act, unfair competition under Massachusetts law and common law, and patent infringement.

Copyright infringement. Overjet alleged that Videa’s patient view copied its protected coloring scheme, shades, and shapes. In response, Videa claimed that the color schemes, shades, and shapes that are created by Overjet’s AI are not entitled to copyright protection because they only serve a functional purpose. The court stated that Overjet adequately argued that the combination of colors, shades, and shapes is original. The court was not persuaded that Overjet’s design choices serve a merely functional purpose or that Overjet was limited to only a few choices. The court noted that one of the parties’ competitors uses a teal and magenta color scheme to highlight segmentation in X-rays, suggesting that Overjet had other options available and that diagnostic necessity did not dictate its design choices. The court also stated that it is not evident, at least without the benefit of discovery, that Overjet’s decision was limited to only a few choices, making its design decisions unprotectable. Therefore, the court found that Overjet’s facts as argued suggest at least “some minimal degree of creativity,” and that its design choices are not solely functional. Accordingly, the claim of copyright infringement survives the motion to dismiss.

Unfair competition and false designation. Videa argued that Overjet’s unfair competition and false designation claim under the Lanham Act must be dismissed, alleging it duplicates the copyright and patent infringement claims. However, the court found that Overjet’s Lanham Act claim included assertions beyond just copyright and patent infringement. Overjet additionally claimed that Videa made false and misleading statements about its segmentation capabilities in advertising its products. Overjet argued that these statements are likely to cause confusion regarding the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Videa’s goods, services, or commercial activities. As a result, the court has determined that Overjet’s Lanham Act claim survives the motion to dismiss.

Videa also argued that Overjet’s claims of unfair competition under Massachusetts state law, namely Chapter 93A and common law, are preempted by federal law, to the extent that Overjet’s claims are based on copyright or patent infringement. However, Overjet’s claims are not solely based on patent and copyright infringement, but rather on a “totality of circumstances” that includes “falsely advertising Videa’s products and causing harm to Overjet in the marketplace.” Therefore, Overjet has adequately pled facts that suggest that its claim seeks to protect an interest beyond what the Copyright Act or federal patent law already protect.

Patent claims. Videa claimed that the ’046 Patent is directed to an abstract idea in that it “recites a system for processing digital images” and merely “acquires and analyses information obtained from an image and applies it using a set of generic and conventional or black box components.” Applying the two-step test from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), the court examined whether the claims were directed to an abstract idea. The Court agreed with Overjet that Videa oversimplified the technology at issue and ignored the wording of the claims articulating specific technological improvements to the manner in which dental radiographs approximate the absolute and relative measurements of oral structures. The ’046 Patent does not solely acquire and analyze information obtained from an image without identifying an improvement in computers as tools. The ’046 Patent offers a technical solution to the technical problems of using a patient’s unique anatomical oral structures as calibration objects to make calibrated measurements without the need for an external calibration object. The court found that at the heart of the ’046 Patent is the use of a patient’s anatomical oral structures as calibration objects without the need for an external object, which plainly qualifies as an improvement in the relevant technology. Therefore, the court is not convinced that the claims at issue are merely using computers as tools to apply an abstract idea as opposed to improving the effectiveness or efficiency of computers that determine a patient’s unique anatomical oral structures as calibration objects. Accordingly, the court determined that the ’046 Patent satisfies the first prong of the Alice test and declines to dismiss the patent claims.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-10446-ADB.

Judge: Burroughs, A.

Attorneys: Sharona H. Sternberg (Sunstein LLP) for Overjet, Inc. Brendan Hughes (Cooley LLP) for VideaHealth, Inc.

Companies: Overjet, Inc.; VideaHealth, Inc.

Cases: Patent Copyright Trademark MassachusettsNews GCNNews