IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Orthodontic software developer's infringement lawsuit against Align Technology properly dismissed, (Jul 8, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

Claims applying generic deep-learning technology to analyze dental images merely implemented abstract ideas and lacked the inventive concept required for patent eligibility.

In a non-precedential disposition, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a district court's summary judgment invalidating patents asserted against Align Technology, Inc.'s Invisalign Virtual Care AI platform, holding that the claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court concluded that the asserted claims merely collected, analyzed, and displayed dental image information using generic deep-learning technology and therefore failed both steps of the Alice framework. Because the patents themselves described the claimed "deep learning device" as conventional neural-network technology, the court held that the claims lacked the inventive concept necessary to transform the abstract ideas into patent-eligible subject matter (Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc., No. 24-2270 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 7, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff-appellant, Dental Monitoring SAS (Dental Monitoring) develops artificial intelligence-based orthodontic monitoring technology. The defendant-appellee, Align Technology, Inc. (Align), develops and markets orthodontic products, including the Invisalign® clear aligner system and the Invisalign Virtual Care AI platform, which remotely monitors orthodontic treatment.

The dispute involved U.S. Patent Nos. 11,049,248 (the ’248 patent) and 10,755,409 (the ’409 patent), which relate to analyzing images of dental arches and orthodontic aligners using a "deep learning device." Dental Monitoring alleged that Align's Invisalign Virtual Care AI platform and related products infringed the asserted claims.

The district court required the parties to conduct a "patent showdown," under which each side selected representative claims for discovery and cross-motions for summary judgment. Dental Monitoring selected claim 14 of the ’248 patent, while Align selected claim 12 of the ’409 patent. The parties stipulated that the court's rulings on those claims would also govern claims 1 of the ’248 patent and claims 1 and 7 of the ’409 patent. Align moved for summary judgment that the representative claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, while Dental Monitoring sought summary judgment of infringement. The district court ruled in favor of Align, and Dental Monitoring appealed.

Abstract ideas.Applying the two-step framework established in Alice, the Federal Circuit first examined whether the asserted claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. It agreed with the district court that claim 14 of the ’248 patent was directed to the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing image information using a deep-learning device to evaluate the separation between teeth and an orthodontic aligner. Likewise, claim 12 of the ’409 patent was directed to acquiring an image of a dental arch, analyzing it with a deep-learning device, comparing the results to a setpoint, and transmitting information to guide the user in taking another image. The court held that both claims belonged to the familiar category of claims directed to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying the results, citing Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Dental Monitoring argued that the claims represented a technological improvement because they used deep learning to produce objective measurements of aligner fit that orthodontists could not achieve manually. The Federal Circuit rejected that contention, observing that the claims themselves required only determining the separation between teeth and aligners, a task routinely performed by orthodontists. At most, the claimed methods performed the same evaluation more efficiently using generic machine learning. Citing Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025), the court explained that applying conventional machine-learning tools in a new field of use does not render otherwise abstract claims patent-eligible.

No inventive concept. The Federal Circuit also agreed that the claims failed Alice step two because they lacked an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract ideas into patent-eligible subject matter.

The court emphasized that the patents themselves described the claimed "deep learning device" as a conventional neural network selected from existing image-classification and object-detection models. Although the claims required training the device using more than 1,000 historical images of dental arches, the court held that such training was "incident to the very nature of machine learning" and therefore did not constitute a technological improvement. Again, relying on Recentive, the court explained that specifying a particular training dataset does not convert a generic machine-learning model into a patentable invention.

The court also rejected Dental Monitoring's argument that using deep learning in orthodontics was unconventional when the patents were filed. Citing BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit explained that the relevant inquiry is not whether the invention as a whole was novel or unconventional, but whether the claims contain an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea itself. Because the patents expressly characterized the deep-learning device as conventional technology, the claims failed to meet that requirement.

Finally, the court rejected Dental Monitoring's contention that factual disputes regarding whether the claimed technology was well understood, routine, or conventional precluded summary judgment. According to the court, no genuine dispute existed because the patents themselves confirmed that the claimed deep-learning devices could be selected from well-known neural-network technologies developed by companies such as Google and Microsoft.

Outcome. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment that claims 1 and 14 of the ’248 patent and claims 1, 7, and 12 of the ’409 patent were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and were therefore invalid. Having affirmed on 35 U.S.C. § 101 grounds, the court declined to address Align's alternative invalidity arguments under Section 112.

The Case is No. 24-2270.

Judge: Lourie, A.

Attorneys: Mark Andrew Perry (Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP) for Dental Monitoring SAS. Hari Santhanam (Perkins Coie LLP) for Align Technology, Inc.

Companies: Dental Monitoring SAS; Align Technology, Inc.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews TechnologyInternet