Ormco Corporation v. Align Technology

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that evidence that commercial success was due to unclaimed or non-novel features of device “clearly rebuts the presumption that [the commercial product’s] success was due to the claimed and novel features”
• recognizing that “if the feature that creates the commercial success was known in the prior art, the success is not pertinént”
• holding that “[m]ethod 13 claims are only infringed when the claimed process is performed, not by the sale of an apparatus 14 that is capable of infringing the use.”
• holding that evidence that success was due to prior art features rebutted the presumption
• holding that orthodontist's instruction sheet was \sufficiently publicly accessible to qualify as prior art\ when it had been distributed to other orthodontists even though it was not accessible by members of the public
• explaining that a nexus must exist “between the claimed invention and the commercial success” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

99 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2007-03-22· cited 295×
• Eurand, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2012-04-16· cited 234×
• Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2014-12-04· cited 231×
• Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-07-14· cited 191×
• Wbip, LLC v. Kohler Co.
  Federal Circuit· 2016-07-19· cited 184×
• Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-12-23· cited 143×
• Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enterprises, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2011-01-31· cited 102×
• Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 2017-04-12· cited 100×
• Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2007-08-24· cited 82×
• In Re Huai-Hung Kao
  Federal Circuit· 2011-05-13· cited 75×
• Rambus Inc. v. Rea
  Federal Circuit· 2013-09-24· cited 72×
• Lazare Kaplan International, Inc. v. Photoscribe Technologies, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2010-12-22· cited 65×
• Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2013-12-11· cited 64×
• Intouch Technologies, Inc. v. Vgo Communications, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2014-05-09· cited 63×
• Sightsound Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2015-12-15· cited 50×
• Nike, Inc. v. Adidas Ag
  Federal Circuit· 2016-02-11· cited 47×
• Geo M. Martin Co. v. Alliance MacHine Systems International LLC
  Federal Circuit· 2010-08-20· cited 46×
• E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V.
  Federal Circuit· 2018-09-17· cited 41×
• Arcelormittal France v. Ak Steel Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2012-11-30· cited 39×
• Western Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2010-12-07· cited 39×

Cites

31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City
  Supreme Court· 1966-02-21· cited 3,371×
• Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2006-02-21· cited 3,273×
• Wms Gaming Inc. v. International Game Technology
  Federal Circuit· 1999-09-17· cited 317×
• Cross Medical Products, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2005-09-30· cited 260×
• Joy Technologies, Inc., and A/s Niro Atomizer, Involuntary v. Flakt, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1993-10-06· cited 255×
• Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2005-01-28· cited 236×
• Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Chemque, Inc. (Formerly Known as Chemque Canada, Ltd.) and Thomas & Betts Corporation, Defendants-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2002-11-04· cited 213×
• Oddzon Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., Lisco, Inc. And Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc., Defendants/cross-Appellants
  Federal Circuit· 1997-08-08· cited 161×
• High Tech Medical Instrumentation, Inc. v. New Image Industries, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1995-03-06· cited 152×
• In Re Patrick H. O'farrell, Barry A. Polisky and David H. Gelfand
  Federal Circuit· 1988-08-10· cited 140×
• Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.
  Federal Circuit· 2006-02-03· cited 125×
• Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation v. Philip Morris Incorporated, Defendant-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2000-10-17· cited 116×
• In Re Werner Kotzab
  Federal Circuit· 2000-06-30· cited 114×
• Standard Havens Products, Inc. v. Gencor Industries, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1992-03-20· cited 113×
• Iron Grip Barbell Company, Inc., and York Barbell Company, Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2005-02-10· cited 113×
• Sibia Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharmaceutical Corporation,defendant-Appellant
  Federal Circuit· 2000-09-06· cited 109×
• J.T. Eaton & Company, Inc. v. Atlantic Paste & Glue Company
  Federal Circuit· 1997-04-07· cited 97×
• In Re James A. Smith and James H. McLaughlin and Sterling Drug, Inc., Intervenor
  Federal Circuit· 1983-08-03· cited 92×
• Haynes International, Inc. v. Jessop Steel Company
  Federal Circuit· 1994-02-25· cited 92×
• In Re Francis S. Gurley
  Federal Circuit· 1994-06-15· cited 92×