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).