Candid Care Co. v. SmileDirectClub: Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
Candid Care Co. pursued a Federal Circuit appeal against SmileDirectClub over US10861599B2, a patent covering arrangements for intraoral scanning. After 402 days, Candid Care moved unopposed to dismiss the appeal, with each side bearing its own costs — leaving the merits unresolved at the appellate level.
A clear-aligner IP appeal quietly ends before the Federal Circuit rules
Case No. 24-1004 is a Federal Circuit infringement appeal filed on 2 October 2023, in which Candid Care Co. challenged a lower-court outcome relating to US10861599B2 — a patent directed at arrangements for intraoral scanning. The defendant-appellee, SmileDirectClub, LLC, is a direct competitor in the direct-to-consumer orthodontic and clear-aligner market. Both parties were represented by Delaware-based counsel, suggesting the underlying district litigation likely proceeded in that jurisdiction.
On 7 November 2024, the Federal Circuit granted Candid Care’s unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. The court’s order notes that it ‘generally does not specify whether a dismissal of an appeal is with prejudice,’ even though the motion itself invoked Rule 42(b) and requested dismissal with prejudice. The operative effect is that the appeal is terminated, but the appellate record is silent on the formal with/without-prejudice designation. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs.
The 402-day duration and the unopposed, cost-neutral dismissal are consistent with a negotiated resolution or commercial settlement reached outside the court record. The underlying merits of the intraoral scanning patent claim were never adjudicated at the appellate level. What drove Candid Care to abandon the appeal — whether a licensing agreement, commercial restructuring, or strategic retreat — remains undisclosed in the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 402 days
402 days — longer than the median Federal Circuit appeal disposition
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Federal Circuit order means for both parties
Rule 42(b) voluntary dismissal — appeal ends, merits untouched
Candid Care invoked Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) to voluntarily dismiss its own appeal. This is a procedural termination, not a ruling on the validity or infringement of US10861599B2. The Federal Circuit granted the motion but noted it does not typically specify a with/without-prejudice designation for appeal-level dismissals, meaning the appellate record leaves that question formally open.
No merits adjudicationThe record is silent — a critical ambiguity for future enforcement
Dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would bar Candid Care from re-filing the same appellate claims; ‘without prejudice’ preserves that right. Candid Care’s motion requested dismissal with prejudice under Rule 42(b), but the Federal Circuit’s order explicitly declined to adopt that framing. Whether the dismissal carries preclusive effect remains legally uncertain from the public record alone and may require case-specific legal analysis to resolve.
Preclusive effect unclearCandid Care exits the appeal — enforcement path narrows
By moving to dismiss its own appeal, Candid Care forfeits any appellate reversal of the lower court’s ruling. The intraoral scanning patent US10861599B2 does not benefit from an appellate vindication. If Candid Care sought to enforce this patent further, it would likely need to initiate new litigation or rely on other portfolio assets. The cost-neutral outcome suggests neither side extracted a public concession.
Appellate path closedSmileDirectClub gains breathing room on intraoral scanning IP
With the appeal dismissed and no appellate ruling affirming the patent’s scope, SmileDirectClub — or its successors given the company’s broader financial difficulties — avoids an adverse Federal Circuit precedent on intraoral scanning arrangements. For competitors and adjacent dental technology firms, the absence of a merits ruling means US10861599B2 retains uncertain enforceability at the appellate level, which may influence design-around and FTO decisions across the sector.
Patent scope unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Candid Care Co. | Company | Dental technology company — holder of US10861599B2 for intraoral scanningSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | SmileDirectClub, LLC | Company | SmileDirectClub, LLC — direct-to-consumer clear aligner and orthodontic platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rodger Dallery Smith II | Attorney | Counsel for Candid Care Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Candid Care Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Cortlan S. Hitch | Attorney | Counsel for SmileDirectClub, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morris James LLP | Law Firm | Representing SmileDirectClub, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order is deliberately narrow: it grants the motion ‘to the extent that the appeals are dismissed’ and declines to adopt the appellant’s own with/without-prejudice framing. This hedged language is consistent with the court’s standard practice at the appeal level and leaves the preclusive effect of the dismissal formally ambiguous. No infringement finding, claim construction, or validity ruling was issued, meaning the patent’s legal status is unchanged from before the appeal was filed.
US10861599B2 — Arrangements for intraoral scanning
US10861599B2 (application no. US16/859950) covers arrangements for intraoral scanning — the hardware and/or software configurations used to capture three-dimensional digital impressions of a patient’s dentition. Intraoral scanners are foundational to modern digital orthodontics and restorative dentistry workflows, enabling direct-to-consumer aligner companies to replace physical impressions with remote or in-clinic digital capture. The patent’s priority and application history place it squarely in the competitive wave of digital orthodontic platform development.
For a company like Candid Care operating in the direct-to-consumer clear-aligner market, control over intraoral scanning IP is strategically significant: the scan is the entry point to the entire digital treatment workflow. Competitors who can design around or license this patent gain access to a cost-effective acquisition channel. The unresolved appellate history means the patent’s enforceable claim scope has not been judicially narrowed, sustaining its potential value as an enforcement or licensing asset in a market that remains actively contested.
Should your team run an FTO against US10861599B2?
Any company developing, commercialising, or integrating intraoral scanning technology — including scanner hardware manufacturers, dental software platforms, and direct-to-consumer orthodontic providers — should evaluate exposure to US10861599B2. The patent survived this appeal without a merits ruling, meaning no claim was invalidated or narrowed by the Federal Circuit. Product teams launching new intraoral capture workflows or integrating third-party scanning modules face non-trivial freedom-to-operate risk until claim scope is independently assessed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim landscape of US10861599B2 against your product specifications, identify prior art that may support a challenge, and surface related patents in Candid Care’s portfolio that could extend enforcement risk. Eureka’s litigation monitoring layer also tracks any new district court filings citing this patent, giving your IP team early warning of renewed enforcement activity before it reaches the Federal Circuit again.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10861599B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in intraoral scanning and dental technology IP
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving intraoral scanning, digital orthodontics, and dental technology patents with comparable voluntary dismissal or infringement postures.
What this case signals for the dental technology IP landscape
A cost-neutral, unopposed appeal dismissal in a competitive dental tech dispute rarely happens without a commercial rationale.
Voluntary Federal Circuit dismissals often signal off-record resolution
When an appellant files an unopposed motion to dismiss with each side bearing its own costs, the most common explanation is a negotiated resolution — whether a license, cross-license, or commercial agreement. IP teams monitoring the clear-aligner and intraoral scanning space should track any subsequent licensing announcements or product changes by either party.
US10861599B2 remains active with unresolved appellate history
No Federal Circuit ruling was issued on the validity or scope of US10861599B2. Companies developing intraoral scanning technology should run a current FTO analysis against this patent, as its enforceability and claim scope were not narrowed by this proceeding. The patent holder retains the right to assert it in new district court actions.
Candid v SmileDirectClub — key questions answered
Candid Care Co. filed a Federal Circuit appeal (No. 24-1004) over US10861599B2, a patent covering intraoral scanning arrangements. On 7 November 2024, after 402 days, Candid Care moved unopposed to voluntarily dismiss the appeal under Rule 42(b). The court granted the motion and ordered each side to bear its own costs. No merits ruling was issued.
Candid Care’s motion requested dismissal with prejudice under Rule 42(b), but the Federal Circuit’s order explicitly noted that it ‘generally does not specify whether a dismissal of an appeal is with or without prejudice.’ The operative order simply dismisses the appeal, leaving the formal preclusive designation ambiguous in the public record.
US10861599B2 (application US16/859950) covers arrangements for intraoral scanning — the technology used to capture digital dental impressions. In the direct-to-consumer orthodontic market, intraoral scanning is a critical patient acquisition and treatment-planning tool. Candid Care asserted the patent against SmileDirectClub, a major competitor, in an infringement action that ultimately reached the Federal Circuit without a merits adjudication.
No. A voluntary dismissal under Rule 42(b) is a procedural termination of the appeal and does not constitute a ruling on patent validity, claim scope, or infringement. US10861599B2 remains in force and is potentially enforceable. No Federal Circuit precedent was established narrowing or invalidating any claim of the patent.
A cost-neutral order means neither party recovers appellate filing fees or related costs from the other. This outcome is consistent with a negotiated exit — had Candid Care simply abandoned the case unilaterally, a cost award against the appellant would be more typical. The symmetry of the cost order suggests a mutual arrangement, though the terms of any underlying agreement are not disclosed in the public record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.