Candid Care Co. v. SmileDirectClub: Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
Candid Care Co. filed a Federal Circuit appeal against SmileDirectClub over US10861599B2, a patent covering intraoral scanning arrangements central to at-home orthodontic workflows. The appeal was voluntarily dismissed after 402 days, with each party bearing its own costs — ending the appellate dispute without a merits ruling.
Intraoral scanning patent dispute ends without Federal Circuit merits ruling
Candid Care Co. initiated this Federal Circuit appeal on 2 October 2023, asserting infringement of US10861599B2 — a patent covering arrangements for intraoral scanning used in direct-to-consumer clear-aligner orthodontics. The defendant, SmileDirectClub, LLC, is a prominent player in the at-home teeth-straightening market, making the asserted patent commercially significant for scanning-based treatment workflows. The appeal was docketed as Case No. 24-1000 before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with Venable LLP representing Candid Care and Kirkland & Ellis alongside Morris James LLP appearing for SmileDirectClub.
The appeal concluded on 7 November 2024 when Candid Care Co. moved — unopposed — to voluntarily dismiss pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Federal Circuit granted the motion to the extent of dismissing the appeals, but notably declined to specify whether the dismissal operated with prejudice, consistent with the court’s general practice. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs, meaning no cost award was entered against either party. No merits adjudication occurred at the appellate level.
The 402-day duration and unopposed nature of the dismissal motion suggest the parties likely reached some form of resolution — whether a commercial settlement, licensing arrangement, or strategic withdrawal — prior to briefing completion, though the public record is silent on underlying terms. SmileDirectClub’s well-documented financial difficulties may also have influenced the calculus for both sides. The absence of a merits ruling leaves the validity and infringement questions under US10861599B2 formally unanswered at the Federal Circuit level.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 402 days
402 days — longer than the median Federal Circuit appeal disposition (~300 days)
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 42(b) exit means for both parties
Rule 42(b) voluntary dismissal — no merits ruling entered
Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allows an appellant to dismiss an appeal by filing a signed dismissal agreement or, as here, an unopposed motion. The Federal Circuit granted the motion ‘to the extent that the appeals are dismissed’ — language the court typically uses without specifying prejudice effect. No judgment on the underlying infringement or validity issues was issued. The appellate record closes without any precedential or non-precedential opinion on the merits.
Procedural exit — no merits adjudicationWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
Candid Care’s motion sought dismissal ‘with prejudice,’ but the Federal Circuit’s order states it ‘generally does not specify whether a dismissal of an appeal is with prejudice’ — and the operative order simply dismisses the appeals. Whether the with-prejudice characterisation binds future filings is a nuanced question the order leaves open. Practitioners should not assume the dismissal forecloses all future assertions of US10861599B2 without reviewing any underlying agreement between the parties.
Prejudice effect legally ambiguousCandid Care exits the appeal — strategic calculus unclear
By moving to dismiss unopposed, Candid Care chose to end the Federal Circuit appeal without a ruling. This is consistent with either a negotiated resolution with SmileDirectClub or a commercial decision that further litigation was not warranted — potentially influenced by SmileDirectClub’s bankruptcy proceedings. The unopposed nature of the motion suggests SmileDirectClub did not oppose the exit, which itself may signal agreement on underlying terms. No adverse judgment was entered against Candid Care.
Appellant withdrew — no adverse findingUS10861599B2 remains untested at the Federal Circuit
The voluntary dismissal means the validity and scope of US10861599B2 covering intraoral scanning arrangements was never examined on the merits by the Federal Circuit. For competitors and new market entrants in the at-home orthodontics scanning space, this leaves the patent’s enforceability unresolved at the appellate level. Any future enforcement action would need to relitigate infringement and validity from the district court level, without the benefit of Federal Circuit guidance on claim scope.
Patent scope unadjudicated — risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Candid Care Co. | Company | Direct-to-consumer orthodontic technology company — holder of US10861599B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | SmileDirectClub, LLC | Company | SmileDirectClub, LLC — at-home clear-aligner orthodontics platform and retail networkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Edmund John Haughey III | Attorney | Counsel for Candid Care Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joshua Daniel Calabro | Attorney | Counsel for Candid Care Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael P. Sandonato | Attorney | Counsel for Candid Care Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Venable LLP | Law Firm | Representing Candid Care Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Devin Anderson | Attorney | Counsel for SmileDirectClub, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kenneth Laurence Dorsney | Attorney | Counsel for SmileDirectClub, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kirkland & Ellis LLP | Law Firm | Representing 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’ — a formulation the court uses to avoid endorsing the appellant’s characterisation of the dismissal as ‘with prejudice.’ This phrasing reflects the court’s practice of not adjudicating the prejudice question in the absence of adversarial briefing. The cost-neutrality order — each side bearing its own costs — is standard in consensual appellate dismissals and does not imply any assessment of the merits or relative strength of either party’s position.
US10861599B2 — Intraoral Scanning Arrangements for Orthodontic Treatment
US10861599B2 (application no. US16/859950) protects arrangements for intraoral scanning — technology that enables the capture of three-dimensional dental impressions without physical moulds. In the direct-to-consumer orthodontics context, this capability is foundational: scan quality and workflow integration directly determine treatment accuracy and patient eligibility. The patent’s claims are directed at the structural and operational arrangements of scanning systems, positioning it broadly across hardware, software, and workflow implementations used in at-home aligner programmes.
In a market where Candid Care and SmileDirectClub competed directly for the at-home aligner consumer, control of foundational scanning IP represents a significant competitive lever. Assertions of this patent type can affect competitor product design, app-based scanning workflows, and retail clinic operations. With SmileDirectClub’s market position altered by insolvency, the patent’s next enforcement context may involve acquirers of SmileDirectClub’s technology or new entrants building scanning-integrated orthodontic platforms — making portfolio monitoring in this space strategically important.
Should your product team run an FTO against US10861599B2?
Any company developing intraoral scanning hardware, scanning software, or integrated orthodontic treatment workflows — particularly in the direct-to-consumer or telehealth aligner segment — should assess freedom to operate against US10861599B2. The patent survived this litigation cycle without a merits ruling narrowing its claims, meaning its full scope as granted remains operative. This is especially relevant for firms acquiring SmileDirectClub assets, building scanning-enabled aligner platforms, or integrating AI-assisted dental imaging into treatment planning systems.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map product features against the claims of US10861599B2, identify prior art that could inform design-around strategies, and monitor Candid Care Co.’s broader patent portfolio for continuation filings that may extend coverage into adjacent scanning and orthodontic workflow technologies. Automated claim-chart generation and prosecution history analysis are available directly within the platform, reducing the time to an actionable FTO opinion.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10861599B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar intraoral scanning and orthodontics patent cases at the Federal Circuit
Cases involving intraoral scanning and direct-to-consumer orthodontic patent assertions at the Federal Circuit and district courts, including claim construction and infringement disputes.
What this case signals for the intraoral scanning and orthodontics IP landscape
A voluntarily dismissed Federal Circuit appeal in a contested scanning-tech patent leaves the enforcement picture unresolved — and raises questions for the whole at-home orthodontics sector.
Voluntary Federal Circuit dismissals often signal off-record settlements
An unopposed Rule 42(b) dismissal at the Federal Circuit — particularly after 13 months of appellate pendency — typically suggests the parties reached a private resolution. In orthodontics technology disputes, licensing terms or market-exit arrangements are common drivers. Practitioners should treat the absence of a merits ruling as a signal to monitor both parties’ subsequent commercial and IP activity.
US10861599B2 is live and unadjudicated — FTO exposure persists
Because no Federal Circuit merits ruling issued, US10861599B2 retains full enforcement potential. Companies developing or commercialising intraoral scanning systems for orthodontic use — particularly direct-to-consumer models — face unresolved infringement risk. A formal FTO analysis against this patent’s claims is warranted before product launches or technology acquisitions in this space.
Candid v SmileDirectClub — key questions answered
Candid Care Co. voluntarily dismissed its Federal Circuit appeal against SmileDirectClub, LLC under Rule 42(b) on 7 November 2024. The court granted the motion and dismissed the appeals, ordering each side to bear its own costs. No merits ruling on US10861599B2 — the intraoral scanning patent at issue — was issued.
The Federal Circuit’s order granted the motion ‘to the extent that the appeals are dismissed’ without specifying whether the dismissal operates with or without prejudice. This is consistent with the court’s general practice of declining to adjudicate the prejudice question on an unopposed motion. The order does not endorse Candid Care’s characterisation of the dismissal as ‘with prejudice.’
The patent at issue is US10861599B2 (application US16/859950), which covers arrangements for intraoral scanning. This technology is central to direct-to-consumer orthodontic workflows, enabling three-dimensional dental impression capture without physical moulds. The patent’s claims are directed at scanning system arrangements used in at-home aligner treatment programmes.
The public record does not disclose the reasons for dismissal. The unopposed nature of the motion and SmileDirectClub’s well-documented financial difficulties and bankruptcy proceedings may have influenced litigation economics for both parties. A private settlement or licensing resolution is consistent with the facts, but the record is silent on any underlying agreement.
Because the Federal Circuit issued no merits ruling, the claims of US10861599B2 remain unadjudicated and the patent retains full enforcement potential. Companies developing intraoral scanning systems, AI-assisted dental imaging, or scanning-integrated orthodontic platforms face unresolved infringement risk. A formal FTO analysis against the patent’s granted claims is advisable before product launch or technology acquisition in this space.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.