Recently, District Judge Pamela K. Chen (E.D.N.Y.) denied Defendants Dentsply Sirona Inc., Sirona Dental Systems, LLC, and Sirona Dental, Inc.’s (collectively, “Dentsply”) motion to dismiss, finding that Plaintiff Osseo Imaging, LLC’s (“Osseo”) asserted patents relating to dental imaging systems were not directed to an abstract idea. Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Dentsply Sirona, Inc., No. 23-CV-7952 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2025).
Osseo alleged that Dentsply’s products infringed its patents related to dental imaging systems that generate, store, and process models of patients’ dental structures. Id. at *1–2. Dentsply filed a motion to dismiss Osseo’s complaint, arguing that the asserted patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Id. at *2. Specifically, Dentsply argued that the asserted patents were directed to an abstract idea because they were: (1) directed to storing, collecting, and displaying information; and (2) a combination of conventional components. Id. at *5–7.
Dentsply argued that Osseo’s patents were directed to “the process of using a computer to store, collect, and display . . . information in dental and orthopedic applications,” which contained similar language to patents the Federal Circuit held to be abstract. Id. at *5. However, the Court found that Osseo’s patents describe a system that does more than “store, collect, and display,” as its claims describe merging information from multiple tomographic scans, using the scans to produce a representation, and creating new data through a calculation. Id. at *5–6. As such, the Court found that the claims describe improvements and are specific about how those improvements are achieved. Id. at *6–7.
Dentsply also argued that the asserted claims are a combination of “conventional component[s]” and fail to identify “any improvement to the functionality of any conventional component.” Id. at *7. However, the Court found that employing known or conventional components that existed in the prior art “does not necessarily mean that the claim is directed to an abstract idea.” Id. (citing Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., 113 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2024)). As such, the Court found that the claims were not abstract and denied Dentsply’s motion to dismiss. Id. at *8.
The case is Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Dentsply Sirona, Inc., No. 23-CV-7952 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2025).
