Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02948/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02948-36/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ORTHOCLEAR, INC. and ORTHOCLEAR

HOLDINGS, INC.,

Defendants /

No. C-05-2948 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

ORTHOCLEAR HOLDINGS, INC.’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is defendant OrthoClear Holdings, Inc.’s (“Holdings”) motion for

summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Civil Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Align

Technology, Inc. (“Align”) has filed opposition, to which Holdings has replied. Having

considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems

the matter suitable for decision on the papers, VACATES the hearing scheduled for August

18, 2006, and rules as follows:

1. To the extent Align’s claims against Holdings are based on a theory that Holdings

itself engaged in any of the wrongful conduct alleged in the complaint, Holdings is entitled

to summary judgment. Align has not submitted sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue

with respect to such theory of liability.

2. To the extent Align’s claims against Holdings are based on an alter ego theory,

Holdings is entitled to summary judgment. Align has not submitted sufficient evidence to

Case 3:05-cv-02948-MMC Document 336 Filed 09/05/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

show, with respect to Holdings and its subsidiary OrthoClear, Inc., that a “failure to

disregard their separate identities would result in fraud or injustice.” See Harris Rutsky &

Co. Ins. Services, Inc. v. Bell & Clements, 328 F. 3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting

forth elements of “alter ego exception” to general rule that parent and subsidiary constitute

separate entities).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, Holdings’ motion for summary judgment is hereby

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02948-MMC Document 336 Filed 09/05/06 Page 2 of 2