XML 65 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.1

Legal Proceedings | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2020
Legal Proceedings [Abstract] |
Legal Proceedings | Legal Proceedings 2018 Securities Class Action Lawsuit On November 5, 2018, a class action lawsuit against Align and three of our executive officers was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock between July 25, 2018 and October 24, 2018. The complaint generally alleges claims under the federal securities laws and seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount and costs and expenses incurred in the litigation. On December 12, 2018, a similar lawsuit was filed in the same court on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock between April 25, 2018 and October 24, 2018 (together with the first lawsuit, the “Securities Actions”). On May 10, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint against Align and four of our executive officers alleging similar claims as the initial complaints on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock between April 25, 2018 and October 24, 2018. On June 24, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On October 29, 2019, that motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend. On November 29, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint against Align and two of our executive officers alleging similar claims as the initial complaints on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock from May 23, 2018 and October 24, 2018. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint was filed on January 17, 2020. A hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for June 4, 2020. Align believes these claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit In January 2019, three derivative lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of Align, naming as defendants the members of our Board of Directors along with certain of our executive officers. The allegations in the complaints are similar to those presented in the Securities Actions, but the complaints assert various state law causes of action including for breaches of fiduciary duty, insider trading, and unjust enrichment, among others. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of Align, which is named solely as a nominal defendant against whom no recovery is sought, as well as disgorgement and the costs and expenses associated with the litigation, including attorneys’ fees. On February 26, 2019, the three lawsuits were consolidated. On April 10, 2019, the court stayed the consolidated action pending final disposition of the Securities Actions. On April 12, 2019, a derivative lawsuit was also filed in California Superior Court for Santa Clara County, purportedly on behalf of Align, naming as defendants the members of our Board of Directors along with certain of our executive officers. The allegations in this complaint are similar to those in the derivative suits described above. On May 16, 2019, the court stayed this action pending final disposition of the Securities Actions. On February 22, 2019, a purported stockholder sent a letter to Align pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220 demanding certain books and records for the stated purpose of investigating potential breaches of duty, corporate mismanagement, and alleged wrongdoing by fiduciaries of the Company. On April 16, 2019, Align responded and refused the demand on several legal grounds. On June 10, 2019, the purported stockholder petitioned the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to issue a writ of mandate commanding Align to provide the books and records requested. On August 23, 2019, Align filed a demurrer seeking to dismiss the petition, and on October 28, 2019, the Court issued an order sustaining Align’s demurrer and dismissing the petition without an opportunity to amend. On December 19, 2019, the same purported stockholder filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, seeking an order from the Court compelling Align to permit the inspection of the same books and records that were previously requested, as well as requesting attorneys’ fees. Align filed a demurrer seeking to dismiss this new complaint on March 12, 2020. Plaintiff has indicated it will file an amended complaint by May 18, 2020. Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of this demand or of these lawsuits and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. 2020 Securities Class Action Lawsuit On March 2, 2020, a class action lawsuit against Align and two of our executive officers was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock between April 24, 2019 and July 24, 2019. The complaint filed in the Southern District of New York alleges claims under the federal securities laws and seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount and costs and expenses incurred in the litigation. The court entered an order approving a stipulation of the parties that defendants will have no obligation to respond to the complaint, until after the appointment of a lead plaintiff. On April 16, 2020, the Court approved the parties’ stipulation to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. No lead plaintiff has been appointed to date. Align believes these claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. 2020 Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit On May 4, 2020, a derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of Align, naming as defendants the members of our Board of Directors along with certain of our executive officers. The allegations in the complaint are similar to those presented in the 2020 Securities Class Action Lawsuit, but this complaint asserts state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and insider trading. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of Align, which is named solely as a nominal defendant against whom no recovery is sought, as well as disgorgement and the costs and expenses associated with the litigation, including attorneys’ fees. Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. 3Shape Litigation On November 14, 2017, Align filed six patent infringement lawsuits asserting 26 patents against 3Shape, a Danish corporation, and a related U.S. corporate entity, asserting that 3Shape’s Trios intraoral scanning system and Dental System software infringe Align patents. Align filed two Section 337 complaints with the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) alleging that 3Shape violates U.S. trade laws by selling for importation and importing its infringing Trios intraoral scanning system and Dental System software. Align’s ITC complaints sought cease and desist orders and exclusion orders prohibiting the importation of 3Shape’s Trios scanning system and Dental System software products into the U.S. The ITC conducted hearings in the Section 337 investigations in September and November 2018. On March 1, 2019, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Determination in one of the Section 337 investigations, finding no violation of Section 337 by 3Shape. On April 26, 2019, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Determination in the second Section 337 investigation, finding no violation of Section 337 by 3Shape. On August 20, 2019, the Commission vacated one Initial Determination and terminated the investigation. On November 22, 2019, the Commission affirmed a finding of no violation on modified grounds in the other investigation. In addition to the two ITC Section 337 complaints, in November 2017, Align also filed four separate complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging patent infringement by 3Shape’s Trios intraoral scanning system and Dental System software. Two of those cases were stayed pending the ITC determinations, while the other two cases proceeded. Trials in the latter two cases have been scheduled to begin on August 5, 2020 in one case and November 30, 2020 in the other. In a Delaware case corresponding to one of the terminated ITC investigations, the District Court lifted the stay and scheduled trial to begin on November 8, 2021. Certain of Align’s asserted patents in the Delaware actions were found invalid by the District Court judge. On May 9, 2018, 3Shape filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging patent infringement by Align’s iTero Element scanner of a single 3Shape patent. On June 14, 2018, 3Shape filed another complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging patent infringement by Align’s iTero Element scanner of another 3Shape patent. On August 19, 2019, the Court consolidated the two actions, and on August 30, 2019, 3Shape filed an amended complaint alleging infringement of an additional patent. In that same case, Align asserted counterclaims against 3Shape for infringement of three additional Align patents, which have been severed and added to another patent infringement action brought by Align (described below). The case is active and in the early discovery phase, with trial scheduled to begin on April 12, 2021. In December 2018, Align filed three additional patent infringement lawsuits asserting 10 additional patents against 3Shape as follows: On December 10, 2018, Align filed one Section 337 complaint with the ITC alleging that 3Shape violates U.S. trade laws by selling for importation and importing the infringing TRIOS intraoral scanning system, Trios Lab Scanners and TRIOS software, TRIOS Module software, Dental System software, and Ortho System Software. The ITC instituted the investigation, and an evidentiary hearing was held at the end of October 2019 before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). On April 30, 2020, the ALJ issued an initial determination. The ALJ determined that 3Shape has infringed on 7 of the 9 patent claims asserted by Align, found valid 6 of the 9 claims asserted by Align, and found a violation of Section 337 stemming from 3Shape’s infringement of 4 claims in 2 of Align's asserted patents. The ALJ recommended an exclusion order and cease and desist order be entered against 3Shape’s unlawful importation. The Initial Determination is now subject to review by the Commissioners at the ITC. Align may file a contingent petition for review of any findings it believes are incorrect. 3Shape may also petition for review of the Initial Determination. The Commission will then decide whether to review portions of or the entire Initial Determination. In addition to the December 10, 2018 ITC Complaint, on December 11, 2018, Align filed two separate complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging patent infringement by 3Shape's Trios intraoral scanning system, Lab Scanners and Dental and Ortho System Software. One of the District Court cases was stayed pending the parallel ITC investigation. The remaining District Court case is in the early stages of discovery and pretrial proceedings. Align has dismissed without prejudice three previously-asserted patents from this case, and added the three patents previously asserted as counterclaims in the case filed by 3Shape in 2018 referenced above. Trial is scheduled for February 7, 2022. On November 5, 2019, Align filed a complaint for patent infringement asserting an additional patent against 3Shape. On January 7, 2020, Align voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice, and Align currently asserts the patent in another existing litigation against 3Shape. 3Shape has sought to invalidate certain of Align’s patents through petitions for inter partes review proceedings. Align disputes 3Shape’s positions and intends to vigorously defend the validity of its patent rights. Each of the District Court patent infringement complaints seek monetary damages and injunctive relief against further infringement. On August 28, 2018, 3Shape filed a complaint against Align in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging antitrust violations and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief relating to Align’s alleged market activities, including Align’s assertion of its patent portfolio, in alleged clear aligner and intraoral scanning markets, and the Court scheduled trial to begin on May 10, 2021. Align filed a motion to dismiss 3Shape’s complaint on October 17, 2018. Align also moved to stay the litigation pending the outcome of its motion to dismiss. The court granted Align’s motion to stay. On August 15, 2019, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Align’s motion to dismiss be granted, and, on September 26, 2019, the District Court Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, granted Align’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed 3Shape’s complaint with leave to amend. On October 28, 2019, 3Shape filed an amended complaint, and Align again moved to dismiss the complaint. A hearing on Align’s motion to dismiss was held on February 13, 2020 before the Magistrate Judge, who will issue a written Report and Recommendation to the District Court judge. Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss, if any, nor estimate a range of possible loss. Simon & Simon On March 14, 2019, a dental practice named Simon and Simon, PC d/b/a City Smiles brought an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of itself and a putative class of similarly situated practices seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief relating to Align’s alleged market activities in alleged clear aligner and intraoral scanning markets. Align filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 5, 2019. On October 15, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Align’s motion be granted and that the plaintiffs’ complaint be dismissed without prejudice. On October 29, 2019, Simon and Simon filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and Align responded on November 12, 2019. The Court ordered supplemental briefing, which was completed by April 10, 2020. On April 24, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued a revised Report and Recommendation again recommending that Align’s motion be granted and that the plaintiffs’ complaint be dismissed without prejudice. On May 4, 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal and stated an intent to file an amended complaint in a different jurisdiction. Align believes the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. Align is currently unable to predi ct the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss, if any, nor estimate a range of possible loss. SDC Dispute In February 2018, Align received a communication on behalf of SDC Financial LLC, SmileDirectClub LLC, and the Members of SDC Financial LLC other than the Company (collectively, the “SDC Entities”) alleging that the launch and operation of the Invisalign store pilot program constituted a breach of non-compete provisions applicable to the members of SDC Financial LLC, including Align. As a result of this alleged breach, SDC Financial LLC notified us that its members (other than Align) sought to exercise a right to repurchase all of Align's SDC Financial LLC membership interests for a purchase price equal to the current “capital account” balance of Align. The SDC Entities’ communication also alleged that Align breached confidentiality provisions applicable to the SDC Financial LLC members and demanded that Align cease all activities related to the Invisalign store pilot project, close existing Invisalign stores and cease using SDC’s confidential information. In April 2018, the SDC Entities instigated confidential arbitration proceedings and filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of Davidson County, State of Tennessee that sought, among other forms of relief, to preliminarily and permanently enjoin all activities related to the Invisalign store pilot project, require Align to close existing Invisalign stores, prohibit Align from opening any additional stores, and allow the SDC Entities to exercise a right to repurchase all of Align’s SDC Financial LLC membership interests for a purchase price equal to Align’s current “capital account” balance. On June 29, 2018, the Chancery Court of Davidson County, State of Tennessee denied the SDC Entities’ request for a temporary injunction to prevent Align from opening additional Invisalign stores. During December 2018, the parties participated in binding arbitration proceedings and presented closing arguments on January 23, 2019. The arbitrator issued his decision on March 4, 2019. The arbitrator found that Align breached the non-compete provision applicable to the members of SDC Financial LLC and that Align misused the SDC Entities’ confidential information and violated fiduciary duties to SDC Financial LLC. The arbitrator ordered Align to close its Invisalign stores by April 3, 2019, and enjoined Align from opening new Invisalign stores or providing certain services in physical retail establishments in connection with the marketing and sale of clear aligners, and enjoined Align from using the SDC Entities’ confidential information. The arbitrator extended the expiration date of specified aspects of the non-compete provision to August 18, 2022. The arbitrator also ordered Align to tender its SDC Financial LLC membership interests to the SDC Entities for a purchase price equal to the “capital account” balance as of October 31, 2017, to be determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of the SDC Operating Agreements. No financial damages were awarded to the SDC Entities. The SDC Entities filed a motion to confirm the Award, which Align did not oppose, in the Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois. The motion to confirm the Award was granted on April 29, 2019. As required by the Award, on April 3, 2019, Align had closed its Invisalign stores, returned SDC’s alleged confidential information, and tendered its membership interests for a purchase price that SDC claims to be Align’s “capital account” balance as of October 31, 2017. Align disputes that the SDC Entities properly determined the value of Align’s “capital account” balance as of October 31, 2017 as required by the SDC Operating Agreements and the Award. Consequently, on July 3, 2019, Align filed a confidential demand for arbitration challenging the propriety of the SDC Entities’ determination of Align’s “capital account” balance as of October 31, 2017. That arbitration proceeding remains pending and a hearing date is expected to be set once the sheltering restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic are lifted. Relatedly, the SDC Entities filed a contempt petition with the Illinois court which confirmed the Award, asserting that Align had no right to contest the “capital account” determination as made by the SDC Entities. On September 4, 2019, the Illinois court denied in its entirety the contempt petition filed by the SDC Entities. The SDC Entities have appealed the denial of the contempt petition, and that appeal remains pending. On August 19, 2019, the SDC Entities filed a separate confidential arbitration proceeding alleging that Align has violated the non-compete provisions applicable to the members of the SDC Entities by virtue of Align’s alleged dealings with a third-party claimed to be a competitor of the SDC Entities. On March 20, 2020, the SDC Entities requested leave to amend their arbitration demand in order to assert new claims. Align has opposed the pending request to amend and has denied and intends to vigorously defend itself against all asserted allegations. The SDC Entities have yet to identify the range of damages they may seek to recover in the course of this arbitration and no hearing date has yet been set. Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of these disputes and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. In addition to the above, in the course of Align’s operations, Align is involved in a variety of claims, suits, investigations, and proceedings, including actions with respect to intellectual property claims, patent infringement claims, government investigations, labor and employment claims, breach of contract claims, tax, and other matters. Regardless of the outcome, these proceedings can have an adverse impact on us because of defense costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors. Although the results of complex legal proceedings are difficult to predict and Align’s view of these matters may change in the future as litigation and events related thereto unfold; Align currently does not believe that these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will materially affect Align’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

X
- Definition Legal Proceedings [Abstract] + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | algn_LegalProceedingsAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | algn_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition Legal Proceedings [Text Block] + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | algn_LegalProceedingsTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | algn_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration