DENTAL MONITORING SAS v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC. [OPINION]

DENTAL MONITORING SAS v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC. [OPINION] Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized. Review the linked PDF before publication. The extracted conclusion below is included for audit. REMANDED conclusion based on underlying fac- tual findings." Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., 8 F.4th 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "We review the Board's legal determinations de novo, but we review the Board's factual findings underlying those determinations for substantial evidence." Id. at 1372–73 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Carrier's qualification as prior art is a legal question requiring statutory interpretation. "When interpreting a statute, we start with the language of the statute itself." Xianli Zhang v. United States, 640 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 431 (2000)). "In reviewing the statute's text, we give the [Page 5] Case: 25-1752 Document: 42 Page: 5 Filed: 08/10/2026 DENTAL MONITORING SAS v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC. 5 words their ordinary, contemporary, common mea remand precedential remand precedential