Align v Angelalign (CFI, 6 November 2025)

Date	6 November 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Application for provisional measures
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_723/2025
Registry reference	UPC_CFI_723/2025
Parties	Align Technology, Inc. v. Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

29 December 2025 : Align v Angelalign (CFI, 29 December 2025) UPC_CFI_723/2025
12 February 2026 : Align Technology v Angelalign Technology (CFI, 12 February 2026) UPC_CFI_723/2025
3 July 2026 : Align Technology v Angelalign Technology (CFI, 3 July 2026) UPC_CFI_723/2025

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 6 November 2025 (UPC_CFI_723/2025), the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the request by the six Angelalign companies for EUR 400,000 in security for costs against Align Technology, a US company, in provisional measures proceedings based on EP 4 346 690. The order refuses to carry over from one case to another the premise that enforcement costs in the United States cannot be recovered.

Question

Does the mere fact that the applicant is based in the United States justify security for costs on the ground that enforcing a costs order there would be unlikely or unduly burdensome?

Decision

Under Art. 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158.1 and the Court of Appeal’s case law, the division asks whether the applicant’s financial position gives rise to a legitimate concern about recoverability or whether enforcement may be unlikely or unduly burdensome. The burden lies on the party seeking security (paragraphs 10 and 11). The defendants did not rely on Align’s financial position (paragraph 12). They relied solely on an order of the Munich Local Division of 27 August 2024, which had treated as undisputed under Rule 171.2 that enforcement costs in the United States are not reimbursable (paragraphs 13 and 14). That finding was specific to one case and its parties and cannot be extended, and no evidence of US law or its application was filed (paragraph 15). The request was dismissed, with the costs of the application reserved (paragraphs 16 to 18).

Key points for practice

A party seeking security for costs against a US applicant must prove the applicable foreign law and its effect on recovery, and cannot rely on a finding made in another case.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 69(4)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 158.1, 171.2 and 209.1
Case law cited: Chint New Energy v JingAo Solar, Court of Appeal, 9 July 2025, Audi v NST, Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024, Aarke v SodaStream Industries, Court of Appeal, 29 November 2024, Hand Held Products v Scandit, Munich Local Division, 27 August 2024

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.

Decisions in the same proceedings

Align v Angelalign a.o (CFI, 2025-12-29), 29 December 2025
Align v Angelalign a. o (CFI, 2026-02-12), 12 February 2026
Align v Angelalign a. o (CFI, 2026-07-03), 3 July 2026

Going further

Lexicon: Application for a preliminary injunction, Order to preserve evidence (UPC).

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: The Launch Letter: How Generics and Biosimilars Should Write to Avoid UPC Urgency (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

UPC_CFI_723/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantAlign Technology, Inc.7 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantAngelalign Technology Inc. a. o4 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

6 November 2025 Align v Angelalign (CFI, 6 November 2025) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_723/2025
29 December 2025 Align v Angelalign (CFI, 29 December 2025) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_723/2025
L'autorisation de faire appel de l'ordonnance écartant des arguments tardifs et refusant des écritures supplémentaires est refusée, cette ordonnance relevant du pouvoir d'appréciation de la formation et des circonstances de l'espèce.
12 February 2026 Align Technology v Angelalign Technology (CFI, 12 February 2026) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_723/2025
Une injonction provisoire est prononcée sur EP 4 346 690 contre cinq sociétés Angelalign, sans garantie. La charge de la preuve de la nullité reste au défendeur et la holding, sans acte propre allégué, est mise hors de cause.
3 July 2026 Align Technology v Angelalign Technology (CFI, 3 July 2026) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_723/2025
Les défenderesses 1, 2, 4, 5 et 6 doivent payer à la juridiction une astreinte de 49 500 € pour avoir laissé en ligne, 33 jours après le délai d’exécution, un manuel d’utilisation et des publications constituant des offres prohibées.
8 July 2026 Angelalign Technology v Align Technology (CoA, 8 July 2026) Appeal RoP220.1 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
La cour d’appel juge l’appel d’Angelalign recevable mais mal fondé : les revendications 1, 13 et 15 de EP 4 346 690 sont vraisemblablement valables et contrefaites, et les mesures provisoires sont maintenues.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Application for provisional measures
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La demande de garantie des frais contre Align Technology est rejetée : les défenderesses n'invoquent pas sa situation financière et ne prouvent pas le droit américain, une constatation faite dans une autre affaire ne pouvant être transposée.
Appeal: An appeal is documented in the corpus (see above).
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 4 346 690 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Align Technology v Angelalign Technology (CFI, 3 July 2026) cited in this record
Align Technology v Angelalign Technology (CFI, 12 February 2026) cited in this record
Align v Angelalign (CFI, 29 December 2025) cited in this record
Chint New Energy v JingAo Solar (CoA, 9 July 2025) cited in this record
Aarke v SodaStream Industries (CoA, 29 November 2024) cited in this record
Audi v Network System Technologies (CoA, 17 September 2024) cited in this record
Hand Held Products v Scandit (CFI, 27 August 2024) cited in this record

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 4 346 690`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 5 other decision(s): Angelalign Technology v Align Technology (CoA, 8 July 2026) · Align Technology v Angelalign Technology (CFI, 12 February 2026) · Align Technology v Angelalign Technology (CFI, 3 July 2026) · Angelalign Technology v Align Technology (CoA, 6 January 2026) · Align v Angelalign (CFI, 29 December 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.