Align v Angelalign (CFI, 29 December 2025)

Date	29 December 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

6 November 2025 : Align v Angelalign (CFI, 6 November 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

In an order of 29 December 2025 (UPC_CFI_723/2025), the Düsseldorf Local Division refused the Angelalign defendants leave to appeal the order of 16 December 2025, which had disregarded late non-infringement arguments in their rejoinder and refused further written pleadings, in the provisional measures proceedings brought by Align Technology on the basis of EP 4 346 690. The panel tied those rulings to its discretion in case management and to circumstances specific to the case.

Question

Should leave to appeal under Rule 220.2 be granted against a procedural order disregarding late submissions and refusing further written pleadings in provisional measures proceedings?

Decision

Leave was refused (paragraph 17). The timetable had been set under Rule 209.1(a), and the order of 16 December 2025 applied Rule 9 to arguments and evidence filed out of time and Rule 36 to the refusal of further pleadings, having regard to the nature of the proceedings and the parties’ interests (paragraph 16). As the order is closely connected to the specific circumstances of the case, consistent application and interpretation of the Rules of Procedure do not require leave (paragraph 16). The panel did not address the defendants’ point on whether front-loading applies to provisional measures (paragraph 14).

Key points for practice

In provisional measures proceedings, new arguments raised in a rejoinder outside the set timetable may be disregarded, and immediate leave to appeal is hard to obtain where the order concerns case management.
Practical point: where leave is refused, Rule 220.3 allows a request for discretionary review to the Court of Appeal within fifteen calendar days.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 49(5), Arts 59 to 62 and Art. 67
Rules of Procedure: Rules 9.1, 9.2, 36, 206, 209.1(a), 220.1, 220.2 and 220.3
Case law cited: Mammut Sports Group v Ortovox Sportartikel, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Paris Central Division, 29 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_263/2023), SodaStream Industries v Aarke, 31 October 2024, NJOY Netherlands v Juul Labs, 5 November 2024 (decisions relied on by the defendants)

Related decisions

Align v Angelalign, 6 November 2025, earlier order dismissing the defendants’ request for security for costs.

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, 2025-11-06), 6 November 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.onormalised name: Angelalign 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
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.
29 December 2025 Align v Angelalign (CFI, 29 December 2025) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_723/2025
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): 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.
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, 6 November 2025) cited in this record
NJOY Netherlands v Juul Labs (CFI, ORD_598483/2023, 5 November 2024) cited in this record
SodaStream Industries v Aarke (CFI, 31 October 2024) cited in this record
Mammut Sports Group v Ortovox Sportartikel (CoA, ORD_44387/2024, 25 September 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, 6 November 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.