Align Technology v Angelalign Technology (CFI, 12 February 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 12 February 2026 (UPC_CFI_723/2025), the Düsseldorf Local Division (Presiding Judge Thomas, Judge Thom, Judge Visser as judge rapporteur and technically qualified Judge Papa), after an inter partes hearing, granted Align Technology’s application for provisional measures based on unitary patent EP 4 346 690 B1 (automated management of clinical modifications to an orthodontic treatment plan). It enjoined five Angelalign group companies, in eighteen States, from using or offering the « Live Now » function of the iOrtho 5.2 software and from marketing aligners so obtained. The application against the group’s Dutch holding company was rejected.

Facts and procedure

The patent, filed on 1 June 2022, was granted on 23 July 2025, unitary effect was registered on 29 July 2025. The contested function has been marketed since May 2025, the application was filed on 15 August 2025. The division rejected the request for security for costs on 6 November 2025 and, on 16 December 2025, disregarded the non-infringement arguments raised for the first time in the rejoinder. Leave to appeal was refused on 29 December 2025 and the Court of Appeal rejected the request for discretionary review on 6 January 2026. The opposition filed at the EPO on 12 January 2026 was not taken into account (paragraphs 40 to 49). The oral hearing took place on 14 January 2026.

The applicable law

The division applies Articles 25, 26, 62 and 69 UPCA, Rules 209, 211, 213, 352.1 and 354 RoP, and Articles 54, 56, 69 and 138(1) EPC.

Question

Is the patent more likely than not valid, is the holding company liable for its subsidiaries’ acts, and should the injunction be subject to security?

Decision

The burden of proving invalidity does not shift to the proprietor because the defendant disputes the claim interpretation applied in examination (paragraph 55). « In real time » means within a tight time frame of 15 minutes or less, distinct from « automatically » (paragraphs 74 to 76), claim 1 does not require rejection of a modification outside the threshold (paragraph 84). Infringement, not contested in time, is assumed (paragraph 87).

Neither D2, where « real time » refers only to switching between pre-calculated plans rather than recalculation, nor the D6 video discloses feature 1.7 (paragraphs 92 to 132), disclosure of a sub-claim cannot make up for a missing feature of the independent claim (paragraph 131). Under the Court of Appeal’s approach, D7 combined with D8 does not lead to the invention, as neither discloses features 1.5 to 1.7, and the other attacks did not follow that method (paragraphs 135 to 175). Insufficiency is unsubstantiated and lack of clarity cannot be raised against a granted claim (paragraphs 177 and 178). Relying on combinations with sub-claims does not make invalidity more likely (paragraph 180).

No delay is alleged. Between direct competitors, in a market where clinicians choose a supplier for the long term, two months on the market do not form a status quo deserving protection against a function Align has marketed since 2022, and the defendants can revert to the earlier software version (paragraphs 188 to 198). The holding company, against which no act beyond its shareholder role is alleged, is not liable (paragraphs 199 to 202).

The operative part grants the injunction under claims 1, 13 and 15, with penalty payments of up to EUR 10,000 per product and EUR 20,000 per day, due one week after service (paragraphs 204 to 214). It refuses security, since a mere reference to a Munich Local Division order proves neither US law nor its application (paragraphs 219 to 223), orders the five losing defendants to bear the costs and to pay an interim award of EUR 400,000, half the ceiling, instead of the EUR 800,000 requested (paragraphs 225 to 233), and sets the value of the case at EUR 12,000,000.

Key points for practice

• Disputing the examiner’s claim interpretation does not reverse the burden of proving invalidity, though prior art already examined may be relied on again (paragraph 55).
• Auxiliary requests based on sub-claims do not weaken the main claim (paragraph 180).
• A financial holding company is liable for its subsidiaries’ acts only if conduct beyond its shareholder role is alleged, applying Belkin v Philips on managing directors a fortiori (paragraph 202).
• Practical point: security for enforcement requires concrete proof of the applicable foreign law and its application, a finding made between other parties is not enough.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 25, 26, 33(1)(b), 62, 69 and 82(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 150.2, 171.2, 209, 211, 213, 352.1 and 354.3

European Patent Convention

Art. 54, Art. 56, Art. 69, Art. 138

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, UPC Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Mammut v Ortovox, UPC Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Hand Held Products v Scandit, Munich Local Division, 27 August 2024, Sumi Agro v Syngenta, UPC Court of Appeal, 3 March 2025, Belkin v Philips, UPC Court of Appeal, 3 October 2025, Kodak v Fujifilm, UPC Court of Appeal, 14 October 2025, Meril v Edwards, UPC Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Amgen v Sanofi, UPC Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Barco v Yealink, UPC Court of Appeal, 28 November 2025, Roche v Menarini, Düsseldorf Local Division, 5 December 2025

Related decisions

• Align v Angelalign, 6 November 2025, request for security for costs rejected.
• Align v Angelalign, 29 December 2025, leave to appeal the order disregarding late arguments refused.
• Angelalign, 6 January 2026, request for discretionary review rejected.
• Align v Angelalign, 3 July 2026, penalty payment for non-compliance with this order.
• Angelalign, 8 July 2026, appeal against this order dismissed.

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.