Align Technology v Angelalign Technology (CFI, 3 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 3 July 2026 (UPC_CFI_723/2025), the Düsseldorf Local Division (Judges Thomas, presiding, Thom, Visser, rapporteur, and technically qualified Judge Papa) imposes on Angelalign Technology and four group companies a penalty payment of EUR 49,500, payable to the Court, for failing to remove in time an online user manual and social media posts presenting the « Live Now » feature of the iOrtho software, which was covered by the provisional measures order of 12 February 2026 granted to Align Technology (EP 4 346 690). Align had sought EUR 20,000 per day, namely EUR 580,000.

The order extends to Arts. 25(b) and (c) and 26 UPCA the economic concept of « offering » adopted by the Court of Appeal: a regulatory document or an old post that is still accessible may amount to an offer and justify a penalty payment.

Facts and procedure

The order of 12 February 2026, served the same day, prohibited in particular the use and offering of the patented method in eighteen States and provided for penalty payments. The compliance period expired on 19 February 2026 (paragraph 53). Angelalign disabled « Live Now » in the UPC territory on 12 February 2026. On 20 March 2026 Align applied for penalty payments, relying on the electronic user manual (eIFU) available on Angelalign’s website and on Facebook and Instagram posts promoting the feature. The manual was replaced on 24 March 2026 and the posts removed the same day, 33 days after the compliance period expired.

The applicable law

The division applies Art. 82(4) UPCA and Rule 354.4 on penalty payments, and Arts. 25 and 26 UPCA on the concept of offering. A penalty payment must be proportionate, having regard to the seriousness and duration of the breach, financial capacity, the advantage gained and the risk to the patentee. It is both coercive and punitive and requires fault, the burden of proving timely compliance resting on the defendants (paragraphs 35 to 39).

Question

Does keeping an online user manual and old promotional posts accessible after the compliance period expired amount to an « offering » in breach of the injunction, and what penalty is proportionate?

Decision

The user manual is an offer within Art. 25 UPCA despite its regulatory nature: offering is understood in an economic sense, following the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Belkin v Philips, and the manual was accessible and directed at the States concerned (paragraphs 41 to 45). The social media posts, still visible, are also offers, their age being relevant to the amount (paragraphs 46 and 47). Fault is established, since the defendants do not show that compliance was unreasonable or impossible (paragraph 48). The most serious breach, use of the feature, ended on 12 February 2026 and exposure of the material was limited (paragraphs 49 to 51). The penalty is set at EUR 750 per day for the manual, EUR 250 for the Facebook post and EUR 500 for the Instagram posts, namely EUR 1,500 per day for 33 days (paragraphs 52 to 54). Costs are split equally and the value of the proceedings is set at EUR 580,000, leave to appeal is granted (paragraphs 55 and 56).

Key points for practice

• The concept of offering under Art. 25(a) UPCA developed by the Court of Appeal also applies to Arts. 25(b) and (c) and 26 UPCA.
• A regulatory document, such as a user manual, may amount to an offering prohibited by the injunction.
• Practical point: complying with an injunction requires a full audit of online material, including website, manuals and social media, from service onwards, overlooking old posts does not exclude fault.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 25, 26, 73 and 82(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 211.1, 220, 264 and 354

Case law cited

myStromer v Revolt Zycling, Düsseldorf Local Division, 18 October 2023, Belkin v Philips, Court of Appeal, 30 May 2025, Belkin v Philips, Court of Appeal, 3 October 2025, Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 14 October 2025, EOFlow v Insulet, Court of Appeal, 4 February 2026

Related decisions

• Align v Angelalign, 12 February 2026, provisional measures order whose enforcement is at issue.
• Angelalign v Align, 8 July 2026, Court of Appeal order upholding the provisional measures.

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.