Align v Angelalign (CFI, 5 June 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 5 June 2026 (UPC_CFI_684/2025, together with counterclaim UPC_CFI_2279/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division, on an application by Align Technology under Rule 9.2 RoP, declares inadmissible the new non-infringement arguments raised for the first time by the Angelalign companies in their rejoinder (paragraphs 49 to 57) and exhibits AR 12 and AR 13, which may not be relied on at the oral hearing or later (EP 2 237 738). The order applies the front-loaded logic of UPC procedure strictly: defence arguments belong in the statement of defence.

Question

May a defendant raise in its rejoinder non-infringement arguments on features it had not disputed in its statement of defence?

Decision

No. The rejoinder is the last written submission, and the statement of defence must set out the facts, evidence and reasons why the action should fail (Rule 24(e) to (g) RoP). Align’s reply introduced nothing new that could justify these arguments, since the construction of the features at issue was already that of the statement of claim. The defendants had all the necessary information and gave no justification for the delay. The alternative request for leave to reply in writing becomes devoid of purpose. The reasons are not numbered. The order may be reviewed by the panel (Rule 333 RoP).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: any challenge to a claim feature must be raised in the statement of defence, the rejoinder only answers new matters in the reply.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.2, 24(e) to (g) and 333

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.