Align Technology v Angelalign (CFI, 16 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 17 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision on the merits of 16 October 2026 (UPC_CFI_684/2025 and UPC_CFI_2279/2025), the Paris Local Division upheld Align Technology’s unitary patent EP 2 237 738 B1 on orthodontic repositioning appliances and found literal infringement of claims 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8 by the Angel Aligner ‘Select’ and ‘Pro’ aligners using the ‘AngelAttach’ system. It granted an injunction confined to the seventeen UPC States listed in the order and ordered recall, removal and destruction, but refused both publication of the decision and the security sought by the defendants.

Facts and procedure

Align Technology, Inc. holds EP 2 237 738 B1, filed on 12 December 2008 claiming priority from 29 January 2008, granted on 12 July 2023 and given unitary effect on 31 July 2023. No opposition was filed. Align sued five Angelalign companies in respect of the UPC territory and the United Kingdom. The defendants lodged a counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_2279/2025). The panel was presided over by Camille Lignières, sitting with Carine Gillet (judge-rapporteur), Marjolein Visser and Elisabetta Papa (technically qualified judge).

Question

Do aligners fitted with a ‘Torque Ridge’ infringe a valid patent, and how far should corrective measures, publication and security reach where an injunction affects treatments already under way?

Decision

The Local Division held that it had jurisdiction over all defendants for acts within the UPC territory, and that the UPC had international jurisdiction over the Cayman Islands defendant for acts in the United Kingdom (para. 14). ‘Planned’ arrangements do not require the whole series of aligners to be planned from the outset (para. 30). The objections of insufficiency and added matter failed (paras 50 to 65). On inventive step, D1 was a realistic starting point (para. 74), yet none of the combinations relied on succeeded (paras 79 to 99). The patent was valid (para. 103) and literally infringed (paras 105 to 110).

Four defendants were held jointly and severally liable for the UPC territory, while the Dutch company, a mere shareholder with no proven operational involvement, was cleared (para. 119). The UK claims failed because the claimant had neither set out the applicable law in its statement of claim nor proved acts in the United Kingdom (para. 120). The injunction spares aligners already delivered and covers only patients whose treatment has not begun or has been interrupted (para. 127), although patients’ interests cannot by themselves limit the measures (para. 128). Corrective measures being the rule in principle (para. 124), recall, removal and destruction were ordered under penalty. Damages run from grant only and will be assessed in separate proceedings (paras 133 and 134). Information must be provided within two months, under a confidentiality club of four persons and an auditor (paras 135 to 138). Security under Article 82(2) UPCA was refused, a US seat not being a ground in itself (paras 139 to 141), as was publication, absent particular circumstances (paras 142 to 145).

Key points for practice

• An injunction may be tailored to spare aligners already delivered to patients mid-treatment, without patients’ interests operating as a free-standing limit on the measures.
• Publication requires particular circumstances, such as a legitimate interest or a need to restore market presence, in line with the Court of Appeal.
• A patentee seeking relief for acts outside the UPC territory must plead the applicable foreign law in its statement of claim and prove the acts committed in the State concerned.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.8, 262 and 262A RoP

UPC Agreement

Articles 68, 80 and 82(2) UPCA

Case law cited

Fujifilm v Kodak, Court of Appeal, 13 July 2026 (UPC_CoA_473/2025), and Rematec v Europe Forestry, Court of Appeal, 17 February 2026 (UPC_CoA_302/2025)

Related decisions

• Align Technology v Angelalign, 5 June 2026, an earlier decision in the same action UPC_CFI_684/2025.
• Angelalign, Court of Appeal, 8 July 2026, a Court of Appeal decision concerning the Angelalign group.
• Align Technology v Angelalign and others, 3 July 2026, the parallel action UPC_CFI_723/2025.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 17 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.