Align Technology v Angelalign France Technology (CFI, 12 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 12 May 2026 (UPC_CFI_1747/2025), the Düsseldorf Local Division (second panel) dismissed Align Technology’s application for provisional measures against four European companies of the Angelalign group, based on the unitary patent EP 4 295 806 on a method of designing orthodontic appliances. Infringement was not shown with the required degree of certainty: the Local Division ruled neither on validity, nor on urgency, nor on the balance of interests.

For practitioners, the order confirms that the applicant bears the burden of proving infringement in summary proceedings and that evidence based on general treatment phases is not enough where the claim requires all its features to be present in a single appliance.

Facts and procedure

Align sought an injunction in eighteen states against the « A7 Premolar Extraction Solution » and the Angel Aligner Select, Pro and KiD systems, on the basis of method claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10 and appliance claim 14, with penalty payments and an interim costs award (paragraphs 1 to 13). The defendants sought dismissal, alleged insufficiency and lack of inventive step over WO 2008/115654 (D1) combined with other documents, asked for parts of the reply to be disregarded as late and, in the alternative, sought security of EUR 1,600,000 (paragraphs 14 to 23). Align’s fallback was the combination of claims 1, 9 and 10 (paragraph 25). The oral hearing took place on 31 March 2026.

The applicable law

Rule 209.1 RoP and Art. 62 UPCA allow provisional measures where the court is satisfied with a sufficient degree of certainty that the patent is valid and infringed, meaning that both are more likely than not, the burden of proving infringement resting on the applicant (paragraphs 34, 35 and 78). The claim is construed under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol.

Question

Did Align show with sufficient likelihood that Angelalign’s appliances realise features 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 of claim 1, concerning the moments and counter moments applied to the teeth?

Decision

Having found the application admissible and the court competent (paragraphs 32 and 33), the Local Division defined the skilled person as an orthodontist experienced in treatment planning, including with clear aligners (paragraph 55). Claim 1 requires all its features to be realised in one single appliance (paragraphs 57, 73 and 85), and « counter moments » are distinct from « moments » and must be shown separately (paragraphs 69 to 71).

Align’s evidence, general and based on treatment phases, did not show that features 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 are combined in one aligner (paragraphs 80 to 91). The defendants’ contrary evidence (anchorage preparation at the start of treatment, minimal tipping back, no mesial movement of posterior teeth in certain phases) was not sufficiently rebutted (paragraphs 92 and 93). The dependent claims, including claims 9 and 10, fall with claim 1 (paragraph 94). Whether certain arguments were late was left open (paragraph 79).

The application was dismissed without examining validity, urgency or the balance of interests (paragraph 95), Align bears the costs and the value of the case was set at EUR 1,600,000 (paragraphs 96 to 98).

Key points for practice

• In summary proceedings, failure to show likely infringement is enough to dismiss the application without any review of validity.
• Where a claim is directed to a single appliance, all its features must be shown to be present in that same appliance.
• Closely related features (moments and counter moments) each require their own evidence.
• Practical point: the applicant should file technical evidence targeted at a specific product rather than a general account of the treatment.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 31, 32(1)(c), 33(1)(b), 62 and 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 209.1, 211, 220.1(c) and 224.2(b)

European Patent Convention

Art. 69 and Protocol on its interpretation

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 4(1), 7(2), 8(2) and 71b(1)

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Mammut Sports v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_182/2024), Aesculap v Shanghai International Holding, Düsseldorf Local Division, 10 July 2025, Roche v Menarini, Düsseldorf Local Division, 5 December 2025, VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024 (UPC_CoA_1/2024), Amgen v Sanofi, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Sumi Agro v Syngenta, Court of Appeal, 3 March 2025 (UPC_CoA_523/2024)

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.