Angelalign Technology v Align Technology (CoA, 6 January 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 6 January 2026 (UPC_CoA_2/2026), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal dismissed the request for discretionary review (Rule 220.3) filed by six Angelalign companies against the Düsseldorf Local Division’s order of 16 December 2025. That order had disregarded, in the provisional measures proceedings brought by Align Technology (EP 4 346 690), non-infringement arguments and an exhibit submitted with the rejoinder. The order sets the standard for such a request when a hearing is imminent.

Question

Should the Court of Appeal allow discretionary review of an order excluding late arguments a few days before the first-instance hearing, where the request does not explain why the order is wrong?

Decision

Review can only be allowed after the other party has been heard (Rule 220.4). A response period shorter than four days would be disproportionate, so no decision could be given before the hearing on 14 January 2026 (paragraphs 1 to 3). Disrupting the first-instance timetable in that way would only be justified if the order were manifestly erroneous (paragraph 4). Excluding arguments and evidence is not an error in itself: the front-loaded nature of UPC proceedings also applies to provisional measures, although short time limits may justify some leniency (paragraph 5). The grounds must be set out so that the respondent can prepare its response, and specific references to first-instance pleadings are acceptable (paragraph 6). The request, framed in general terms without reference to the relevant paragraphs, did not meet that standard (paragraph 7) and was dismissed.

Key points for practice

• A request for discretionary review must show the manifest error precisely, with references to the relevant passages of the first-instance pleadings.
• With a hearing imminent, the Court of Appeal will interrupt the first-instance timetable only for a manifest error.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220.2, 220.3, 220.4 and 221.2

Case law cited

Netgear v Huawei, Court of Appeal, 21 March 2024, Mammut Sports Group v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, EOFlow v Insulet, Court of Appeal, 9 October 2024, Koninklijke Philips v Belkin, Court of Appeal, 29 October 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.