Angelalign Technology v Align Technology (CoA, 8 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 8 July 2026 (UPC_CoA_36/2026), the Court of Appeal (Judges Voß, presiding, van den Broek, rapporteur, Sabotier, and technically qualified Judges Philipps and Sanchini) holds admissible but unfounded the appeal of Angelalign Technology and four group companies against the provisional measures order of the Düsseldorf Local Division of 12 February 2026 (UPC_CFI_723/2025), granted to Align Technology on unitary patent EP 4 346 690 (automated management of clinical modifications to an orthodontic aligner treatment plan). The provisional measures are maintained (paragraph 187).

The order matters for practice on two points: the Court of Appeal is not bound by the first-instance exclusion of late arguments and decides for itself under Rule 222.2, and the necessity of the measures is assessed by reference to direct competition and market position, without any requirement of irreparable harm.

Facts and procedure

On Align’s application, the Düsseldorf Local Division found jurisdiction, urgency, likely validity of claims 1, 13 and 15 and infringement, since infringement had not been contested in time, and granted an injunction for direct infringement of claims 1 and 13 and indirect infringement of claim 15, with an interim award of costs of EUR 400,000. By an order of 16 December 2025 it had disregarded paragraphs 13 to 24 of the rejoinder and exhibit AR07, the Court of Appeal dismissed a request for discretionary review on 6 January 2026. Angelalign appealed on 27 February 2026, the hearing took place on 18 June 2026. The patent is under opposition at the EPO.

The applicable law

The Court applies Art. 62 UPCA and Rules 205, 206.2(c) and 211 on provisional measures, Rule 222.2 on new submissions on appeal, Arts. 54 and 69 EPC and the Protocol on the Interpretation of Art. 69, and Art. 71b of Regulation 1215/2012 on international jurisdiction.

Question

Are the claims likely to be valid and infringed, may the Court of Appeal admit non-infringement arguments excluded as late at first instance, and are the provisional measures necessary?

Decision

The UPC has jurisdiction over all appellants (paragraph 22). Features 1.6 (determination against a threshold) and 1.7 (generation of the revised plan) are two distinct steps with a specific temporal order (paragraph 56). Exhibits AR09 and AR10, filed late without explanation and raising a new invalidity attack, are disregarded (paragraphs 61 to 65). The claims are held more likely than not to be valid: neither D2 nor D6 anticipates the invention, and no combination starting from D1, D2, D6 or D7 renders it obvious (paragraphs 57 to 156).

On infringement, the Court is not bound by the exclusion ordered at first instance and exercises its own discretion (paragraph 159). The arguments on scenario 1, on file since the rejoinder of 28 November 2025, are admitted, those on scenarios 2 and 3, late and unjustified, are disregarded (paragraphs 160 to 164). Direct infringement of claims 1 and 13 and indirect infringement of claim 15 by the iOrtho software and the aligners is held more likely than not (paragraph 173). Urgency is not disputed (paragraph 175). Irreparable harm is not required. Between direct competitors, the concrete risk to Align’s market position justifies the measures, and the balance of interests favours Align, since the appellants can market iOrtho without the feature at issue (paragraphs 178 to 186). The provisional measures ordered by the Local Division are maintained (paragraph 187). The order dismisses the appeal and orders the appellants to bear the costs of the appeal under Art. 69(1) UPCA: the exclusion of the arguments on scenarios 2 and 3 does not alter this, and the first instance rejection of the claims against the third defendant, which was not appealed, is final, including as to costs (paragraphs 188 and 189).

Key points for practice

• The Court of Appeal itself decides, under Rule 222.2, whether to admit submissions excluded as late at first instance. An uncontested submission cannot be rejected for late filing (paragraphs 159 to 161).
• A defendant that does not contest the technical description of its product in time will have those facts treated as uncontested, the Court assessing only their legal consequence (paragraph 164).
• Necessity of provisional measures does not require irreparable harm. Direct competition may justify preserving the status quo ante (paragraph 179).
• Practical point: when opposing an application for provisional measures, all non-infringement arguments should be set out in the objection, since the rejoinder cannot cure an omitted argument without justification.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 33(1)(b), 62, 69(1) and 75(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 205, 206.2, 209.1, 211 and 222.2

European Patent Convention

Art. 54, Art. 69

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts. 7(2) and 71b

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024, Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Abbott v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, Insulet v EOFlow, Court of Appeal, 30 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_768/2024), Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_646/2024), Amgen v Sanofi, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Amgen v Regeneron, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025

Related decisions

• Align v Angelalign, 12 February 2026, provisional measures order under appeal.
• Angelalign, 6 January 2026, discretionary review refused of the order excluding late submissions.
• Align v Angelalign, 3 July 2026, subsequent order on penalty payments.

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.