Angelalign France Technology v Align Technology (CoA, 10 March 2026)
| Date | 10 March 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CoA_37/2026 |
| Registry reference | UPC-COA-0000037/2026 |
| Parties | Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R… |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By an order of 10 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_37/2026), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal dismissed the request for discretionary review (Rule 220.3 RoP) filed by the Angelalign companies against the Düsseldorf Local Division’s order of 26 February 2026 which, in Align Technology’s provisional measures proceedings on EP 4 295 806, had retrospectively extended Align’s time limit for its reply after a filing error. The order confirms that Rule 9.3(a) RoP, not Rule 320 RoP, governs late filing of a written submission in pending proceedings.
Question
Could the Division retrospectively extend, under Rule 9.3(a) RoP, a reply deadline missed through human error, and does that decision warrant discretionary review?
Decision
Rule 320 RoP concerns the loss of a right, such as the time limit for bringing proceedings or appealing. Missing the deadline for a written submission in pending proceedings causes no such loss, so Rule 9.3(a) RoP applies without circumventing Rule 320 (paragraphs 18 to 22). That rule sets no time limit for requesting an extension, the court may in any case act of its own motion (Rule 9.1 RoP), and accepting human error was not manifestly wrong (paragraphs 23 to 32). The defendants’ right to be heard is preserved by the extension of their own deadline (paragraph 36), and an appeal would delay the hearing set for 31 March 2026 (paragraph 37).
Key points for practice
- Late filing of a submission in pending proceedings is handled by an extension under Rule 9.3(a) RoP, without the conditions for re-establishment under Rule 320 RoP.
- Practical point: discretionary review of a case management order is unlikely to succeed where an appeal would delay a provisional measures hearing already scheduled.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 9.1, 9.3(a), 151, 220.2, 220.3, 220.4 and 320
- Case law cited
- Centripetal v Keysight, Court of Appeal, 1 September 2025, Angelalign v Align Technology, Court of Appeal, 6 January 2026, Hanshow v VusionGroup, Court of Appeal, 6 June 2025, Lionra v Cisco, Hamburg Local Division, 2 June 2025
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.
Going further
Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal.
Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.
Source and translations
- Official source
- Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
- Original language
- not recorded
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
Follow this case
Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.
Parties
- claimantAngelalign France Technology SASU5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantAngelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantEurope Angelalign Technology B.V.4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantItaly Angelalign Technology S.RFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La demande de révision discrétionnaire est rejetée : la prorogation rétroactive du délai de réplique d'Align relevait de la règle 9.3, a), et non de la règle 320, et n'était pas manifestement erronée.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Patents mentioned
EP 4 295 806mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Angelalign Technology v Align Technology (CoA, 6 January 2026) cited in this record
- Centripetal v Keysight Technologies (CoA, 1 September 2025) cited in this record
- Hanshow Technology v VusionGroup (CoA, 6 June 2025) cited in this record
- Lionra Technologies v Cisco Systems (CFI, 2 June 2025) cited in this record
- Optopol Technology v Topcon (CoA, 28 April 2026) cites this decision
- Appellant v Amycel (CoA, UPC_CoA_935/2025, 2 November 2026) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 4 295 806 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): Align Technology v Angelalign France Technology (CFI, 12 May 2026) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
Receive an alert
Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.