Angelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L., Shanghai EA Medical Instruments Co., Ltd v. Align Technology, Inc., UPC Court of Appeal, 8 July 2026, Case no. UPC-CoA-36/2026
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against the preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_723/2025). Patent proprietor Align had secured the injunction against several Angelalign entities.
The patent relates to a method for automated management of clinical modifications to a treatment plan for orthodontically treating teeth. Under the claimed method, a user submits a modification request. The system first determines in real time whether the requested change falls within predefined thresholds, and generates, automatically and in real time when the user requested modification is within the predetermined threshold, a revised treatment plan.
In construing the claim, the Court held that the determination step and the generation step are separate and must occur in sequence. The system must first determine that the requested modification remains within the predetermined threshold before generating a revised treatment plan based on that modification. If the requested modification exceeds the threshold, no revised plan is generated.
This interpretation differed from that adopted by the Local Division, which had considered that a revised plan could still be generated even where the threshold was exceeded. The Court of Appeal nevertheless concluded that the patent was more likely than not valid and infringed in the relevant operating scenario, and accordingly upheld the preliminary injunction.
Two novelty challenges were unsuccessful because neither prior art document disclosed the claimed architecture in which threshold compliance is determined as a separate preliminary step that governs whether a revised treatment plan is generated.
The inventive step attacks also failed, as the proposed starting points provided no teaching that would have led the skilled person to the claimed sequence of steps.
On infringement, the Court concluded that it was more likely than not that the iOrtho software infringed in one operating scenario.
The Court declined to admit prior art introduced for the first time on appeal. Angelalign had failed to explain why the material could not have been submitted before the court of first instance, and admitting it at the appeal stage would have required the patentee to defend against a new invalidity attack in only one instance.
The Court also reaffirmed that an uncontested submission should generally not be excluded merely because it is late-filed, allowing Angelalign’s non-infringement argument in one scenario. At the same time, it observed that there may be less justification for procedural leniency where a defendant launches a product at its own risk while aware of the patent and should therefore expect provisional measures proceedings.
Balancing the parties’ interests, the Court held that continued offering of the infringing functionality posed a concrete risk to Align’s market position. The parties are direct competitors, and iOrtho was the only competing product offering the infringing functionality, placing it in direct competition with Align’s own software.
A copy of the Order can be read here.
