UPC CFI 723/2025
15. Aug. 2025·EP4346690 Einheitspatent · AUTOMATED MANAGEMENT OF CLINICAL MODIFICATIONS TO TREATMENT PLANS USING THREE-DIMENSIONAL CONTROLS
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase ClosedVerfahrensartEinstweilige VerfügungKategorieEinstweilige Maßnahmen
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Align Technology, Inc.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Agathe Michel-De Cazotte-Carpmaels & Ransford
- John Brunner-Carpmaels & Ransford
Beklagte- Angelalign Technology Inc.Unternehmen
- Angelalign France Technology SASUUnternehmen
- Europe Angelalign Technology B.V.Unternehmen
- Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbHUnternehmen
- Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L.Unternehmen
- Shanghai EA Medical Instruments Co., Ltd.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Arno Eberhard Riße-Arnold Ruess
- Felix Beck-Arnold Ruess
- Ulrich Storz-Michalski Hüttermann & Partner Patentanwälte mbB
- Wanze Zhang-Michalski Hüttermann & Partner Patentanwälte mbB
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technologie
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Mechanical engineeringOther special machines
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 6. Nov. 2025
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 3. Juli 2026
- EPA-Einspruch
- Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbHZulässig2026-01-12
- Angelalign Technology Inc.Zulässig2026-04-23
- Institut Straumann AGZulässig2026-04-23
| Einstweilige Verfügung erlassen | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| Dusseldorf LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Ronny Thomas | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Marjolein Visser | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Berenice Thom | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Elisabetta Papa | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Align Technology, Inc. (8 Verfahren)·Angelalign Group (8 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 3 weitere Verfahren
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Dusseldorf LD·2025
- 2026-07-03Provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The court found that Defendants 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 violated the preliminary injunction issued on 12 February 2026 and imposed a penalty payment of EUR 49,500.00 payable to the Court. The remaining penalty payment requested was rejected, costs were split equally between the parties, and leave to appeal was granted.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Violation of preliminary injunction
- Penalty payments under Art. 82(4) UPCA and R. 354.4 RoP
- Concept of offering under Art. 25(a), (b), (c) and Art. 26 UPCA
- Application for provisional measures under R. 209.1 RoP
- 2026-02-12Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Düsseldorf Local Division granted provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against Angelalign defendants 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 for infringement of EP 4 346 690 B1 (dental aligner technology), with penalty payments of up to EUR 10,000 per infringing product or EUR 20,000 per day for continuing infringement, and provisional cost reimbursement of EUR 400,000. The application against defendant 3 (Angelalign Technology Inc., Cayman Islands holding company) was rejected as no actions beyond typical shareholder role were alleged.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
- Provisional measures / preliminary injunction
- Dental aligner patent infringement
- Liability of holding company
- Validity of patent in PI proceedings
- Penalty payments
- 2025-12-29Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against Angelalign entities concerning dental aligner patent EP 4 346 690, and addressed a request for leave to appeal the order.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Application for provisional measures (R. 206 RoP)
- Leave to appeal (R. 220.2 RoP)
- Clear aligner patent
- 2025-11-06Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Düsseldorf Local Division procedural order in Align Technology's application for provisional measures against Angelalign. The order addresses Angelalign's request for security for costs under R. 158.1 RoP based on Align Technology's US domicile and assesses whether enforcement of a cost order would be unduly burdensome. This order was issued before the final provisional measures order of 12 February 2026.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Security for costs (R. 158.1 RoP)
- US-domiciled patent asserter
- Enforcement of cost orders (Chint v. Jingao precedent)
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2026-08-10 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-08-10 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-08-10 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-08-10 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application document Claimant | 2026-08-10 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application document Applicant | 2026-08-10 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit Applicant | 2026-08-10 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit Applicant | 2026-08-10 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-08-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-08-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
Align Technology sought a preliminary injunction against multiple Angelalign entities for infringement of EP 4 346 690 B1 (dental aligner treatment planning software). The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the PI against operating defendants 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 but rejected the application against the Cayman Islands holding company (defendant 3), applying Court of Appeal precedent requiring actions beyond a typical shareholder role. The court also denied Angelalign leave to appeal a procedural order that had disregarded late-filed non-infringement arguments under Rule 9.2 RoP.
Infringement of EP 4 346 690 B1 by Angelalign defendants 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 is sufficiently established for provisional measures
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62 UPCAHinweis: The Düsseldorf Local Division found that the validity and infringement requirements for a preliminary injunction were met for the operating entities.
Defendant disagreeing with claim interpretation does not shift validity burden to patent proprietor
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62 UPCAHinweis: The court held that a defendant's disagreement with the claim interpretation used in the examination does not shift the burden of substantiation and proof for invalidity to the patentee.
Holding company defendant (Angelalign Technology Inc., Cayman) cannot be liable absent actions beyond typical shareholder role
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: UPC_CoA_534/2024; UPC_CoA_683/2024; UPC_CoA_19/2025 (Belkin v Philips)Hinweis: Applying CoA precedent on managing director liability, the court rejected the application against the Cayman holding company because no action beyond a typical shareholder/financial holding role was alleged.
Leave to appeal the procedural order disregarding late-filed arguments should be granted
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Rule 220.2 RoP; Rule 9 RoPBegründung: The court denied leave to appeal because the order was closely connected to the specific circumstances of the case and consistent application of RoP did not urge clarification; the Court of First Instance's discretion on procedural matters was within proper limits.
Relying on combinations of claim 1 with sub-claims makes invalidity of claim 1 more likely
BeklagterBegründung: The mere fact that the applicant relies on claim 1 combined with sub-claims does not make invalidity of claim 1 alone more likely.