UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CoA 36/2026

25. Feb. 2026·EP4346690: AUTOMATED MANAGEMENT OF CLINICAL MODIFICATIONS TO TREATMENT PLANS USING THREE-DIMENSIONAL CONTROLS

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed
Verfahrensart
Berufung
Kategorie
Hauptberufung
Parteien
Beklagte
Vertreter: Arno Riße (Arnold Ruess)
Division
Court of Appeal
Richter
Technology
Healthcare Informatics
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
8. Juli 2026
Ansprüche
Streitig1, 13, 15
Aufrechterhalten1, 13, 15
Verletzt1, 13, 15
Hinweise: Claims 1 and 13 found directly infringed by iOrtho software 'Live Now' feature (scenario 1); claim 15 found indirectly infringed. Infringement in scenarios 2 and 3 was not established on the presented facts. All three claims found more likely than not valid. Assessment is at the preliminary injunction standard (balance of probabilities).
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-07-08
    PI erteiltBerufungsentscheidungAppeal RoP220.1

    The Court of Appeal rejected the Appellants' appeal against the Local Division Düsseldorf's order of 12 February 2026 granting a preliminary injunction. The CoA found it more likely than not that EP 4 346 690 is valid and that Appellants directly infringe claims 1 and 13 and indirectly infringe claim 15 via the iOrtho software 'Live Now' feature; the provisional measures ordered by the LD are maintained. Appellants were ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.

    Rechtsfragen:Admissibility of late-filed non-infringement arguments under R. 222.2 RoPAdmissibility of new prior art exhibits (AR09, AR10) filed for the first time on appealClaim construction of features 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7 of claim 1 (real-time modification, predetermined threshold determination, conditional generation of revised treatment plan)Novelty of claims 1, 13 and 15 over D2 (US 2019/0175303 A1) and D6 (3Shape Clear Aligner Studio YouTube video)Inventive step over D1, D2, D6, D7 and D8 individually and in combinationInfringement of claims 1 and 13 (direct) and claim 15 (indirect) by iOrtho software 'Live Now' feature (scenario 1) and other scenariosBalance of interests and necessity of provisional measures under Art. 62 UPCA and R. 211.3 RoPCosts allocation under Art. 69(1) UPCA
Dokumente
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-07-08Nicht öffentlich
Final Order2026-07-08Öffentlich
action.issueDecision.decision2026-07-08Nicht öffentlich
Final Order2026-07-08Nicht öffentlich
action.phaseChange.deliberationPhaseOpen2026-06-18Nicht öffentlich
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseClose2026-06-18Nicht öffentlich
Hearing recording reference document2026-06-18Nicht öffentlich
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseOpen2026-03-27Nicht öffentlich
action.phaseChange.writtenPhaseClose2026-03-27Nicht öffentlich
action.summons.oralHearing2026-03-27Nicht öffentlich
Summons2026-03-27Öffentlich
Receipt2026-03-27Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-27Nicht öffentlich
Document Respondent2026-03-27Nicht öffentlich
Formal Deficiency found2026-03-27Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-03-25Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-25Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Response2026-03-25Nicht öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-24Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-03-24Öffentlich
Order2026-03-24Öffentlich
Receipt2026-03-19Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-19Nicht öffentlich
Document2026-03-19Nicht öffentlich
Note2026-03-19Nicht öffentlich
Document2026-03-19Nicht öffentlich
Document2026-03-19Nicht öffentlich
Document2026-03-19Nicht öffentlich
action.communication.general2026-03-19Nicht öffentlich
action.communication.general2026-03-19Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-03-18Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-18Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-03-18Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-03-18Nicht öffentlich
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-03-10Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-03-09Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-09Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-03-09Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-03-09Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Appellant2026-03-09Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Appellant2026-03-09Nicht öffentlich
Formal Deficiency found2026-03-03Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-02-27Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-02-27Nicht öffentlich
Statement of the Grounds of Appeal2026-02-27Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-02-27Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-02-27Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-02-27Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-02-25Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-02-25Nicht öffentlich
Fee2026-02-25Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Appeal2026-02-25Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • The non-infringement arguments regarding scenario 1 (paragraphs 13-17 of the Rejoinder) should be admitted on appeal as they were uncontested and Respondent had ample opportunity to respond

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 222.2 RoP; UPC_CoA_534/2024; UPC_CoA_622/2025; UPC_CoA_623/2025

  • New exhibits AR09 and AR10 should be disregarded as they constitute a new invalidity attack that could and should have been filed at first instance, and allowing them would deprive Respondent of one instance to defend

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 222.2 RoP

  • Claims 1, 13 and 15 are novel over D2 because D2 does not disclose the two-step mechanism of features 1.6 and 1.7 (threshold determination preceding and governing treatment plan generation)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54(1) EPC; claim construction of features 1.6 and 1.7

  • Claims 1, 13 and 15 are novel over D6 because D6 does not disclose feature 1.7 (generation of revised treatment plan only when user modification is within a predetermined threshold)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54(1) EPC

  • Claims 1, 13 and 15 have inventive step over all prior art combinations relied upon by Appellants (D1, D2, D6, D7, D8)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC; problem-solution approach as per UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024

  • In scenario 1, the iOrtho software infringes claims 1 and 13 directly and claim 15 indirectly because the gingival line functions as a predetermined threshold (feature 1.6) and a revised treatment plan is generated only when the attachment is within that threshold (feature 1.7)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Claims 1, 13 and 15 of EP 4 346 690

  • Respondent's interests in an injunction outweigh Appellants' interests in continuing to offer the infringing 'Live Now' feature, given direct competition and risk of lasting market share loss

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62(2) UPCA; R. 211.3 RoP
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Non-infringement arguments regarding scenarios 2 and 3 should be admitted on appeal

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 222.2 RoP

  • The iOrtho software does not infringe claim 1 in scenario 1 because only compliant modification requests are allowed by the software and thus no determination within feature 1.6 is made

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Claims 1, 13 and 15 of EP 4 346 690

  • D2 anticipates claims 1, 13 and 15 because its constraints constitute predetermined thresholds within the meaning of features 1.6 and 1.7

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54(1) EPC

  • D6 anticipates claims 1, 13 and 15

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54(1) EPC

  • The patented invention is obvious over D1 in combination with common general knowledge

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC

  • The patented invention is obvious over D2 in combination with common general knowledge or D6

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC

  • The patented invention is obvious over D6 in combination with common general knowledge or D2

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC

  • The patented invention is obvious over D7 in combination with common general knowledge or D8

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC

  • The balance of interests does not justify the provisional measures because Appellants' market position and damages are difficult to quantify and other competitors exist

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62(2) UPCA; R. 211.3 RoP