UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CoA 36/2026

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

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed
Verfahrensart
Berufung
Kategorie
Hauptberufung
Parteien
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Court of Appeal
Richter
Technologie
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Other special machines
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
8. Juli 2026
EPA-Einspruch
Im Vergleich
Wie lange das Gericht bis zu einer ersten Entscheidung braucht.
Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC124
Richter Ulrike VoßGesperrt
Richter Bart van den BroekGesperrt
Richter Nathalie SabotierGesperrt
Richter Stefanie PhilippsGesperrt
Richter Alessandro SanchiniGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Angelalign Group (8 Verfahren)·Align Technology, Inc. (8 Verfahren)

14 Tage kostenlos testenBereits Nutzer? Anmelden
Verwandte Verfahren
Alle Verfahren zu diesem Patent

Dieser Streit umfasst 3 weitere Verfahren

UPC CFI 945/2026·UPC CoA 2/2026·UPC CFI 723/2025

Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.

Weitere Verfahren: Court of Appeal·2026

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-07-08
    Appeal RoP220.1Öffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: 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 anzeigen (8)
    • Admissibility of late-filed non-infringement arguments under R. 222.2 RoP
    • Admissibility of new prior art exhibits (AR09, AR10) filed for the first time on appeal
    • Claim 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 combination
    • Infringement of claims 1 and 13 (direct) and claim 15 (indirect) by iOrtho software 'Live Now' feature (scenario 1) and other scenarios
    • Balance of interests and necessity of provisional measures under Art. 62 UPCA and R. 211.3 RoP
    • Costs allocation under Art. 69(1) UPCA
Dokumente
Alle 52 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Verfahren abgeschlossen2026-07-08Nicht öffentlich
Final Order2026-07-08Öffentlich
Entscheidung2026-07-08Nicht öffentlich
Final Order2026-07-08Nicht öffentlich
Beratung eröffnet2026-06-18Nicht öffentlich
Mündliches Verfahren abgeschlossen2026-06-18Nicht öffentlich
Hearing recording reference document2026-06-18Nicht öffentlich
Mündliches Verfahren eröffnet2026-03-27Nicht öffentlich
Schriftliches Verfahren abgeschlossen2026-03-27Nicht öffentlich
Ladung zur mündlichen Verhandlung2026-03-27Nicht 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