UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 1747/2025

Nov 27, 2025·EP4295806 Unitary patent · METHOD TO MODIFY ALIGNER BY MODIFYING TOOTH POSITION

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
English
First decided
May 12, 2026
EPO Opposition
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Preliminary injunction grantedMedian days to first decision
All UPC54% (38/70)124
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Berenice ThomLockedLocked
Judge Marjolein VisserLockedLocked
Judge Ingo RinkenLockedLocked
Judge Elisabetta PapaLockedLocked

At the UPC: Align Technology, Inc. (8 cases)·Angelalign Group (8 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 1 other proceedings

UPC CoA 37/2026

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-05-12
    Application for provisional measuresPublic

    Summary: The Local Division Düsseldorf dismissed the application for provisional measures filed by Align Technology against the Angelalign defendants. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate with the required degree of certainty that the defendants' 'A7 Premolar Extraction Solution' infringes claims 1, 14, and dependent claims of EP 4 295 806 B1, specifically because the applicant did not sufficiently establish that the first and second counter moments required by features 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 are realised within a single aligner. Costs were awarded against the applicant.

    Show the legal issues (9)
    • Infringement of claims 1, 10, 14 (and dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 9) — whether the A7 Premolar Extraction Solution implements all claim features in a single aligner
    • Claim construction: all features of claim 1 (including features 1.5.1 and 1.5.2) must be realised in one single appliance
    • Burden of proof for infringement in provisional measures proceedings
    • Sufficiency of disclosure of claims 1 and 14
    • Inventive step of claims 1 and 14 over D1 (WO 2008/115654) in combination with D2, D3, or D4
    • Liability of Defendant 2 as holding company/sole shareholder
    • Urgency and necessity of provisional measures
    • Security for enforcement (Art. 69(4) UPCA)
    • Admissibility of late-filed infringement arguments in the Reply
Documents
Show all 119 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-06-12Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-12Not public
Application document Defendant2026-06-12Not public
Receipt2026-06-12Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-12Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-12Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-12Not public
Application Respondent2026-06-12Not public
Final Order2026-05-12Public
Case closed2026-05-12Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • All features of claim 1, including features 1.5.1 and 1.5.2, must be realised in one single appliance, not across multiple aligners or treatment phases

    RespondentLegal basis: Claim construction of claim 1 features 1.1, 1.5.1, 1.5.2; patent description paras [0008], [0009], [0010], [0031], Figs. 1A, 1B, 2

  • The A7 Solution's anchorage preparation of posterior teeth takes place at the beginning of treatment and retraction of anterior teeth takes place subsequently, so both cannot be performed by the same aligner

    RespondentLegal basis: Infringement analysis; promotional material screenshots describing advantage 1 of the A7 Solution

  • The applicant's infringement case was based on assumptions and too general character, referring to treatment phases rather than the shape profile of individual aligners

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 211 RoP; Art. 62 UPCA; burden of proof for provisional measures

  • The skilled person should be defined as a person with a background in orthodontics and experience in the field of orthodontic treatment planning, including clear aligner systems (broader than applicant's proposed definition)

    RespondentLegal basis: Claim construction principles; patent description para [0106]
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The Defendants' A7 Premolar Extraction Solution infringes claims 1, 10, 14 and dependent claims because the promotional material shows anterior and posterior teeth subject to counter moments

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA; R. 211 RoP; EP 4 295 806 B1 claim 1 features 1.5.1, 1.5.2

  • Applicant's late-filed Reply arguments on infringement (referring to steps of the A7 Solution other than anchorage preparation of posterior teeth) should be admitted and considered

    ClaimantLegal basis: Procedural admissibility under RoP

  • Even if a counter moment is applied only minimally to posterior teeth in the retraction phase, this satisfies feature 1.5.2 for each individual aligner

    ClaimantLegal basis: EP 4 295 806 B1 claim 1 feature 1.5.2