UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 1747/2025

Nov 27, 2025·EP4295806 +1 more: METHOD TO MODIFY ALIGNER BY MODIFYING TOOTH POSITION

Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional Measures
Parties
Claimants
Reps: John Brunner (Carpmaels & Ransford); Agathe Michel-De Cazotte (Carpmaels & Ransford)
Respondents
Reps: Arno Riße (Arnold Ruess); Tim Smentkowski (Arnold Ruess); Julius Winkler (Arnold Ruess); Ulrich Storz (Michalski, Hüttermann & Partner); Wanze Zhang (Michalski, Hüttermann & Partner)
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
Pharmaceutical & Medical
Language
English
First decided
May 12, 2026
Claims
At issue1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 14
Not infringed1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 14
Notes: The court did not rule on validity (sufficiency/inventive step) because it dismissed the application on the infringement ground alone. Non-infringement finding is a probability assessment for provisional measures purposes (not more likely than not infringed), not a final determination.
Decisions
  • 2026-05-12
    PI deniedPreliminary injunctionApplication for provisional measures

    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.

    Legal issues: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 alignerClaim construction: all features of claim 1 (including features 1.5.1 and 1.5.2) must be realised in one single applianceBurden of proof for infringement in provisional measures proceedingsSufficiency of disclosure of claims 1 and 14Inventive step of claims 1 and 14 over D1 (WO 2008/115654) in combination with D2, D3, or D4Liability of Defendant 2 as holding company/sole shareholderUrgency and necessity of provisional measuresSecurity for enforcement (Art. 69(4) UPCA)Admissibility of late-filed infringement arguments in the Reply
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Final Order2026-05-12Public
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-05-12Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2026-05-12Not public
Final Order2026-05-12Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-04-15Not public
Receipt2026-03-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-27Not public
Receipt2026-03-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-27Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-27Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-27Not public
Document Claimant2026-03-27Not public
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseOpen2026-03-27Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-27Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-27Not public
Document Claimant2026-03-27Not public
Application document Claimant2026-03-27Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-26Not public
Order2026-03-26Not public
Receipt2026-03-06Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-06Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-06Not public
Statement of rejoinder2026-03-06Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-02-26Not public
Order2026-02-26Public
Receipt2026-02-25Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-25Not public
Further pleadings2026-02-25Not public
action.communication.general2026-02-25Not public
Receipt2026-02-24Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-24Not public
Further pleadings2026-02-24Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-02-24Not public
Receipt2026-02-24Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-24Not public
Further pleadings2026-02-24Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-24Not public
action.communication.general2026-02-20Not public
Receipt2026-02-20Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-20Not public
Document Defendant2026-02-20Not public
action.communication.general2026-02-20Not public
Receipt2026-02-20Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-20Not public
Receipt2026-02-20Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-02-20Not public
Statement of reply2026-02-20Not public
Application document Claimant2026-02-20Not public
action.communication.general2026-02-20Not public
Receipt2026-02-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-13Not public
Statement of reply2026-02-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-02-13Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-01-30Not public
Order2026-01-30Public
Receipt2026-01-30Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-30Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-01-30Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-01-30Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-01-30Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-01-30Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-01-30Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-01-30Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-01-30Not public
Statement of defence2026-01-30Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-01-16Not public
action.issueOrder.order2025-12-17Not public
Order2025-12-17Public
Cover sheet2025-12-16Not public
Application document Claimant2025-12-16Not public
Receipt2025-12-16Not public
action.communication.general2025-12-12Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-12Not public
Application document Defendant2025-12-12Not public
Receipt2025-12-12Not public
action.issueOrder.order2025-11-27Not public
Order2025-11-27Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-27Not public
Fee2025-11-27Not public
Application for provisional measures2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-27Not public
Proof of payment2025-11-27Not public
Receipt2025-11-27Not 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