UPC CFI 684/2025
Aug 18, 2025·EP2237738 Unitary patent · ORTHODONTIC REPOSITIONING APPLIANCES HAVING IMPROVED GEOMETRY, METHODS AND SYSTEMS
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent infringed)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Respondents
- Angelalign Technology Inc.Operating co.
- Angelalign France Technology SASUOperating co.
- Europe Angelalign Technology B.V.Operating co.
- Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbHOperating co.
- Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L.Operating co.
Representatives- Tim Smentkowski-Arnold Ruess
- Division
- Paris LD
- Technology
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Jun 5, 2026
- Last decision
- Oct 16, 2026
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Paris LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Camille Lignières | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Carine Gillet | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Marjolein Visser | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Elisabetta Papa | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Align Technology, Inc. (8 cases)·Angelalign Group (8 cases)
This dispute contains 1 other proceedings
- 2026-10-16InfringementPublic
Summary: Paris LD holds that defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 infringed claims 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of EP2237738 in 17 UPC states and grants an injunction with penalties, damages (amount to be determined), information, recall, destruction and removal. The counterclaim for revocation is dismissed on the merits (patent valid, conditional auxiliary request not reached); enforcement is not made conditional on security; the action against defendant 3 and for the UK is dismissed.
Show the legal issues (8)
- Infringement of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8 (clear aligner torque ridge)
- Counterclaim for revocation: added matter, insufficiency, inventive step (dismissed)
- Claim construction of 'buccal'
- Liability of holding-company defendant 3 (rejected)
- Damages from 12 July 2023 (Art 68 UPCA)
- Security for enforcement refused (Art 82(2) UPCA)
- Publication of decision (Art 80) refused
- UK part of the patent
- 2026-06-05Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: The judge-rapporteur granted Align Technology's application under R. 9.2 RoP to declare inadmissible and disregard the defendants' new non-infringement arguments (paragraphs 49-57 of the Rejoinder) and exhibits AR 12 and AR 13, finding those arguments were not responsive to any new grounds raised by the claimant and should have been included in the Statement of Defence. The alternative request to give the claimant an opportunity to reply in writing was found devoid of purpose.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Admissibility of late-filed non-infringement arguments in rejoinder (R. 9.2 RoP)
- Whether defendants' new non-infringement arguments regarding features 1.3 and 1.3.4 were responsive to new grounds raised by claimant in reply
- Procedural fairness and the timing of pleadings
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2026-10-20 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-20 | Not public |
| Document Claimant | 2026-10-20 | Not public |
| Document Claimant | 2026-10-20 | Not public |
| Document Claimant | 2026-10-20 | Not public |
| Application document Claimant | 2026-10-20 | Not public |
| Case closed | 2026-10-16 | Not public |
| Publication of decision | 2026-10-16 | Not public |
| Decision | 2026-10-16 | Public |
| Decision | 2026-10-16 | Not public |
The claimant's interpretation of the cavity and lingual root torque in its Reply was not new, as it had already been mentioned in the Statement of Case, therefore defendants' new non-infringement arguments in the Rejoinder were not responsive to new grounds.
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 9.2 RoPDefendants had all information needed to construct their defence from the moment the Statement of Case was filed and had a four-month period to raise arguments; the late non-infringement arguments should have been submitted in the Statement of Defence.
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 9.2 RoP
Defendants' new non-infringement arguments regarding features 1.3 and 1.3.4 in the Rejoinder were admissible as responsive to new arguments developed by the claimant in its Reply to Statement of Defence.
RespondentLegal basis: R. 9.2 RoP