UPC_CFI_723/2025
AUTOMATED MANAGEMENT OF CLINICAL MODIFICATIONS TO TREATMENT PLANS USING THREE-DIMENSIONAL CONTROLS
Align Technology sought a preliminary injunction against multiple Angelalign entities for infringement of EP 4 346 690 B1 (dental aligner treatment planning software). The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the PI against operating defendants 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 but rejected the application against the Cayman Islands holding company (defendant 3), applying Court of Appeal precedent requiring actions beyond a typical shareholder role. The court also denied Angelalign leave to appeal a procedural order that had disregarded late-filed non-infringement arguments under Rule 9.2 RoP.
Infringement of EP 4 346 690 B1 by Angelalign defendants 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 is sufficiently established for provisional measures
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCANote: The Düsseldorf Local Division found that the validity and infringement requirements for a preliminary injunction were met for the operating entities.
Defendant disagreeing with claim interpretation does not shift validity burden to patent proprietor
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCANote: The court held that a defendant's disagreement with the claim interpretation used in the examination does not shift the burden of substantiation and proof for invalidity to the patentee.
Holding company defendant (Angelalign Technology Inc., Cayman) cannot be liable absent actions beyond typical shareholder role
RespondentLegal basis: UPC_CoA_534/2024; UPC_CoA_683/2024; UPC_CoA_19/2025 (Belkin v Philips)Note: Applying CoA precedent on managing director liability, the court rejected the application against the Cayman holding company because no action beyond a typical shareholder/financial holding role was alleged.
Leave to appeal the procedural order disregarding late-filed arguments should be granted
RespondentLegal basis: Rule 220.2 RoP; Rule 9 RoPReason: The court denied leave to appeal because the order was closely connected to the specific circumstances of the case and consistent application of RoP did not urge clarification; the Court of First Instance's discretion on procedural matters was within proper limits.
Relying on combinations of claim 1 with sub-claims makes invalidity of claim 1 more likely
RespondentReason: The mere fact that the applicant relies on claim 1 combined with sub-claims does not make invalidity of claim 1 alone more likely.