UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CoA 36/2026

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

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main Appeal
Parties
Respondents
Reps: Arno Riße (Arnold Ruess)
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
Healthcare Informatics
Language
English
First decided
Jul 8, 2026
Claims
At issue1, 13, 15
Maintained1, 13, 15
Infringed1, 13, 15
Notes: Claims 1 and 13 found directly infringed by iOrtho software 'Live Now' feature (scenario 1); claim 15 found indirectly infringed. Infringement in scenarios 2 and 3 was not established on the presented facts. All three claims found more likely than not valid. Assessment is at the preliminary injunction standard (balance of probabilities).
Decisions
  • 2026-07-08
    PI grantedAppeal decisionAppeal RoP220.1

    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.

    Legal issues:Admissibility of late-filed non-infringement arguments under R. 222.2 RoPAdmissibility of new prior art exhibits (AR09, AR10) filed for the first time on appealClaim 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 combinationInfringement of claims 1 and 13 (direct) and claim 15 (indirect) by iOrtho software 'Live Now' feature (scenario 1) and other scenariosBalance of interests and necessity of provisional measures under Art. 62 UPCA and R. 211.3 RoPCosts allocation under Art. 69(1) UPCA
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-07-08Not public
Final Order2026-07-08Public
action.issueDecision.decision2026-07-08Not public
Final Order2026-07-08Not public
action.phaseChange.deliberationPhaseOpen2026-06-18Not public
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseClose2026-06-18Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-06-18Not public
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseOpen2026-03-27Not public
action.phaseChange.writtenPhaseClose2026-03-27Not public
action.summons.oralHearing2026-03-27Not public
Summons2026-03-27Public
Receipt2026-03-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-27Not public
Document Respondent2026-03-27Not public
Formal Deficiency found2026-03-27Not public
Receipt2026-03-25Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-25Not public
Statement of Response2026-03-25Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-24Not public
Order2026-03-24Public
Order2026-03-24Public
Receipt2026-03-19Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-19Not public
Document2026-03-19Not public
Note2026-03-19Not public
Document2026-03-19Not public
Document2026-03-19Not public
Document2026-03-19Not public
action.communication.general2026-03-19Not public
action.communication.general2026-03-19Not public
Receipt2026-03-18Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-18Not public
Other document Appellant2026-03-18Not public
Other document Appellant2026-03-18Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-03-10Not public
Receipt2026-03-09Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-09Not public
Other document Appellant2026-03-09Not public
Other document Appellant2026-03-09Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-03-09Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-03-09Not public
Formal Deficiency found2026-03-03Not public
Receipt2026-02-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-27Not public
Statement of the Grounds of Appeal2026-02-27Not public
Other document Appellant2026-02-27Not public
Other document Appellant2026-02-27Not public
Other document Appellant2026-02-27Not public
Receipt2026-02-25Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-25Not public
Fee2026-02-25Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-02-25Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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)

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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)

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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)

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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)

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62(2) UPCA; R. 211.3 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Non-infringement arguments regarding scenarios 2 and 3 should be admitted on appeal

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54(1) EPC

  • D6 anticipates claims 1, 13 and 15

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54(1) EPC

  • The patented invention is obvious over D1 in combination with common general knowledge

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

  • The patented invention is obvious over D2 in combination with common general knowledge or D6

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

  • The patented invention is obvious over D6 in combination with common general knowledge or D2

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

  • The patented invention is obvious over D7 in combination with common general knowledge or D8

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 62(2) UPCA; R. 211.3 RoP