UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CoA 36/2026

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

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Other special machines
Language
English
First decided
Jul 8, 2026
EPO Opposition
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Ulrike VoßLocked
Judge Bart van den BroekLocked
Judge Nathalie SabotierLocked
Judge Stefanie PhilippsLocked
Judge Alessandro SanchiniLocked

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

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

This dispute contains 3 other proceedings

UPC CFI 945/2026·UPC CoA 2/2026·UPC CFI 723/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Court of Appeal·2026

Decisions
  • 2026-07-08
    Appeal RoP220.1Public

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (8)
    • Admissibility of late-filed non-infringement arguments under R. 222.2 RoP
    • Admissibility of new prior art exhibits (AR09, AR10) filed for the first time on appeal
    • Claim 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 combination
    • Infringement of claims 1 and 13 (direct) and claim 15 (indirect) by iOrtho software 'Live Now' feature (scenario 1) and other scenarios
    • Balance of interests and necessity of provisional measures under Art. 62 UPCA and R. 211.3 RoP
    • Costs allocation under Art. 69(1) UPCA
Documents
Show all 52 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-07-08Not public
Final Order2026-07-08Public
Decision2026-07-08Not public
Final Order2026-07-08Not public
Deliberation opened2026-06-18Not public
Oral procedure closed2026-06-18Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-06-18Not public
Oral procedure opened2026-03-27Not public
Written procedure closed2026-03-27Not public
Summons to oral hearing2026-03-27Not 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