Angelalign Technology & Ors v Align Technology (UPC-CoA-36/2026)

‍

• The Court of Appeal dismissed Angelalign's appeal against the Düsseldorf's LD's grant of a preliminary injunction. It held that it was more likely than not that Align's patent was valid and infringed by Angelalign's iOrtho software for planning orthodontic treatment.
• The patent protects software for planning orthodontic treatment in which revised treatment plans are generated in real time. Align applied for and was awarded provisional measures after Angelalign introduced a "LiveNow" feature in its iOrtho software.
• The Court of Appeal addressed two procedural points.
• Firstly, it disregarded two late-filed exhibits relating to an alleged public prior use. Under Rule 222.2 RoP, the Court of Appeal has discretion to disregard requests, facts and evidence that have not been submitted at first instance. Angelalign had not adequately explained why this evidence could not have been filed during the (extended) two-month period for its objection to Align's application or in the three months before the hearing at first instance. It had also not addressed the fact that it had previously filed a similar exhibit in EPO opposition proceedings. Its lack of clarity weighed against allowing the new exhibits. Moreover, the exhibits raised unresolved questions about the prior art software that there was insufficient room to deal with on appeal.
• Secondly, Angelalign's non-infringement arguments, raised for the first time in its rejoinder, were admitted only for one scenario. As decided in Mammut v Ortovox, the Court of Appeal is not bound by the exclusion of exhibits or submissions at first instance. The court noted that, given the summary nature of proceedings for provisional measures and the time periods applicable, there might, in individual cases, be reasons for taking "amore lenient approach" to late filed submissions than applied in a case on the merits. On the other hand, defendants launching products at risk may attract heightened scrutiny. Here, Angelalign had not provided a justification for the late filing of their non-infringement arguments, which related to the functioning of their own products. The arguments were therefore rejected apart from in relation to one scenario, where the technical facts were uncontested by Align. As a general rule, uncontested submissions cannot be rejected on the grounds of late filing, and in this case Align had had ample time to study them.
• On claim construction, novelty and inventive step, the Court of Appeal followed the principles established in its case law. It carried out a detailed review of the novelty and inventive step attacks and, in relation to the former, disagreed with the Düsseldorf LD's finding that a "real time" re-calculation feature was not present in one item of prior art. However, it ultimately rejected the attacks. On the balance of probabilities, based on the arguments and documents in the proceedings, it was more likely than not that the claims would be held valid. Infringement was also established for one scenario on the balance of probabilities.
• The court went on to consider the balance ofinterests, which it concluded favoured upholding the injunction. In particular,the parties are direct competitors. Angelalign's "Live Now" featurewas launched only months before the patent's grant and featured prominently inits marketing. It was not contested that, until Angelalign launched thisfeature, Align was the only provider of treatment planning software with suchlive updates. It was accepted that in the aligner sector, clinicians typicallychoose one provider and remain loyal to them for all their patients. AllowingAngelalign to continue to offer its software with the "Live Now"feature posed a concrete risk to Align's market position that needed to beavoided.