Angelalign v Align Technology (UPC_CoA_37/2026)
Decision date:
10 March 2026
Osborne Clarke summary
- This decision of the standing judge of the Court of Appeal relates to a request for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP, brought by Angelalign in relation to a judgment by the Düsseldorf LD.
- Angelalign had applied for provisional measures against Align, who had filed an objection. Angelalign were given until 13 February 2026 to provide a written response to this objection. On 13 February 2026, Angelalign filed a response. However, on 20 February 2026, the court invited them to review their submission as it appeared to be a submission relating to a different case.
- Later that day, Angelalign filed another reply and stated that, while their reply was ready for filing on 13 February 2026, the wrong document had been filed as a result of human error. Pursuant to Rule 9.3(a) RoP, Angelalign requested that the deadline for filing their reply be retrospectively extended to 20 February 2026 and subsequent deadlines be correspondingly extended by one week.
- Align requested that the Düsseldorf LD reject this retrospective extension and declare Angelalign’s amended reply inadmissible. However, the court rejected this request.
- Accordingly, Align sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeal, requesting that it reverse the Düsseldorf LD’s decision to retrospectively extend the deadline. It argued that different LDs had taken diverging approaches when considering whether to grant extension requests filed after the expiry of the time limit.
- In addition, Align argued that the decision was manifestly erroneous because it was based on Rule 9.3(a) RoP when only Rule 320 RoP (re-establishment of rights) should have been applicable in the circumstances. This meant that Angelalign was able to circumvent the strict requirements of Rule 320 RoP. Align also submitted that the Düsseldorf LD had exceeded its discretionary powers and created a gross procedural imbalance between the parties in view of parallel proceedings.
- The standing judge found that Align’s request for discretionary review was admissible, but it dismissed it. The Düsseldorf LD’s decision was not manifestly incorrect - it had correctly applied Rule 9.3(a) RoP rather than Rule 320 RoP. Rule 320 RoP only relates to situations in which a party loses a substantive right because of missing a time limit, for example, if a time limit is missed that relates to completely new proceedings. Failure to meet a time period for submitting a written statement in ongoing proceedings does not result in such a loss of rights. As such, the situation was properly governed by Rule 9.3(a) RoP.
- Rule 9.3(a) RoP does not specify a particular time limit for submitting a request, which leaves room for interpretation by the LDs. The standing judge found that the Düsseldorf LD’s decision had not been “manifestly incorrect”. It had not exceeded its discretionary powers – it had taken into account all of the circumstances and it did not base its decision on false facts.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.