2026-02-12 - LD Düsseldorf - Align Technology v. Angelalign et al. - UPC_CFI_723/2025

ENGLISH: 1. The fact that a defendant in an application for provisional measures does not agree to the claim interpretation applied in the examination does not mean that the burden of substantiation and proof for (in)validity should shift to the patent proprietor. On the other hand, the defendant is free to bring forward arguments and evidence as to why the claim should be interpreted differently and why this would lead to invalidity of the patent in suit and may thereby also rely on prior art that was already assessed by the examiner. 2. The mere fact that an applicant for provisional measures relies on combinations of claim 1 with sub- claims does not lead to the invalidity of claim 1 being more likely than not. 3. The assessment by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_534/2024, UPC_CoA_683/2024, UPC_CoA_19/2025, Decision of 3 October 2025, mn. 190, 198 and 199 – Belkin v Philips) of the liability of a managing director applies even more so to a (financial) holding company. When no action going beyond the typical role of shareholder/financial holding is alleged, the application against this defendant has to be rejected.

The Düsseldorf LD granted a pan-European preliminary injunction in favour of Align Technology against five Angelalign group companies for infringement of a patent on automated orthodontic treatment planning. The court rejected the argument that the burden of proof for invalidity should shift because the EPO examination was allegedly flawed. The validity attack was rejected on all grounds — novelty upheld over six prior art references. The application against the financial holding company was dismissed because no action beyond its typical shareholder role was alleged, extending the Belkin v Philips managing director liability test. The court also held that an applicant's reliance on dependent claim combinations does not make independent claim invalidity more likely.