2026-07-03 - LD Düsseldorf - Align Technology v. Angelalign et al. - UPC_CFI_723/2025

ENGLISH: The principles set out by the Court of Appeal on the term "offering" within the meaning of Art.25(a) UPCA (UPC_CoA_534/2024, Order of 3 October 2025 mn. 205 – 206, Belkin v. Philips), can also be applied to the concept of “offering” in Art. 25(b) and (c) and 26 UPCA.

In enforcing a preliminary injunction (granted 12 February 2026 over EP 4 346 690, orthodontic treatment-planning software), the Düsseldorf LD imposed a penalty payment under Art. 82(4) UPCA and R. 354.4 RoP but far below the amount requested. The Court held that both a regulatory electronic user manual (eIFU) still describing the enjoined 'Live Now' feature and year-old social-media posts promoting it constituted an 'offering' within Art. 25 UPCA and therefore breaches of the injunction — extending the Court of Appeal's autonomous, economic-sense interpretation of 'offering' (Belkin v Philips) from Art. 25(a) to Art. 25(b), (c) and 26 UPCA (Headnote). Fault was established because the defendants should have amended the manual and deleted the posts. On proportionality, however, the Court reduced the penalty from the maximum EUR 20,000/day (EUR 580,000 total requested) to EUR 1,500/day over 33 days = EUR 49,500, given that the infringing feature itself was disabled the day the order was served, the manual was hard to reach and the posts were stale and low-exposure. Leave to appeal was granted and costs split 50/50.