2026-07-08 - CoA - Angelalign et al. v. Align Technology - UPC-COA-0000036/2026
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC-COA-0000036/2026
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)
- Art:
- Final Order
- Parteien:
- Angelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L., Shanghai EA Medical Instruments Co., Ltd. v. Align Technology, Inc.
Kernaussage: On appeal from the LD Düsseldorf's grant of a preliminary injunction (UPC_CFI_723/2025), the Court of Appeal dismissed the Angelalign defendants' appeal and maintained the PI, holding it more likely than not that Align's EP 4 346 690 (automated real-time modification of an orth…
2026-07-08 - CoA - Angelalign et al.
v.
Align Technology - UPC-COA-0000036/2026
landmark
On appeal from the LD Düsseldorf's grant of a preliminary injunction (UPC_CFI_723/2025), the Court of Appeal dismissed the Angelalign defendants' appeal and maintained the PI, holding it more likely than not that Align's EP 4 346 690 (automated real-time modification of an orthodontic treatment plan) is valid and infringed. The decisive claim construction was that features 1.6 and 1.7 define two distinct steps in a fixed temporal and substantive order — the system must first determine that a user-requested modification is within a predetermined threshold, and only then generate a revised treatment plan — an interpretation the CoA held necessarily excludes any reading in which the threshold can be ignored. Applying this construction, the claims were novel over Align's own D2 (a constrained-optimization system that always yields a constraint-compliant plan without a separate determine-then-generate mechanism) and over the D6 3Shape workflow video (which generates the revised plan before any threshold check), and inventive over D1, D2, D6 and D7+D8, the CoA applying the Amgen/Sanofi 'would-not-could' framework and stressing that the invention lies not in the mere automation of a threshold check but in how that check is integrated into the plan-generation workflow. Exercising its R. 222.2 RoP discretion, the CoA disregarded a new prior-use invalidity attack (Exhibits AR09/AR10) raised for the first time on appeal, but — following Belkin v Philips and Hefei v Grundfos — allowed the defendants' uncontested non-infringement arguments for 'scenario 1', on which infringement was ultimately found (the iOrtho 'red line'/'Live Now' feature), while rejecting the late, contested scenario 2 and 3 arguments. On necessity the CoA held that direct competition between the parties' treatment-planning software, and the lasting market-share/price-erosion effect of a clinician's platform choice, justified provisional measures.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“The CoA held the appellants' novelty attacks unfounded: claims 1, 13 and 15 are new over D2 [88-96] and over D6 [106-116]. D2's constrained-optimization mechanism always yields a constraint-compliant plan and does not disclose the distinct determine-then-generate steps of features 1.6/1.7; D6 generates the revised plan before any threshold check. (The CoA did, however, correct the LD by holding D2's re-calculation is disclosed 'in real time' [79-86].)”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Applying the Amgen/SanFi 'would-not-could' framework [118-121], the CoA rejected obviousness over D1+CGK [124-132], D2+CGK and D2+D6 [133-141], D6 [142-144] and D7+D8 [145-155]: none provides a pointer to the specific features 1.6/1.7 mechanism, and the invention lies not in the mere automation of a threshold assessment but in how that assessment is integrated into the plan-generation workflow [131, 140].”