2026-10-16 - LD Paris - Align Technology v. Angelalign - UPC_CFI_684/2025

1-Defendant 3 is the shareholder of Defendants 2, 4 and 5. However, there is no evidence of its active, operational involvement or knowledge, in relation to the infringing acts committed by these three Defendants. 2-The Claimant intends to limit the injunction to patients whose treatment has not yet begun or to treatments that have been interrupted for any reason (Reply to SoD, para 6.24). The Claimant does not intend to seek an injunction in respect of ongoing treatments which do not, in the future, include a Torque Ridge feature. Furthermore, Defendants’ infringing products are not the only ones available on the market and do not represent an improvement on existing treatment methods. The Claimant has furthermore acknowledged that appliances already delivered to patients are not subject to corrective measures. Taking into account these considerations, the corrective measures requested by the Claimant are proportionate.

The Paris Local Division upheld a unitary patent on orthodontic clear aligners against attacks for insufficiency, added matter (intermediate generalisation) and lack of inventive step, applying the Court of Appeal's frameworks from NanoString, Amgen v Sanofi, Meril v Edwards and Abbott v Sibio. Construing the claim with the patent as its own lexicon, it read 'buccal' as 'facial', covering anterior as well as posterior teeth, which decided literal infringement. Liability in the UPC territory was imposed on the operating group companies but refused for the pure holding company, and the UK claims were dismissed because the claimant had not substantiated UK law in its statement of claim. The Court ordered a permanent injunction, recall, removal, destruction and information under Art. 67 UPCA, awarded damages only from grant because no compensation for the provisional-protection period had been requested or evidenced, refused publication of the decision and refused security for enforcement.