UPC_CFI_723/2025
- Align Technology, Inc.
- Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH
- Shanghai EA Medical Instruments Co., Ltd.
- Angelalign France Technology SASU
- By document dated 15 August 2025, the Applicant has commenced an Application for
- The Defendants have stated that the Application has been served to Defendants 2
- The Defendants were given the opportunity to submit a written response to the
- Angelalign Technology Inc., Maples Corporate Services Limited
- Europe Angelalign Technology B.V.
- Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L.
- Angelalign Technology Inc.
Track this case
Get an email when a new order or decision is published in UPC_CFI_723/2025.
Decisions and documents (3)
- 2026-07-03preliminary injunction
- Applicant:
- Align Technology, Inc.
- Defendants:
- Angelalign France Technology SASU; Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH; Angelalign Technology Inc.; Europe Angelalign Technology B.V.; Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L.; Shanghai EA Medical Instruments Co., Ltd.
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.
Judge: Thomas • Panel: Dr Thom - 2026-02-12preliminary injunction
- Applicant:
- Align Technology, Inc.
- Defendants:
- Angelalign France Technology SASU; Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH; Angelalign Technology Inc.; Europe Angelalign Technology B.V.; Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L.; Shanghai EA Medical Instruments Co., Ltd.
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.
Judge: Thomas • Panel: Dr Thom - 2025-12-29preliminary injunction
- Applicant:
- Align Technology, Inc.
- Defendants:
- Angelalign France Technology SASU; Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH; Angelalign Technology Inc.; Europe Angelalign Technology B.V.; Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L.; Shanghai EA Medical Instruments Co., Ltd.
Application for provisional measures. Document: 2025-12-29_Order UPC_CFI_723-2025.pdf. Case page: https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/160126
Weekly digest
A weekly email summarising new published decisions across European patent courts.