A patent dispute between Align Technology and Angelalign Technology has reached a significant stage in the Unified Patent Court. On October 19, 2026, the Paris local division ruled that Align’s European patent EP 2 237 738 for orthodontic aligners remains valid and that Angelalign’s Angel Aligner Select and Pro systems infringe it. The decision ordered an injunction in 17 UPC countries, including recall and destruction of infringing products, with penalty payments of up to €10,000 per infringing product or €20,000 per day of continuous infringement.
The patent in question protects aligners featuring a single, continuous ridge-shaped protrusion designed to enable precise tooth movement, particularly third-order root torque. Align accused Angelalign of replicating this design through its AngelAttach system, specifically the Torque Ridge applied to anterior teeth. The Chinese manufacturer responded by challenging the patent’s validity on grounds of added matter, insufficient disclosure, and lack of inventive step while proposing amendments. The court rejected all validity challenges and upheld infringement for claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8.
The ruling hinged on the interpretation of “buccal side of the cavity” in the patent claims. Angelalign argued this term applied only to posterior teeth, but the judges determined it extended to anterior teeth as well. This reading was decisive for the finding of infringement, since the Torque Ridge in the Angelalign products is applied at the anterior teeth. The judges rejected Angelalign’s added matter attacks concerning the terms “single” and “continuous” in relation to the ridge-shaped protrusion.
UK and Dutch claims dismissed
Not all territories followed the same outcome. While Align succeeded on the merits for UPC territory, the court dismissed its infringement claim against three Angelalign entities for acts committed in the UK. According to the panel, Align had failed to substantiate the relevant UK law applicable to the alleged infringing acts in its statement of claim.
The court held later submissions on this point as both late-filed and insufficient, as they merely referred to UPC rules. The court also rejected the action against the Dutch holding company Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., finding no evidence that it was actively involved in the infringing acts beyond its role as shareholder. This mirrors the approach taken by the Düsseldorf local division in a parallel case between the same parties in February 2026.
This ruling follows a series of UPC decisions involving the two companies. In February 2026, the Düsseldorf local division granted Align a preliminary injunction over EP 4 346 690, which covers software for real-time modification of orthodontic treatment plans. It was the first PI issued by the UPC on the basis of a European patent with unitary effect.
The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction in a decision confirming infringement by Angelalign’s iOrtho software with its “Live Now” feature. In May 2026, however, the Düsseldorf division dismissed a separate PI application by Align concerning EP 4 295 806, which relates to the design of clear aligners for tooth movement in extraction cases. The court found that Align had not sufficiently established infringement. An ongoing merits-based action over EP 690-alongside Angelalign’s counterclaim for revocation-remains pending in Düsseldorf.
Related Post: Former Judge Alan Albright Leads A&O Shearman’s Global Patent Practice
Legal teams clash in high-stakes battle
Legal teams reflected the high stakes of the case. Carpmaels & Ransford, a UK firm representing Align, led the Paris proceedings. Partner John Brunner headed the team, which included Agathe Michel-de-Cazotte alongside associates Ben Chapman, Caroline Horstmann, Will Mooney, Salomé Nattagh, and Daisy Makin. For Angelalign, Arnold Ruess, a Düsseldorf-based IP boutique, took the lead with Arno Risse and Tim Smentkowski, supported by associate Tugce Altun. The firm also handles Angelalign’s parallel UPC proceedings in Düsseldorf, collaborating with patent attorneys from Michalski Hüttermann & Partner.
The dispute extends beyond Europe. Align has filed revocation actions against three Angelalign patents in the US and China, while Angelalign’s own patents face challenges in multiple jurisdictions. The Paris decision now forces Angelalign to halt sales of its infringing aligners in 17 UPC countries, though the company may still pursue appeals or challenge the ruling’s scope. The case highlights the UPC’s increasing role in resolving high-stakes patent disputes, particularly in the rapidly evolving orthodontics market.
The financial impact of the ruling is immediate. Damages calculations begin from the patent’s grant date on July 12, 2023, though the exact figure remains undetermined. Align’s requests for publication of the decision and security for enforcement were denied, with the court limiting disclosure to a confidentiality club of four Align representatives plus an independent auditor. The injunction’s reach—spanning recall, destruction, and penalties—will test Angelalign’s ability to comply while it evaluates legal options.
Court upholds patent’s technical details
The ruling clarified the technical boundaries of Align’s patent by rejecting Angelalign’s arguments about added matter and insufficient disclosure. The court examined whether the terms “single” and “continuous” in the ridge-shaped protrusion description introduced new limitations not present in the original filing. Angelalign claimed these words altered the patent’s scope beyond what was disclosed in the priority documents. However, the judges found the original specification had sufficiently described a ridge as both “single” and “continuous” in its functional application to third-order root torque. They emphasized these terms described a structural characteristic of the cavity’s geometry, not an addition post-filing.
The decision also addressed inventive step challenges. The court reviewed these documents and determined none disclosed a ridge-shaped protrusion on the buccal side of a cavity for anterior teeth with the specific function of lingual root torque. The panel ruled the skilled person would not have arrived at the claimed solution without Align’s inventive contribution, particularly given the technical challenge of achieving controlled third-order movement without excessive force on delicate anterior roots.
Appeals hinge on narrow legal grounds
Angelalign retains appeal options under Article 82 of the UPC Agreement, though the Paris decision sets strict parameters. Either party may appeal to the Court of Appeal within two months, provided they post security for the other side’s costs. Angelalign could argue the court misinterpreted “buccal side” or that the inventive step analysis overlooked relevant prior art. However, the panel’s rejection of patent amendments, even as a conditional auxiliary request, limits Angelalign’s ability to narrow the claims. The court ruled any proposed modifications would alter the patent’s original technical teaching, violating Article 138(1) of the EPC.
