Paris local division upholds Align patent in dispute with Angelalign

US company Align Technology, the maker of the Invisalign clear aligner system, sued Angelalign Technology and four of its European subsidiaries in August 2025 over EP 2 237 738. The patent covers orthodontic appliances with specific cavity geometries featuring a single continuous ridge-shaped protrusion designed to achieve controlled tooth movement, in particular a so-called third order root movement with lingual root torque.

Align accused Angelalign of infringing the patent through its Angel Aligner Select and Pro clear aligner systems, which incorporate the AngelAttach system including a Torque Ridge. The Chinese manufacturer filed a counterclaim for revocation, challenging the patent for added matter, insufficient disclosure and lack of inventive step. It also submitted a conditional auxiliary request to amend the patent.

The panel chaired by presiding judge Camille Lignières, with judge-rapporteur Carine Gillet, legally qualified judge Marjolein Visser and technically qualified judge Elisabetta Papa, dismissed all validity attacks and found literal infringement of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8 (case ID: UPC_CFI_684/2025).

Dispute over claim construction

At the heart of the dispute was the question of whether the term “buccal side of the cavity” in the claims refers only to cavities receiving posterior teeth, as Angelalign argued, or more broadly to any outer side of the cavity. The court sided with Align, holding that the skilled person would read “buccal” as synonymous with “facial” in the context of the patent, so that the claims cover cavities receiving both anterior and posterior teeth. 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. They also dismissed inventive step challenges based on various combinations of prior art, finding that the skilled person would not have combined the cited documents without hindsight to arrive at the claimed solution.

UK claim dismissed

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.

The panel 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. Damages run from the grant of the patent on 12 July 2023. The court rejected Align’s requests for publication of the decision and for security for enforcement, and limited the information claim to a confidentiality club of four persons on the claimant’s side plus an independent auditor.

Parallel proceedings

The Paris decision is the latest in a series of UPC rulings between the two clear aligner manufacturers. 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 infringement action on the merits over EP 690, together with a counterclaim for revocation, is pending at the Düsseldorf local division.

Parallel proceedings concerning counterparts of the patent-in-suit are also ongoing in the United States and China. Align has further filed a revocation action against three Angelalign patents.

Mixed firm vs IP boutique

UK mixed firm Carpmaels & Ransford represented Align in the Paris proceedings, as in the parallel UPC cases in Düsseldorf. Partner and patent attorney John Brunner led the team together with litigation partner Agathe Michel-de-Cazotte. The firm has a long-standing relationship with Align and handles litigation, opposition and other patent matters for the US company. The team also included associates Ben Chapman, Caroline Horstmann, Will Mooney, Salomé Nattagh and Daisy Makin.

Düsseldorf-based IP boutique Arnold Ruess acted for the five Angelalign entities, with partner Arno Risse and counsel Tim Smentkowski in the lead, assisted by associate Tugce Altun.  Arnold Ruess also represents Angelalign in the parallel UPC proceedings in Düsseldorf, working with patent attorneys Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz and Wanze Zhang from Michalski Hüttermann & Partner.