Setback for Align and Carpmaels & Ransford in orthodontic aligners dispute

Align Technology is owner of EP 4 295 806, relating to a method of designing clear orthodontic aligners used for tooth movement. Specifically, the patent covers methods and aligners that use counter moments and differential moments to control tooth movement more precisely during orthodontic treatment, especially in extraction cases. Align uses the technology in its Invisalign products.

The California based patent owner accuses Chinese competitor Angelalign of infringing EP 806 with its products of the Select, Pro and KiD models, using the A7 Premolar Extraction Solution. Align Technology applied for preliminary measures at the Düsseldorf local division, arguing that the A7 system generated opposing counter moments on anterior and posterior teeth exactly as claimed in the patent-in-suit.

Angelalign denied the accusation, arguing that the allegedly infringing treatment steps occurred at different stages of treatment using different aligners and that the claimed features were not implemented in a single aligner. Furthermore, the defendant challenged validity, arguing lack of sufficiency and lack of inventive step over prior art. Angelalign additionally argued that provisional measures were unnecessary and that Align was trying to disrupt an existing market after the patent grant.

Win some, lose some

The court dismissed Align’s request for provisional measures. The panel around presiding judge Ronny Thomas also included legally qualified judges Ingo Rinken and Marjolein Visser as well as technically qualified judge Elisabetta Papa. They pointed out that for a preliminary injunction, Align had to show infringement existed more likely than not. However, the court ruled that Align did not sufficiently establish infringement of EP 806, and therefore the judges did not decide on the remaining issues such as validity, urgency, or security. They set the value of the case at €1.6 million (case ID: UPC-CFI-0001747/2025).

In February, the local division Düsseldorf had granted Align a preliminary injunction regarding a different patent. The dispute over EP 4 346 690 concerned software for orthodontic treatment planning, specifically Align’s patent covering real-time automated modification of treatment plans for clear aligner therapy.

In this case, the panel of judges — including legally qualified judge Bérénice Thom instead of Ingo Rinken — ruled that the Live Now function of Angelalign’s iOrtho software likely did infringe the patent-in-suit. Subsequently, the court granted a PI (case ID: UPC_CFI_723/2025), the first preliminary measures of the UPC granted on the basis of a European Unitary Patent. An appeal is pending. The oral hearing is scheduled for 18 June.

Furthermore, Align filed infringement proceedings on the merits at the local division over EP 690 in March (case ID: UPC-CFI-0000945/2026).

Parallel infringement proceedings and a counterclaim for revocation over yet another patent, EP 2 237 738, are pending at the local division Paris (case ID: UPC_CFI_684/2025). The hearing is scheduled to take place in September.

Carpmaels vs Arnold Ruess

UK mixed firm Carpmaels & Ransford represented the US claimant Align in both proceedings at the UPC. Patent attorney John Brunner and litigator Agathe Michel-de Cazotte took the lead.

Partner Ian Kirby was also on the team, with associates Ben Chapman, Hiske Roos, Caroline Horstmann, and William Mooney providing assistance.

A team of litigators from Düsseldorf-based IP boutique Arnold Ruess and patent attorneys of Michalski Hüttermann & Partner acted for the four Angelalign entities.

Arnold Ruess partner Arno Riße and counsel Tim Smentkowski took the lead, with assistance from associate Julius Winkler. Patent attorney Dirk Schulz argued the technical side of the case, with Ulrich Storz and Wanze Zhang also working on the cases. The latter moved from Dompatent von Kreisler Selting Werner to Michalski Hüttermann in April 2024. Zhang had the initial contact to the Chinese client and brought the Arnold Ruess lawyers on board. She had worked with Riße previously in the case of Kingfa vs BASF.

The firms worked with Avery Liu and Lei Dong from the in-house department of Angelalign.