The patent preliminary injunction application filed by Align Technology, Inc. has been rejected, and the normal operation of Angelalign Technology Inc.'s A7 solution in the European market r…

Source: Unified Patent Court Judgment (Case No. UPC_CFI_1747/2025)

DentalGoodNews｜On May 12, 2026, the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Dusseldorf, Germany, issued a ruling on the preliminary injunction application filed by Align Technology, Inc. against Angelalign Technology Inc. (6699.HK, hereinafter referred to as "Angel Aligner"). The court rejected Align Technology's request to prohibit Angel Aligner from using the "A7 Premolar Extraction Solution" in the European market, and the normal operation of Angel Aligner's A7 solution in the European market remains unaffected.

It is reported that the patent involved in this case is EP 4295806 B1, with the core claim relating to a design method for orthodontic aligners, emphasizing that the relevant technical features must be satisfied at the level of a single appliance. This patent was granted in November 2025, less than six months before the current preliminary injunction application.

The Unified Patent Court, after reviewing the evidence under the "balance of probabilities" standard, determined that the evidence submitted by Align Technology failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the single aligner in the A7 solution meets the aforementioned features. The ruling explicitly states that in the A7 solution, the anchorage preparation of posterior teeth is completed in the early stage of treatment, followed by the retraction of anterior teeth in a later stage, with these two phases being achieved by different aligners.

Furthermore, the ruling noted that all evidence submitted by Align Technology came from promotional materials such as official website screenshots, product manuals, and webinars, without any experimental mechanical evaluation of specific aligners. The argument was "based solely on assumptions and speculation," and the plaintiff's infringement claims did not meet the evidentiary standard required for a preliminary injunction, leading to the dismissal of the application.

In this case, Angel Aligner raised two validity challenges against the patent in question: first, arguing that the scope of the claims is overly broad and the specification lacks sufficient disclosure; second, citing existing orthodontic literature to assert that the relevant differential moment scheme lacks innovation. The court did not make a final ruling during the preliminary measures phase, and these two challenges will be reserved for subsequent formal litigation.

Dr. Arno Riße, attorney for Angel Aligner from Arnold Ruess law firm, stated: "We respect the ruling of the Dusseldorf Local Division and will continue to argue that Angel Aligner has not infringed any valid patent. Angel Aligner places high importance on intellectual property rights and always carefully ensures that no valid patent rights are infringed." Richard Hirschland, Chief Commercial Officer and Senior Vice President of Angel Aligner, added: "We firmly deny the allegations of infringement and are confident in our position."