Short Summary
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP2237738. Align Technology sought to disregard the Defendants' late-filed non-infringement arguments (paragraphs 49-57 of the Rejoinder) and Exhibits AR 12 and AR 13, arguing they were raised for the first time in the Rejoinder rather than in the Statement of Defence. The Judge-rapporteur granted Align's application, declaring the new arguments and exhibits inadmissible and ordering they not be relied upon at any subsequent stage of the proceedings.
Detailed Summary
This Procedural Order was issued by Judge-rapporteur Carine Gillet of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 05 June 2026 in case UPC_CFI_684/2025 (related to UPC_CFI_2279/2025), concerning European Patent No. EP2237738.
The Claimant, Align Technology, Inc., brought an infringement action against the Angelalign entities (Angelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, and Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L.) on 18 August 2025. The Defendants filed their Statement of Defence along with a counterclaim for revocation on 02 January 2026. Align submitted its reply on 16 March 2026, and Angel Align filed its rejoinder on 18 May 2026.
On 22 May 2026, Align filed an application under Rule 9.2 RoP to disregard the Defendants' late-filed non-infringement arguments, specifically paragraphs 49-57 of the Rejoinder and newly-filed Exhibits AR 12 and AR 13. Align argued that the Defendants had initially raised non-infringement arguments only with regard to feature 1.3.1 of Claim 1 (and corresponding feature 7.5.1 of Claim 7) in their Statement of Defence, but introduced new arguments against features 1.3 and 1.3.4 for the first time in the Rejoinder. Align contended these additional arguments were not in response to any change in the Claimant's arguments in its Reply, were contrary to the front-loaded nature of the proceedings, and should have been submitted with the Statement of Defence. Align also noted that the Defendants had followed a similar late-filing strategy in a parallel case before the Düsseldorf Local Division.
In response, Angel Align argued that the new arguments were admissible as a response to the Claimant's clarified position in its Reply regarding features 1.3.2 and 1.3.4, and that the Claimant should be given an opportunity to respond so that an exhaustive judicial decision could be handed down. Angel Align also contended that the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal's rejection of its appeal was based on the imminence of the oral hearing rather than a merits assessment.
The Court reasoned that, in accordance with the front-loaded procedure and the strict timetable set out in the Rules of Procedure, the rejoinder is the last written submission in infringement proceedings, and the Claimant generally does not have an opportunity to respond. The Court found that the Claimant's interpretation of the cavity and lingual root torque in its Reply was not new but was already set out in the Statement of Claim, where Align had mentioned the combined action of the ridge-shaped protrusion of feature 1.3.1 and the lingual surface of feature 1.3.2. Similarly, the interpretation of feature 1.3.4 in the Reply was consistent with that in the Statement of Claim. The Court further noted that the Defendants had all the information they needed from the Statement of Case and had a four-month period to prepare their defence, rather than the standard three-month period.
The Court concluded that there were no grounds to justify the late submission of the new arguments, which should have been raised in the Statement of Defence. Accordingly, the Judge-rapporteur ordered that the Defendants' new non-infringement arguments (paragraphs 49-57 of the Rejoinder) and Exhibits AR 12 and AR 13 are inadmissible and shall be disregarded, and shall not be relied upon at the oral hearing or any subsequent stages of the proceedings. The alternative request to allow the Claimant to reply in writing was declared devoid of purpose.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before PARIS LOCAL DIVISION. Understanding the court's reasoning in Align Technology, Inc. vs Angelalign Technology Inc. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLCvsTexas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 746 957. The order contains preliminary remarks and questions from the judge-rapporteur in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for 22 July 2025, addressing claim construction, validity issues, and infringement considerations. The order also confirms the value in dispute at EUR 5,000,000 for both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation.
Koninklijke Philips N.V.vsShenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought a preliminary injunction from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd. for infringement of EP 3 197 316 B1, which relates to an oral cleaning system with motivation feedback for electric toothbrushes. Despite having previously issued a cease and desist declaration, the respondent was found to be exhibiting the infringing 'Oclean' toothbrush models at IFA 2024 in Berlin. The court granted the preliminary measures, ordering the respondent to cease offering and distributing the infringing products, imposing penalties of up to 250,000 EUR per violation, and requiring handover of infringing products at the trade fair.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.vsAiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1, in which the court addressed the question of bifurcation under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court exercised its discretion to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly, rather than separating them, citing reasons of efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLCvsSpeed Care Mineral GmbH
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC sought a preliminary injunction against Speed Care Mineral GmbH before the Local Division Hamburg, alleging that Speed Care's SpeedM emergency hemostatic dressing infringed European Patent EP 2 077 811 B1, which protects clay-based hemostatic agents and devices. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Teleflex failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the attacked embodiment contained a 'binder' as required by claim 1 of the patent in suit, and therefore could not establish infringement.
Biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KGvsLight Guide Optics Germany GmbH, S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
Biolitec, an Austrian medical technology company and proprietor of European patent EP 3 685 783, sought provisional measures against the Lightguide companies for alleged infringement relating to their 'Infinity Side Fiber' product. The Court of First Instance (Düsseldorf Local Division) dismissed the application, and Biolitec appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that Biolitec failed to demonstrate that provisional measures were necessary and that proceedings on the merits could not be awaited.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.