Align Technology v. Angelalign — UPC Upholds Clear-Aligner Patent and Orders 17-Country Injunction

Background

Align Technology, the maker of Invisalign clear aligners, owns European Patent EP 2 237 738 B1. The patent covers orthodontic aligners that use a continuous horizontal ridge inside a tooth-receiving cavity to apply controlled force and produce lingual root torque—that is, rotation of a tooth root toward the tongue. Align accused five Angelalign companies of using that technology in the Torque Ridge feature of their Angel Aligner Select and Pro systems.

Align brought an infringement action in the Unified Patent Court’s Paris Local Division. Angelalign counterclaimed to revoke the patent, arguing that the asserted claims added matter beyond the original application, did not teach the invention sufficiently, and lacked an inventive step over earlier orthodontic systems. The litigation concerned claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8, which cover both the aligner system and a method of fabricating it.

This merits decision follows a different dispute between the same companies involving another patent. In May 2026, the UPC’s Düsseldorf Local Division denied Align preliminary relief on a separate clear-aligner patent because Align had not established infringement with enough certainty.

The Court’s Holding

The Paris panel upheld every asserted claim and found literal infringement. On claim construction, it treated the patent itself as the controlling guide to technical language. In that context, the claimed “buccal” side of a cavity was not limited to the cheek-facing side of rear teeth; it encompassed the outward or facial side of anterior teeth as well. That reading mattered because Angelalign’s Torque Ridges were used on incisors. The panel also construed a “continuous” ridge as one configured to contact the tooth along an uninterrupted length, rather than a series of separated bumps.

Angelalign’s invalidity challenges failed. The panel found no impermissible added matter and concluded that the patent taught the claimed invention sufficiently. On inventive step, the cited references either concerned materially different orthodontic appliances, omitted important features such as a single horizontal ridge producing lingual root torque, or supplied no reason for a skilled person to combine selected features in the claimed way. The court warned against reconstructing the invention with hindsight by isolating features from otherwise different systems.

Applying its construction, the panel found that Angelalign’s Select and Pro products used a series of removable clear aligners with a continuous horizontal ridge protruding inward from the facial side of the tooth cavity to produce lingual root torque. That matched the asserted system and manufacturing-method claims literally, so the panel did not need to address infringement by equivalents.

The remedy was broad but tailored. The court enjoined the relevant Angelalign companies in seventeen UPC member states, ordered recall, removal, and destruction of infringing products, required disclosure of distribution and financial information, and awarded damages for infringement dating from the patent’s July 12, 2023 grant. Damages will be quantified separately. The court protected patient care by excluding aligners already delivered for ongoing treatments from the recall and destruction measures. It rejected relief for the United Kingdom because Align had not adequately pleaded and proved the applicable foreign law and infringing acts there. It also refused publication of the judgment and declined to require security merely because Align is based in the United States.

Key Takeaways

• Patent terminology is read in the context of the claims, description, and drawings; ordinary technical usage does not automatically override the patent’s own usage.
• An inventive-step attack needs more than a collection of familiar components. The challenger must identify a persuasive reason a skilled person would combine the particular teachings without hindsight.
• The UPC can impose coordinated injunction, recall, destruction, information, and damages remedies across many member states while tailoring relief to protect patients already receiving treatment.
• A party seeking relief for conduct outside UPC territory must plead the relevant national law and prove the alleged acts; the UPC will not fill those gaps itself.

Why It Matters

The ruling shows the practical force of a unitary patent: one merits action produced infringement relief across seventeen countries, along with commercially significant recall, destruction, information, and damages orders. For medical-device companies, it also demonstrates that the court will account for patient interests without treating them as a complete answer to infringement.

The contrast with the earlier Düsseldorf proceeding is equally instructive. Align failed to obtain preliminary relief on a different patent when its technical proof was inadequate, but prevailed here after the Paris panel construed and applied a fully developed merits record. The result underscores that outcomes between the same competitors can turn on the precise claim language, accused feature, evidence, and procedural posture.