- within Transport topic(s)
1. Key takeaways
Non-infringement arguments which are for the first time submitted with the Rejoinder can be rejected as late-field
If a defendant has not (timely) contested that the challenged embodiments infringe the patent in suit and if the court follows the claim interpretation of claimant, infringement will be assumed for the purposes of the proceedings for provisional measures.
The mere fact that an applicant for provisional measures relies on the combination of an independent claim with sub-claims does not lead to the invalidity of the independent claim being more likely than not
When no action going beyond the typical role of shareholder/financial holding is alleged, such company cannot be held liable for patent infringing actions, Art. 62(1) UPCA
The CoA has ruled that an "infringer" within the meaning of Art. 63 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 25 UPCA is also someone who does not himself carry out the acts referred to in Art. 25 UPCA, but to whom the acts of a third party are attributable because it is an instigator, accomplice or accessory. Who is an instigator, accomplice or ac-cessory in this sense is determined on the basis of an autonomous interpretation of Art.63 UPCA and Art.25 UPCA (UPC_CoA_534/2024, UPC_CoA_683/2024, UPC_CoA_19/2025, Decision of 3 October 2025, mn. 180 – Belkin v Philips).
A holding company that is not involved in any operational business cannot be assumed to be accomplice or accessory to a patent infringement by its subsidiaries. There has to be knowledge on side of the holding company that the subsidiaries are committing a patent infringement and – although it is possible and reasonable for it to do so – does not take action to stop the patent infringement. Awareness of the illegality of the act of use is also required.
An applicant for provisional measures must substantiate that a holding company has engaged in actions exceeding its typical role as a shareholder or financial holding; otherwise, the application against that company must be rejected.
2. Division
Local Division Düsseldorf
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_723/2025
4. Type of proceedings
Application for provisional measures
5. Parties
Applicant: Align Technology, Inc
Defendants: 1) Shanghai EA Medical Instruments Co., Ltd; 2) Angelalign Technology Inc.; 3) Angelalign France Technology SASU; 4) Europe Angelalign Technology B.V.; 5) Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH; 6) Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L.
6. Patent(s)
EP 4 346 690 B1
7. Jurisdictions
UPC; injunction reuested for Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, The Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Sweden and Slovenia
8. Body of legislation / Rules
R. 209.1 RoP; R. 211.5 RoP; Art. 62(1) UPCA; Art. 69 UPCA in connection with R. 150.2 and R. 211.1(d) RoP
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
