Align Wins UPC Injunction Against Angelalign Over "Power Ridge" Aligner Patent

By Haedar

Photo: killc4m / Pixabay

The Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has ruled that clear-aligner maker Angelalign infringed a European patent owned by Align Technology, the company behind Invisalign. The decision, dated 16 October 2026, upholds the patent, grants an injunction covering 17 UPC member states and orders a recall, information, damages and costs. Angelalign can appeal.

The patent and the product

The patent in suit is EP 2 237 738 B1, which Align's lawyers refer to as the "Power Ridge" patent. It was filed on 12 December 2008, claims priority from a US application of 29 January 2008, and was granted on 12 July 2023 with unitary effect registered on 31 July 2023. Nobody filed an opposition at the European Patent Office.

Claim 1 covers a series of aligners in which at least one aligner has a single continuous, horizontal ridge protruding into the tooth cavity on the cheek (buccal) side. Together with the opposite surface, the ridge applies "lingual root torque", a force that tips the root of the tooth towards the tongue. Align argued that Angelalign's "AngelAttach" system with "Torque Ridge" features, offered in its Select and Pro aligner lines, fell within the claims. Align filed the infringement action on 18 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_684/2025). Angelalign responded with a revocation counterclaim (UPC_CFI_2279/2025).

What the court decided

The panel, presided over by Judge Camille Lignières with Judge Carine Gillet as judge-rapporteur, rejected the revocation counterclaim and held the patent valid. It found that claims 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8 were literally infringed.

The injunction covers Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and Slovenia. Breaches can attract penalty payments of up to EUR 10,000 per infringing product or EUR 20,000 per day. Angelalign must also recall and destroy infringing products, tell Align about its sales and distribution channels, and pay damages, to be quantified later, plus the costs of the action.

Several parts of the ruling went against Align:

• No UK relief. Align had also sought relief for the United Kingdom, which is outside the UPC system. The court dismissed that claim because Align had not substantiated the content of UK law. It relied on the Court of Appeal's approach in Hurom v NUC (28 August 2026).
• Damages start at grant. Align asked for damages from 29 July 2020. The court set the start date at 12 July 2023, the date of grant, because there was no evidence of infringing acts before that.
• Patients in treatment are protected. The injunction covers only treatments that have not yet started or have been interrupted. Aligners already delivered to patients do not have to be recalled. The court nevertheless rejected Angelalign's wider argument that patients' interests should block an injunction altogether.
• No security. The court did not make enforcement conditional on Align providing security.

The wider fight

In its 16 October press release, Align said that Angelalign has stopped selling Torque Ridge features in Europe and has introduced a replacement feature it calls "Pressure Points". That is the company's own account; the decision itself deals only with the Torque Ridge products.

Align also listed other disputes between the two companies. They include a UPC preliminary injunction granted in February 2026 over its "ClinCheck Live Update" software, which the UPC Court of Appeal upheld; a US International Trade Commission investigation, with a hearing held in July 2026 and an initial determination expected in November 2026; and an August 2026 judgment from a court in Jinan, China, which Angelalign has appealed.

Why it matters

The case shows how the UPC handles medical-device disputes. The court granted a broad, multi-country injunction, but adjusted it so that patients in the middle of treatment are not left without their aligners. It also shows the limits of the UPC's long-arm jurisdiction: a court can rule on a non-UPC country such as the UK, but only if the claimant actually proves the foreign law.

Indonesia angle

Clear aligners are sold widely in Indonesia, both through clinics and directly to consumers. Patent protection in Indonesia is territorial, so a European or unitary patent has no effect there. A rights holder would need its own Indonesian patent granted by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DJKI) and would have to enforce it through the Commercial Court. We are not aware of an Indonesian court decision on clear-aligner patents. The UPC's approach to patients already in treatment could still be a useful reference point for any future medical-device injunction claim in the region.

---

Sources

• Unified Patent Court, Paris Local Division, Align Technology v Angelalign, UPC_CFI_684/2025 and UPC_CFI_2279/2025, decision of 16 October 2026
• Align Technology, "Align Technology Wins Significant Patent Infringement Case" (16 October 2026)
• Dhenne Avocats, UPC Litigation Watch, "Align v Angelalign" (October 2026)