Sylvia Bort Martí. European Patent Attorney | European Patent Litigator before the UPC. Patents and Technological Innovation Department.
The order issued on 12 February 2026 by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (case UPC_CFI_723/2025) marks a milestone in the short life of the system: it is the first time that a provisional injunction has been granted on the basis of a European unitary patent. Beyond its historical interest, the ruling offers very clear clues as to how the UPC is interpreting key issues in relation to interim measures: from the initial assessment of the infringement to the type of invalidity arguments that may be successful at this stage.
This litigation arose from Align Technology’s request for a provisional injunction against various companies in the Angelalign group, alleging that the ‘Live Now’ functionality of Angelalign’s iOrtho software infringes patent EP 4 346 690 B1. After analysing how the flow protected by the patent works, the UPC concludes that, for an injunctive decision, there are strong indications that the essential elements of the claim are reproduced. The defendants deny the infringement and challenge the validity of the patent, and also oppose the urgency and necessity of the measures requested. In its order of 12 February 2026, the UPC (Düsseldorf Local Division) upheld Align’s application on the merits, granting the provisional injunction in 17 participating Member States and accompanying it with a penalty regime, although it rejected the measure with regard to the holding company Angelalign Technology Inc. on the grounds of lack of involvement in the infringing acts.
One of the most clarifying sections of the decision concerns the arguments for invalidity. Angelalign sought to challenge the validity of the patent by alleging errors in the EPO examiner’s interpretation. The UPC, however, sets an important criterion: it is not enough to disagree with the European examination. To weaken the presumption of validity at this stage, it is essential to provide consistent technical arguments aimed at demonstrating lack of novelty, inventive step or insufficiency of disclosure, and all being formulated from the perspective of one skilled in the art. It is even possible to draw on documents already evaluated by the EPO, but always offering structured reasoning. In doing so, the UPC sets a clear standard: interim measures allow for the validity to be discussed, but not through speculative allegations.
The ruling also focuses on urgency, a decisive factor in granting provisional measures. The UPC accepts Align’s argument that dentists tend to remain in the same digital “ecosystem” and supplier due to training costs and tool integration. In such a loyal market, the emergence of a competitor with similar features can cause damage that is difficult to reverse, even if a judgment later confirms the infringement. It adds that the Live Now feature began to be offered in May 2025, so its withdrawal does not cause irreversible damage to Angelalign or consolidate a premature presence in the market.
Another relevant point is the liability of holding companies. Following the doctrine of Belkin v. Philips, the Court recalls that it is not sufficient to be a parent company to be held liable for infringement. It must be proven that there was involvement exceeding the typical activity of a shareholder or actual knowledge of the infringement combined with a failure to take measures to prevent it. In this case, the UPC concludes that Angelalign Technology Inc. did not have any relevant operational involvement and therefore does not extend the injunction to the parent company, although it does uphold the injunction against the subsidiaries that marketed the software in Europe.
Finally, the Court grants the provisional injunction requested by Align with effect in 17 participating Member States. It is accompanied by a penalty regime for non-compliance and a provisional order to pay costs of EUR 400,000. It also refuses to require a security, as it does not consider there to be a risk that any future compensation could be unenforceable.
Overall, this ruling helps to outline, with considerable clarity, the early practice of the UPC in provisional measures: what level of analysis the infringement requires, how arguments for invalidity should be formulated, what criteria govern urgency in specialised digital markets, and how liability is delimited within multinational groups. Rather than resolving a specific case, the decision contributes to consolidating a clear and predictable interpretative standard for European unitary patents.
