Key takeaways
A discretionary review requires hearing the other party and will be dismissed if it disrupts first-instance proceedings without showing the impugned order was “manifestly erroneous” (R. 220.3 RoP)
The court will weigh the appellant’s delays against the respondent’s right to respond. The request for discretionary review may be dismissed to maintain procedural efficiency.
Courts have discretion to disregard late-filed arguments even in provisional measures proceedings, reflecting the UPC’s front-loaded nature
While the short deadlines in provisional measures may allow for leniency, judges retain significant discretion to manage case timelines and exclude late submissions to ensure efficiency.
A request for discretionary review must be sufficiently substantiated with specific references to enable a decision without further information being provided (R. 221.2 RoP)
The request must explain why the lower court’s decision was “manifestly erroneous”. General assertions without specific references to the first-instance pleadings are insufficient.
Division
Court of Appeal
UPC number
UPC_CoA_220/26 (Appeal)
UPC_CFI_723/2025 (first-instance proceedings)
Type of proceedings
Appeal (Request for discretionary review in provisional measures proceedings)
Parties
Applicants (in the appeal) / Defendants (at first instance): Angelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L., Shanghai EA Medical Instruments Co., Ltd.
Respondent (in the appeal) / Applicant (at first instance): Align Technology, Inc.
Patent(s)
EP 4 346 690
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 220.2 RoP
R. 220.3 RoP
R. 220.4 RoP
R. 221.2 RoP
