The Jinan Intermediate People’s Court ruled in the first instance that Angelalign’s A7 tooth extraction plan infringed on Align Technology’s patent. Angelalign: Business is currently operating normal…

Source: Align Technology official website

DentalGoodNews｜On August 11 local time, Align Technology, Inc. (hereinafter "Align Technology") announced that the Jinan Intermediate People's Court had issued a first-instance judgment on August 10, 2026, in the patent infringement lawsuit it filed against Angelalign Technology Inc.'s operating entities in China (including Shanghai Angelalign Medical Devices Co., Ltd., Wuxi Angelalign Medical Device Technology Co., Ltd., and Wuxi Angelalign Biotechnology Co., Ltd., collectively "Angelalign"). The court found that Angelalign's use of specific patented technology to generate premolar extraction treatment plans constituted infringement, ordered compensation of RMB 10 million, and ordered the cessation of use of the patented technology in question, as well as the cessation of production and sale of the products found to be infringing.

According to Align Technology's announcement, the court determined that Angelalign infringed Align Technology's Chinese patent CN113693748B (relating to "extraction space closure" technology) in the process of using the MasterForce biomechanical simulation system and the ATreat digital orthodontic design system to generate A7 series and A7 Speed premolar extraction treatment plans. Aligner products produced and sold based on the aforementioned infringing technology were also found to be infringing.

The case was filed by Align Technology with the Jinan Intermediate People's Court on September 10, 2025. Align Technology's Q1 2026 report shows that Angelalign had filed an invalidation request with the China National Intellectual Property Administration on January 16, 2026, regarding the validity of the CN113693748B patent involved in the Jinan case, and the invalidation proceeding was still under review as of the date of the report's disclosure.

Source: Angelalign Investor Relations official WeChat account

On August 13, 2026, Angelalign issued a statement in response, stating that it would appeal the first-instance judgment, that the judgment had not yet taken effect, and that it had no immediate impact on customers and patients.

Since August 2025, Align Technology has filed multiple patent lawsuits against Angelalign in China and the United States. Angelalign has denied all related allegations and stated it would actively defend against the lawsuits.

This judgment is the latest development in the multi-jurisdictional series of litigations. In February 2026, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued an interim injunction related to Align Technology's ClinCheck® Live Update patent, which was subsequently upheld on appeal. On May 12, 2026, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC rejected Align Technology's application for an interim injunction against Angelalign's A7 premolar extraction protocol on grounds of insufficient evidence. The patent involved in that case belongs to the same patent family as the patent in the Jinan case, and both protect extraction space closure technology.

On July 13, 2026, the Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court issued first-instance judgments in two other patent lawsuits filed by Align Technology against Angelalign (involving patents on tooth attachments, treatment planning, etc.), rejecting all of Align Technology's claims and finding that Angelalign's aligner products and design methods, the angelAttach precision attachment system, the MasterForce system, and the iOrtho digital treatment design system did not fall within the scope of the patents in question.

In July 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) also held an evidentiary hearing on Align Technology's five patent claims against Angelalign. Align Technology expects the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to issue an initial determination on the relevant claims no later than November 20, 2026. Previously, the ITC formally instituted the investigation on December 19, 2025 (Investigation No. 337-TA-1471), and clarified that institution does not represent a determination on the merits of the case, that the ALJ's initial determination remains subject to Commission review, and that no substantive conclusion on the merits of either party has been reached in the U.S. proceedings to date.