Irides: Weekly global patent litigation update

This edition features updates from: The Netherlands, Morocco and the Unified Patent Court (UPC).

The Irides Weekly Update is our round-up of patent litigation news highlights from around the world.
 

The Netherlands

The Hague District Court rejects Halozyme’s interim relief application against MSD in Keytruda SC patent dispute. 
[Halozyme v Merck Sharp & Dohme C/09/706206 / KG ZA 26-576]

On 3 July 2026, the District Court of The Hague dismissed an application from Halozyme to prevent MSD from marketing subcutaneous Keytruda (Keytruda SC) in Denmark and Sweden pending the outcome of Dutch patent proceedings concerning EP 2 792 622 (EP 622).

Halozyme argued that MSD had acted unlawfully, within the meaning of the Dutch Civil Code, by permitting Keytruda SC to be launched after stating in the main proceedings that there was no imminent threat of infringement or market entry in countries where EP 622 is in force.

The Court accepted that Halozyme had an urgent interest, but held that statements made in pleadings by MSD about its plans are not legally binding undertakings. If Halozyme wished to rely on a commitment not to launch, it should have sought an express undertaking or separate interim relief.

The Court also rejected Halozyme’s argument that any inconsistency in MSD’s pleadings amounted to an actionable breach of the Dutch duty of truth. Any consequences of such a breach are generally for the Court in the proceedings in which the statements were made, and only exceptionally give rise to a separate tort claim.

The application was dismissed and Halozyme was ordered to pay MSD’s costs.
 

Morocco

Casablanca Commercial Court delivers its first SEP decision. 
[Ericsson v. TECNO Mobile Limited / Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co., Ltd]

On 6 July 2026, the Casablanca Commercial Court issued its decision in the dispute between Ericsson and two subsidiaries (Tecno and Itel) of the Chinese implementer Transsion Holdings. These are the first substantive SEP judgments ever rendered in Morocco. Ericsson and Transsion have since announced that they have reached a global settlement agreement, bringing all litigation on the asserted SEPs to an end. The Court arrived at its decision quickly, just six months after Ericsson initiated proceedings in Morocco in December 2025.  

The Court assessed infringement on the basis of essentiality, it accepted Ericsson’s arguments that its asserted patents were essential to the relevant standards, and that Transsion’s handsets would comply with those standards, rather than asking for direct evidence that individual Transsion handsets would implement the patented inventions.

The Court granted damages and injunctions against Tecno and Itel. Transsion is not reported to have raised a FRAND defence against Ericsson and it remains unclear whether such a defence would be available in Morocco.
 

UPC

Court of Appeal upholds injunction finding provisional measures necessary to prevent competitive harm.
[AngelAlign v Align UPC-CoA-36/2026]

On 8 July 2026, the Court of Appeal (CoA) (Panel 3, Judge Ulrike Voß presiding) handed down its decision on AngelAlign’s appeal against the 12 February 2026 order of the Düsseldorf Local Division (LD) to issue a Preliminary Injunction (PI) for its alleged infringement of Align Technologies’ patent EP 4 346 690. In particular, AngelAlign‘s “iOrtho” software contained the allegedly infringing “Live Now” feature which allowed real-time adjustments to a patient’s orthodontic treatment plan when the user used their mouse to move a reference point within certain thresholds.

At first instance, the Düsseldorf LD had rejected AngelAlign’s arguments that the patent was likely to be invalid and had also rejected non-infringement arguments first submitted by AngelAlign in their rejoinder as late-filed.

On appeal, the Court held that the patent was likely to be both novel and comprised an inventive step – the combination of real-time updates and only generating those updates within certain thresholds (so as to limit computation demand) was distinct from and non-obvious over the prior art cited by AngelAlign.

In its validity assessment, the Court declined to admit two prior art references which were submitted for the first time by AngelAlign with their grounds of appeal. In accordance with r.222.2 RoP, the CoA could use its discretion to disregard requests, facts and evidence that had not been submitted by a party in the first instance. In this instance, the Court dismissed AngelAlign’s submission that it took a long time to prepare the video clip that formed one of the new pieces of prior art - AngelAlign had failed to explain why it could not have been done in the months ahead of the first instance hearing. The Court agreed with Align Technologies’ argument that to admit the new prior art would have constituted a new invalidity attack introduced at a late stage with insufficient time to deal with questions over how the video clip was obtained, in a way that would have been prejudicial to Align Technologies.  

The CoA partly upheld the first-instance decision not to admit AngelAlign’s non-infringement arguments. Those of AngelAlign’s arguments which substantially disputed technical qualifications by Align Technologies had been filed late without justification and were not admitted. However, one set of submissions by AngelAlign essentially confirmed Align Technologies’ position on the technical functionality of the allegedly infringing product. The CoA viewed these as an uncontested submission which could not be rejected on the grounds of late filing and accepted them into the case.

Finally, the Court upheld the first instance decision that provisional measures were necessary: the parties were direct competitors in the field of clear aligner orthodontic therapy and AngelAlign’s continued supply of its allegedly infringing product would cause serious harm to Align Technologies’ market position. On the balance of convenience, and noting its findings on validity and infringement, the Court therefore kept the PI in place.
 

UPC

Düsseldorf Local Division confirms the scope of “offering” under Articles 25 and 26 UPCA.
[AngelAlign v Align UPC_CFI_723/2025]

On 3 July 2026, the Düsseldorf LD handed down an order in the ongoing proceedings between Align Technologies and its competitor AngelAlign over patents relating to orthodontic software. In an order of 12 February 2026, the UPC had issued a PI against AngelAlign, ordering them to cease and desist from using the infringing feature of the software or offering it for use. The order also provided for penalty payments in case of future infringement.

Following the 12 February order, AngelAlign had disabled the software feature in the relevant territories and notified existing users, as well as adding pop-up warnings to the website. However, in March 2026 Align Technologies issued a further complaint, noting that a user manual with information on the infringing feature remained accessible on AngelAlign’s European website. Additionally, AngelAlign had not deleted several social media posts from 2025 (i.e. from before the PI order) which promoted the infringing feature.

The LD held that the user manual including information on the infringing feature constituted an “offer” for the purpose of Art. 25 and 26 UPCA. “Offering” should be understood in an economic sense, rather than in the sense of a binding contractual offer, it is not required that an offer includes all the details (such as a price) that would be necessary for the immediate conclusion of a contract by mere acceptance of the offer.

Notwithstanding AngelAlign’s arguments that the accessible user manual was a regulatory requirement for a CE-marked medical device, the fact that it described the infringing feature without reference to the territorial limitations imposed by the 12 February order meant that it could influence customer choice and affect customer demand for the patented product. The LD also found that the historical social media posts constituted “offers” which promoted the infringing software feature, as they remained visible to the public. 

The LD therefore held that penalty payments under the 12 February order were justified. However, it also noted that the fact that AngelAlign had disabled the infringing feature in the relevant contracting member states, meant that the most severe infringement had been discontinued and a reduced penalty payment should be ordered. 

New episodes: You, Me and the UPC: Case by case

Episode 72: Court of Appeal provides key jurisdictional guidance on multi‑defendant infringement actions

Episode 73: Local Division dismisses application for provisional measures finding a lack of urgency