UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 138/2025

Feb 24, 2025·EP2323858 · VARIABLE SURFACE AREA TIRE TREAD

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (No infringement)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Paris LD
Judges
Technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Other special machines · Transport
Language
English
First decided
Apr 16, 2026
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Paris LDLockedLocked
Judge Camille LignièresLockedLocked
Judge Carine GilletLockedLocked
Judge Stefan JohanssonLockedLocked
Judge Bernard LedeboerLockedLocked

At the UPC: Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin (3 cases)·Goodyear France S.A.S. (3 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 2 other proceedings

UPC CFI 1697/2026·UPC CFI 522/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Paris LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-04-16
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Paris Local Division entirely revoked European patent EP2323858 (Michelin's 'Variable surface area tire tread' patent), finding Claim 1 lacked novelty over prior art document KUNUGI (JP 2001/063323), and that dependent claims and all 14 auxiliary requests likewise failed to overcome the invalidity. Consequently, Michelin's infringement claims against Goodyear were dismissed, and Michelin was ordered to bear the legal costs.

    Show the legal issues (6)
    • Novelty (Art. 54 EPC) — anticipation of Claim 1 by prior art KUNUGI (JP 2001/063323)
    • Probative value of party-affiliated 'expert' affidavits treated as witness statements
    • Claim construction of 'tread element' and 'spacing between lateral sipes'
    • Admissibility and validity of 14 auxiliary requests (added matter, clarity, inventive step)
    • Reasonable number of auxiliary requests under R. 30.1 RoP
    • Revocation of dependent claims 2–14 following invalidity of independent Claim 1
Documents
Show all 436 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-04-22Not public
Oral procedure closed2026-04-16Not public
Decision2026-04-16Not public
Decision2026-04-16Not public
Receipt2026-03-04Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-04Not public
Further pleadings2026-03-04Not public
Receipt2026-03-04Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-04Not public
Document Defendant2026-03-04Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • KUNUGI (JP 2001/063323) is a relevant prior art document because it is the only prior art cited in EP'858's description, which expressly states that KUNUGI discloses a tire tread according to the preamble of Claim 1; the different technical problem (air-pumping noise vs. water drainage) is irrelevant for a product claim defined by structural features only

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC; Art. 69 EPC; Protocol on Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC

  • Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0012]–[0013] of KUNUGI disclose the 'alternating arrangement of lateral grooves' (feature 7 of Claim 1), because the sipes on each side of the longitudinal sipe are visually offset in Fig. 1 and [0013] confirms they 'may be arranged independently, at any positions on each side', meaning a non-aligned (alternating) configuration

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC

  • Dependent claims 2–14 are invalid because Michelin provided no substantiated arguments that they would be valid independently of Claim 1

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC; Art. 56 EPC; Art. 138(1) EPC

  • Auxiliary request features F1 and F2 (water channelling / surface void) do not overcome the lack of novelty over KUNUGI because they add no structural limitation absent from KUNUGI

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC; Art. 123(2) EPC

  • Auxiliary request feature F3 (height H20 between 100% and 200% of Do20) introduces added matter not supported by the application as filed (WO 276)

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 123(2) EPC

  • Auxiliary request feature F5 (spacing between lateral sipes 5–20 mm) does not confer inventive step over KUNUGI as the spacing selection is arbitrary and would result from routine testing

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • KUNUGI is not relevant prior art because it addresses a different technical problem (air-pumping noise) rather than water drainage

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC

  • KUNUGI's 'bulges' would never be exposed at the tread surface, so they cannot anticipate the 'submerged grooves' that become exposed in Claim 1

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC

  • KUNUGI's bulges lack the capacity to drain water unlike the grooves in EP'858

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC

  • KUNUGI does not disclose an alternating arrangement of lateral grooves (feature 7 of Claim 1)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC

  • All relevant features of Claim 1 are not disclosed within a single embodiment of KUNUGI

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC