UPC CFI 202/2024
May 2, 2024·EP3655346 · DISPENSING APPARATUS
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent upheld as amended)ActionRevocationCategoryMain revocation action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Lindal Dispenser GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Véronique Pede-CAPE IP Law
- Camille Vansteenkiste-CAPE IP Law
RespondentsRepresentatives- Philip Matthew Dixon-Beck Greener LLP
- Anna Hatt-Beck Greener LLP
- François Herpe-Cornet Vincent Ségurel
- Capucine Hamon-Cornet Vincent Ségurel
- Matthew Dixon-Beck Greener LLP
- Catherine Jewell-Beck Greener LLP
- Division
- Paris CD
- Technology
- Mechanical engineeringHandling
- Language
- English
- First decided
- May 29, 2025
| Patent revoked | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Paris CD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Paolo Catallozzi | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Tatyana Zhilova | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Paolo Crippa | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Lindal Dispenser GmbH (3 cases)·Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited (3 cases)
This dispute contains 2 other proceedings
- 2025-05-29Revocation ActionPublic
Summary: The Central Division Paris rejected Lindal's revocation action but maintained EP 3 655 346 B1 as amended by the First Auxiliary Request submitted by the patent proprietor (Rocep-Lusol). The court held that the patent lacked industrial application in its original form but could be maintained in amended form. Claimant (Lindal) bears 70% of costs; defendant (Rocep-Lusol) bears 30%.
Show the legal issues (5)
- Revocation action
- Industrial application (Article 57 EPC)
- Claim interpretation
- Use of drawings in claim interpretation
- Auxiliary requests
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-05-30 | Not public |
| DecisionOutcome | 2025-05-30 | Not public |
| decision | 2025-05-30 | Public |
| Hearing Reference | 2025-03-27 | Not public |
| Hearing Reference | 2025-03-27 | Not public |
| Interim-Procedure-Closure | 2025-03-06 | Not public |
| Summon-Oral-Hearing | 2025-03-06 | Not public |
| rule 108 | 2025-03-06 | Public |
| Hearing-Dates | 2025-03-03 | Not public |
| rule 105 | 2025-03-03 | Public |
Lindal Dispenser GmbH brought a revocation action against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited's EP 3 655 346 B1, a patent for a pressure pack dispenser for viscous materials. The Central Division Paris rejected the revocation action but maintained the patent only in amended form per Rocep-Lusol's First Auxiliary Request, establishing that an invention violating accepted laws of physics lacks industrial application and that drawings cannot override an unambiguous description. Costs were apportioned 70% to Lindal and 30% to Rocep-Lusol.
Patent as amended by First Auxiliary Request can be maintained (limitations cure original defects)
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 57 EPC; Art. 138 EPCNote: Rocep-Lusol's First Auxiliary Request narrowed the claims sufficiently to overcome the industrial-application objection and the revocation action was dismissed on that basis.
Drawings cannot be used to extract a claim feature when definitively and unambiguously contradicted by the description
RespondentNote: The court articulated this as a headnote principle and applied it in claim construction, limiting the interpretive weight given to figures.
EP 3 655 346 B1 as granted is invalid for lack of industrial application
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 57 EPCReason: The court accepted the invalidity argument in relation to the patent as granted, but the revocation action was dismissed because the patent was maintained in amended form via the First Auxiliary Request rather than fully revoked.
Browse other cases on this principle.
The court held that drawings must always be used as explanatory aids for interpreting claims but cannot be used to extract a claim feature when the description definitively and unambiguously contradicts the drawing. This was applied in construing the pressure pack dispenser's composite piston arrangement.