UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: May 2, 2024

UPC_CFI_202/2024

DISPENSING APPARATUS

RevocationMain Revocation ActionParis CDRevocationCase Closed
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Patent as amended by First Auxiliary Request can be maintained (limitations cure original defects)

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 57 EPC; Art. 138 EPC

    Note: 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

    Respondent

    Note: The court articulated this as a headnote principle and applied it in claim construction, limiting the interpretive weight given to figures.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • EP 3 655 346 B1 as granted is invalid for lack of industrial application

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 57 EPC

    Reason: 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.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
An invention contrary to accepted laws of physics lacks industrial application (Art. 57 EPC)Drawings serve as explanatory aids for claim interpretation but cannot override unambiguous descriptionMultiple auxiliary requests must be addressed in the order indicated by the applicant absent contrary instructionsCost apportionment reflects the dynamic where revocation fails only because proprietor amends during proceedings

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

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.