UPC CFI 239/2024
May 21, 2024·EP2875923 · Machine for machining walls, particularly for walls made of wood or multilayer walls and the like
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent upheld as amended)ActionRevocationCategoryMain revocation action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Name withheld (GDPR)
Representatives- Jasper Werhahn-Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB
- Jasper Carl Verhahn-Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB
Respondents- Essetre Holding SpAOperating co.
Representatives- Giorgio Alessandro Karaghiosoff-Praxi Intellectual Property S.p.A.
- Division
- Paris CD
- Technology
- Mechanical engineeringMachine tools
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Jul 28, 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 Claus Elmeros | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Essetre Holding SpA (2 cases)
1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
- 2025-07-28Revocation ActionPublic
Summary: The Central Division Paris rejected the revocation action filed by an anonymous claimant against Essetre Holding spa in respect of EP 2 875 923 B1 (a machine for machining walls). The patent was maintained in amended form as submitted in the Principal Request on 8 August 2024. The Court interpreted 'a working surface' as meaning 'one working surface', applying the ordinary meaning in context of the description and drawings. The revocation action was dismissed as the defendant had submitted a patent limitation during proceedings. Costs were apportioned 70% to the claimant and 30% to the defendant. The case value for costs purposes was set at EUR 100,000.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Claim interpretation
- Added subject-matter
- Patent limitation during proceedings
- Costs apportionment where patent limited
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2026-02-16 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-02-16 | Not public |
| Exhibit Defendant | 2026-02-16 | Not public |
| Exhibit Defendant | 2026-02-16 | Not public |
| Application document Defendant | 2026-02-16 | Not public |
| Decision | 2025-10-21 | Not public |
| Decision | 2025-10-21 | Public |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-07-28 | Not public |
| DecisionOutcome | 2025-07-28 | Not public |
| decision | 2025-07-28 | Not public |
An anonymous claimant (represented by Jasper Werhahn) brought a revocation action against Essetre Holding SpA (Italy) seeking revocation of EP 2 875 923 B1, a patent for a machine for machining wooden or multilayer walls. The Paris Central Division dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent in amended form as per Essetre's Principal Request; the court's key holding was that 'a working surface' in claim 1 means 'one working surface' based on the description and drawings context. Costs were apportioned 70% to the anonymous claimant and 30% to Essetre because the patent limitation was submitted during proceedings.
'A working surface' in claim 1 of EP 2 875 923 B1 means 'one working surface', interpreted by ordinary meaning and context of description and drawings
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC; purposive claim constructionNote: Court applied the principle that terms in patent documents take their normal meaning in the relevant art, but description and drawings in context may give a term a different meaning; here 'a working surface' was interpreted as 'one working surface' not 'one or more'.
Patent maintained in amended form (Principal Request submitted 8 August 2024) avoids the revocation grounds
RespondentLegal basis: R. 30 RoP; Art. 65 UPCANote: Court dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as amended, with costs partially shifted to defendant given that the limitation was submitted during proceedings.
Revocation of claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 of EP 2 875 923 B1 (wall machining machine)
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCAReason: Revocation action was dismissed; patent maintained as amended by defendant's Principal Request. The claim interpretation adopted by the court (one working surface) was consistent with the amended claims.
Browse other cases on this principle.
The central claim construction issue in EP 2 875 923 B1 (wall machining machine) was the meaning of 'a working surface' in claim 1. The court held that, applying both ordinary language and the context of the description and drawings, this means 'one working surface' rather than 'one or more working surfaces'. The patent was ultimately maintained in amended form pursuant to Essetre's Principal Request.