UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: May 21, 2024

UPC_CFI_239/2024

Machine for machining walls, particularly for walls made of wood or multilayer walls and the like

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

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • '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 construction

    Note: 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 UPCA

    Note: 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.

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

  • Revocation of claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 of EP 2 875 923 B1 (wall machining machine)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA

    Reason: 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.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Terms in patent claims take their normal meaning in the relevant art, but description and drawings in context may override the plain meaning'A working surface' interpreted as 'one working surface' based on description and drawings context, not 'one or more'Patent limitation submitted during revocation proceedings results in partial cost shifting to the patentee/defendantAdded subject-matter is a ground for revocation that must be addressed on the specific claim features

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

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.