UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 280/2025

Apr 8, 2025·EP2649380 · ACCESSORY FOR AN EXHAUST VENTILATION PIPE

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent upheld as granted)
Action
Revocation
Category
Main revocation action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Munich CD
Judges
Technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Thermal processes and apparatus
Language
English
First decided
Oct 10, 2025
Last decision
Apr 8, 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.
Patent revokedMedian days to first decision
All UPC37% (34/91)124
Munich CDLockedLocked
Judge András KupeczLockedLocked
Judge Daniel SeverinssonLockedLocked
Judge Merja Heikkinen-KeinänenLockedLocked

At the UPC: WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (1 case)·VILPE OY (1 case)

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

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Munich CD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-04-08
    Revocation ActionPublic

    Summary: The revocation action brought by WIRPLAST against EP 2 649 380 B1 (exhaust ventilation pipe with integrated circular spirit level) was dismissed. The Central Division (Section Munich) found that the patent's claimed subject-matter involves an inventive step over prior art documents D1–D4, as the claimant failed to establish that the skilled person would have been motivated to modify the roof fan of D1 to arrive at the claimed invention. The patent is maintained as granted and the claimant must pay 75,000 EUR in costs to the defendant.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • inventive step (Art. 56 EPC)
    • claim interpretation / physical and spatial configuration of feature F4
    • front-loaded procedural system and admissibility of untranslated prior art
    • burden of proof and substantiation in revocation proceedings
    • motivation for skilled person to combine prior art documents
  • 2025-10-10
    Revocation ActionPublic

    Summary: The Central Division Munich (judge-rapporteur Kupecz) issued an order following the interim conference in the Wirplast v Vilpe revocation action concerning EP 2 649 380, permitting the defendant to re-order its auxiliary requests and setting procedural deadlines.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP)
    • Re-ordering of auxiliary requests
Documents
Show all 156 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Service Receipt/Service Document2026-09-08Not public
Other Documents2026-08-25Not public
Other Documents2026-08-14Not public
Other Documents2026-08-14Not public
Note2026-08-14Not public
Receipt2026-08-10Not public
Cover sheet2026-08-10Not public
Document Defendant2026-08-10Not public
Decision2026-04-08Public
Case closed2026-04-08Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • D1 relates to a different kind of ventilation device (roof fan mounted in abutment with base plate) than the claimed exhaust ventilation pipe extending through the roof; the underlying problems are different, so the skilled person has no motivation to modify D1 for easy vertical installation

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC; UPC inventive step framework (UPC_CoA_528/2024, UPC_CoA_764/2024)

  • Feature F4 ('extending through an outer roof of a building') is not disclosed in D1 and defines a physically and spatially limiting requirement for the claimed device

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC; claim interpretation principles (UPC_CoA_335/2023)

  • Combining D1 with D4 would not lead to the claimed subject-matter because D4 discloses a passive roof air convector with no exhaust pipe extending through the roof, and the teachings of D1 and D4 are incompatible

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

  • The claimant failed to substantiate why the skilled person would add a circular spirit level to D1 or integrate it on the conical cup; the base plate of D1 renders any spirit level unnecessary

    RespondentLegal basis: Rules 44(e)-(g), 25.1(b)-(d) RoP; Art. 54 and 65(1) UPCA
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Feature F4 is implicitly disclosed in D1 or at least D1 is suitable to extend through an outer roof, rendering it non-limiting

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

  • The invention is obvious over D1 combined with common general knowledge because rooftop installers are constantly motivated to ensure vertical mounting and circular spirit levels were known for at least 70 years

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

  • D4 discloses a circular spirit level integrated on top of a cup, making the combination of D1 and D4 obvious

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

  • D2 discloses a level used to confirm horizontal state of an air conditioning apparatus, and the skilled person would combine D1 with D2

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

  • D3 discloses a level indicator on a roof ventilator, making the combination of D1 and D3 obvious

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC