UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 350/2025

Apr 22, 2025·EP2728089 · Sequenced chamber wave generator controller and method

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent partly revoked)
Action
Revocation
Category
Main revocation action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Paris CD
Judges
Technology
  • Other fields
    Consumer products · Civil engineering
  • Mechanical engineering
    Transport
Language
English
First decided
Jan 12, 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
Paris CDLockedLocked
Judge Paolo CatallozziLockedLocked
Judge Tatyana ZhilovaLockedLocked
Judge Michel AbelloLockedLocked

At the UPC: WhiteWater West Industries Inc. (3 cases)·American Wave Machines, Inc. (7 cases)

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

This dispute contains 2 other proceedings

UPC CoA 75/2026·UPC CFI 584/2026

3 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 394/2025·UPC CFI 349/2025·UPC CFI 837/2024

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Paris CD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-01-12
    Revocation ActionPublic

    Summary: Paris Central Division (Paris seat) issued a decision by default partially revoking European patent EP2728089 ('Sequenced chamber wave generator controller and method'). The court found Claim 1 invalid for lack of novelty (anticipated by prior art D1 combined with D3, i.e. obvious) within the scope of the UPC contracting member states in which the patent was in force. The patent was partially revoked as to Claim 1. American Wave Machines failed to participate. Costs borne by American Wave. The patent was not entirely revoked; the revocation was limited to Claim 1's territorial scope in UPC states.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Revocation action by default (R.355 RoP)
    • Lack of novelty / obviousness of Claim 1
    • Territorial scope of revocation in UPC contracting member states
    • Default decision procedure
Documents
Show all 211 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-06-16Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-16Not public
Application Respondent2026-06-16Not public
Order2026-06-01Not public
Order2026-06-01Not public
Receipt2026-05-07Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-07Not public
Document Claimant2026-05-07Not public
Receipt2026-04-28Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-28Not public
Plain-English summary

WhiteWater West Industries Inc. obtained a default judgment from the Paris Central Division partially revoking EP 2 728 089 (sequenced chamber wave generator controller and method) owned by American Wave Machines, Inc., which failed to file any defence. The Court found claim 1 obvious over US 4,558,474 (D1) combined with D3, holding that the skilled person would combine pneumatic-actuation wave generation from D1 with D3's software-controlled wave-profile mobile controller, with LAN connectivity being routine at the 2012 priority date.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Claim 1 of EP 2 728 089 lacks inventive step over D1 (US 4,558,474) combined with D3

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Note: Court held the skilled person would combine D1's pneumatic wave generation with D3's mobile application controller and software wave-profile interface; difference in actuation method (pneumatic vs hydraulic) would not deter combination.

  • D3's laptop with wired LAN connection corresponds to 'mobile application controller' and implementing wireless/LAN connection was routine at the 2012 priority date

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Note: Court found the wired connection in D3 would obviously be replaced by standard LAN or wireless network as a matter of routine practice at the priority date.

  • Default decision appropriate as American Wave Machines failed to file defence within time limit

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 355 RoP; R. 49 RoP

    Note: Defendant was duly served on 8 May 2025 and failed to file defence within two months; court granted request for default decision.

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

  • Claim 1 lacks novelty over public prior uses (Chilliwack, Chime Long, Festival Bay facilities) and D5 (US 2008/0085159)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC

    Reason: Court addressed only the D1 combined with D3 obviousness attack, which succeeded; remaining grounds were deemed absorbed by the successful invalidity conclusion.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
decision by default under R. 355 RoPobviousness assessment: combination of prior art from different actuation domains permissible where sequence of controller operation is independent of valve structureroutine implementation of network connection as of 2012 priority datepartial revocation limited to scope of claim 1 in UPC member statescosts borne by absent defendant as unsuccessful party

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on
References cited and the role they played.
  • US 4,558,474 (D1)Obviousness combination
  • D3 (publication on hydraulic wave generation with software interface)Obviousness combination
  • US 2008/0085159 A1 (D5)Background
  • D2, D4, D6Obviousness combination
  • Chilliwack, Chime Long, Festival Bay prior usesBackground
Claim construction notes

The Court identified claim 1 of EP 2 728 089 as covering a sequenced chamber wave generator controller with a mobile application controller and a software interface for specifying wave profiles. The 'mobile application controller' was construed to include a laptop with wired LAN, and the 'local area network' was held to encompass wired connections obvious to implement wirelessly at the 2012 priority date.