UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 358/2023

Oct 11, 2023·EP1737669 +1 more · FLUID EJECTION DEVICE

Action number: ACT 578697/2023

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Patents
Division
Paris LD
Judges
Technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Textile and paper machines
  • Electrical engineering
    Computer technology
Language
French
First decided
Dec 18, 2023
Last decision
Apr 18, 2025
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.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Paris LDLockedLocked
Judge Camille LignièresLockedLocked
Judge Carine GilletLockedLocked
Judge Peter TochtermannLockedLocked
Judge Stefanie PhilippsLockedLocked

At the UPC: HP Group (22 cases)·LAMA FRANCE (8 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases

This dispute contains 7 other proceedings

UPC CoA 23/2025·UPC CoA 24/2025·UPC APP 66320/2024·CC 7272/2024·UPC APP 41706/2024 and 2 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Paris LD·2023

Decisions
  • 2025-04-18
    Application RoP262.1 (b)Public

    Summary: Paris Local Division ruled on a third-party access request to the case file under R.262.1(b) RoP by LIFE365 (Italian companies involved in compatible printer cartridges). The Court granted partial access to certain public procedural documents (including certain memorials and prior art documents cited), but withheld documents covered by confidentiality orders and those declared inadmissible.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Third-party access to court file under R.262.1(b) RoP
    • Confidentiality orders under R.262A RoP
    • Public interest in court transparency vs. confidential information
  • 2025-01-10
    Public

    Summary: Paris Local Division issued a costs decision in Hewlett-Packard Development Company LP v LAMA FRANCE (UPC_CFI_358/2023, infringement action concerning EP 2 089 230 and EP 1 737 669). Applying the prior decision of 13 November 2024 (50/50 cost split), the court rejected both parties' requests to raise the 50% ceiling on recoverable representation costs. Each party owes the other EUR 112,000 in representation costs and EUR 7,500 in court fees, resulting in a wash. No ceiling uplift was justified despite the complexity of the double-patent case.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Costs determination under Arts. 69-70 UPCA and Rule 151/152 RoP
    • Ceiling on recoverable representation costs
    • Proportionality of legal costs in patent disputes
  • 2024-11-13
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: Final decision on the merits (in French) in the infringement action by Hewlett-Packard Development Company LP against LAMA France concerning inkjet printer cartridge technology. The Paris Local Division found that LAMA France infringed the patent in suit (a fluid ejection device patent). The court ordered: (I) patent maintained as valid (invalidity counterclaim rejected); (II) injunction against infringing cartridges; (III) corrective measures including recall from distribution channels and destruction of infringing stock; (IV) disclosure of sales information for damages calculation; (V) costs split equally between parties (50/50); provisional damages on costs rejected. Infringement established without requiring prior notice of the patent to the defendant.

    Show the legal issues (9)
    • Patent claim interpretation (Art. 69 EPC)
    • Added matter
    • Novelty
    • Inventive step
    • Exhaustion of rights (Art. 29 UPCA)
    • Competition law defence
    • Prior notice not required for direct infringement (Art. 25 UPCA)
    • Corrective measures (Art. 64 UPCA)
    • Costs (Art. 69 UPCA)
  • 2024-08-21
    Public

    Summary: The Paris Local Division issued a procedural order in Hewlett-Packard Development Company L.P. v LAMA France (UPC_CFI_358/2023, EP 2 089 230 and EP 1 737 669 — printer cartridge patents). The order resolves LAMA's application to have certain sections and exhibits of HP's last reply brief declared inadmissible, on grounds that they contained new arguments and evidence going beyond the permitted written procedure under R. 12 and R. 29 RoP.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Admissibility of written submissions under R. 12 and R. 29 RoP
    • Front-loaded procedure — new arguments in reply brief
    • Competition law and exhaustion of rights defences
    • Printer cartridge patent infringement
  • 2023-12-18
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Paris Local Division issued a procedural order in an infringement action brought by Hewlett-Packard against Lama France, addressing Lama's requests regarding access to exhibits that were unreadable via the CMS and seeking an extension of the deadline to file its statement of defence. The order dealt exclusively with case management and access to documents.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Access to exhibits via CMS
    • Extension of time limit for statement of defence
    • Procedural case management
Documents
Show all 1193 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case Closure Formal Check2025-09-02Not public
Decision de la Cour d'Appel en date du 24-07-20252025-09-02Not public
Receipt2025-02-25Not public
3776-00101-250225-Request limited access A signed2025-02-25Not public
Annexe 1 Attestation HPDC2025-02-25Not public
Annexe 1bis - Traduction libre et partielle2025-02-25Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-01-13Not public
ord rectificative erreur2025-01-13Public
Receipt2025-01-10Not public
DEMANDE DE PROTECTION DES DONNEES CONFIDENTIELLES 2024 12 13 Asigned2025-01-09Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Hewlett-Packard Development Company brought infringement proceedings against LAMA France in the Paris Local Division concerning two inkjet printer cartridge patents (EP 2 089 230 and EP 1 737 669). The court found infringement of the fluid-ejection-device claims, rejected LAMA's invalidity counterclaim and exhaustion/competition-law defence, and ordered an injunction with astreinte, recall and destruction of infringing stock, and disclosure of sales data for a future damages assessment. Costs were split 50/50 reflecting partial success on both sides.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Direct infringement of EP 2 089 230 and EP 1 737 669 by LAMA France's inkjet cartridges without requirement of prior notice to defendant

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA; Art. 29 UPCA (exhaustion does not apply)

    Note: The Paris Local Division held that Art. 25 UPCA does not require the claimant to prove the defendant knew of the patent before infringement acts; knowledge is not a condition of direct infringement.

  • Claims are valid: for novelty, the invention must be found entirely in a single prior art document in the same form, arrangement and function for the same technical result

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC (by analogy via UPCA)

    Note: The strict whole-contents novelty test was applied and the invalidity counterclaim was rejected.

  • UPC substantive law (Arts. 25-26 UPCA) applies to infringement acts occurring before 1 June 2023; national law references are not relevant

    ClaimantLegal basis: Arts. 25-26 UPCA

    Note: The Paris Local Division declined to apply national law for pre-June 2023 acts, holding that the applicable substantive law for defining infringement is Arts. 25-26 UPCA.

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

  • Exhaustion defence / competition law argument as a defence to infringement

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 29 UPCA; competition law

    Reason: The competition-law-based defence was found obviously inoperative on the facts; the court did not need to refer the question to the CJEU under Art. 21 UPCA.

  • Invalidity counterclaim: patent claims lack novelty, involve added matter, lack inventive step, or are insufficient

    RespondentLegal basis: Arts. 54, 56, 83, 123(2) EPC

    Reason: The court applied the strict whole-contents novelty test and found the patents valid; no details of specific prior art defeats are visible in the excerpts.

  • UPC claim interpretation must be based on French-language patent application rather than the original English-language application

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC; UPC Court of Appeal orders UPC_CoA_335/2023 and UPC_CoA_1/2024

    Reason: The court found it appropriate to examine interpretation arguments with reference to the application as filed in English even in French-language proceedings.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Direct infringement under Art. 25 UPCA does not require prior notice of the patent to the defendantUPC applies Arts. 25-26 UPCA as substantive infringement law, not national law, including for acts before 1 June 2023Novelty: invention must be found in its entirety in a single prior art document in the same form, arrangement, and functioning for the same technical resultIn French-language proceedings, claim interpretation arguments are assessed by reference to the application as originally filed in EnglishClaim interpretation follows UPC Court of Appeal standards (UPC_CoA_335/2023 and UPC_CoA_1/2024)

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The Paris Local Division applied the UPC Court of Appeal's two-stage claim interpretation framework (UPC_CoA_335/2023 and UPC_CoA_1/2024), examining claim terms in their technical context with reference to the English-language application as filed even in French proceedings. The court found the claims of EP 2 089 230 and EP 1 737 669 (fluid ejection device / inkjet cartridge) read on LAMA's products.