UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 425/2025

May 14, 2025·EP2643717 · COLOR-MIXING CONVERGENT OPTICAL SYSTEM

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent upheld as granted)
Action
Revocation
Category
Main revocation action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Paris CD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Audio-visual technology
  • Instruments
    Optics
Language
German
First decided
Jun 25, 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 Maximilian HaedickeLockedLocked
Judge Tatyana ZhilovaLockedLocked
Judge Uwe SchwengelbeckLockedLocked

At the UPC: Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. (3 cases)·SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH (11 cases)

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

This dispute contains 3 other proceedings

UPC APP 24558/2025·UPC APP 25380/2024·PC-CoA-001/2025

5 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 618/2025·UPC CFI 245/2025·UPC CoA 70/2025·UPC CoA 76/2025·UPC CFI 33/2024

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Paris CD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-06-25
    Revocation ActionPublic

    Summary: The Central Division Paris dismissed the revocation action against EP 2 643 717, a color-mixing light-collecting optics patent. The court assessed validity in the form restricted by the EPO under Art. 105a EPC during the proceedings and upheld the patent, establishing that Art. 105a(2) EPC has no effect on UPC revocation jurisdiction. The claimant and its intervener (Chainzone Technology) were ordered to bear the costs.

    Show the legal issues (6)
    • revocation on grounds of added matter
    • revocation on grounds of insufficient disclosure
    • revocation on grounds of lack of novelty
    • revocation on grounds of lack of inventive step
    • effect of EPO limitation procedure under Art. 105a EPC on pending UPC revocation proceedings
    • inapplicability of Art. 105a(2) EPC to UPC revocation jurisdiction
Documents
Show all 184 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Other Documents2026-07-29Not public
Receipt2026-07-24Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-24Not public
Application Respondent2026-07-24Not public
Receipt2026-07-17Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-17Not public
Application document Claimant2026-07-17Not public
Case closed2026-06-25Not public
Decision2026-06-25Not public
Decision2026-06-25Public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The patent is valid in its form as restricted by the EPO under Art. 105a EPC; none of the raised revocation grounds are established against the restricted claims

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA; Art. 138 EPC

  • When the EPO restricts a patent under Art. 105a EPC during pending UPC revocation proceedings, the court must assess validity of the patent in its restricted form

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 105a EPC; Art. 65 UPCA

  • Art. 105a(2) EPC has no effect on UPC revocation proceedings and does not preclude UPC jurisdiction

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 105a(2) EPC; Art. 32 UPCA
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The patent should be revoked in full on grounds of added matter, insufficient disclosure, lack of novelty, and/or lack of inventive step

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA; Art. 138 EPC