UPC CFI 461/2025
Jun 6, 2025·EP1516720 · Composite element comprising a polyurethane adhesion promoter
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent upheld as amended)ActionRevocationCategoryMain revocation action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Huntsman (EUROPE) BVOperating co.
- Huntsman Holland BVOperating co.
Representatives- Claus Becker-Bird & Bird LLP
- Domien Op de Beeck-Bird & Bird LLP
- Jean-Christophe Troussel-Bird & Bird LLP
- Matthias Meyer-Bird & Bird LLP
Respondents- BASF SEOperating co.
Representatives- André Sabellek-rospatt Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB
- Simon Klopschinski-rospatt Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB
- Melanie Strobel-rospatt Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB
- Tobias Hoheisel-Cohausz & Florack
- Natalie Kirchhofer-Cohausz & Florack
- Division
- Paris CD
- Technology
- ChemistryBasic materials chemistry · Surface technology, coating
- Other fieldsCivil engineering
- Language
- German
- First decided
- Apr 22, 2026
| Patent revoked | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Paris CD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Maximilian Haedicke | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Tatyana Zhilova | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Nicolai Geier | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Huntsman (EUROPE) BV (4 cases)·BASF Group (6 cases)
This dispute contains 4 other proceedings
UPC CFI 2800/2026·UPC CoA 96/2026·UPC CFI 1780/2026·UPC CoA 62/2026
- 2026-04-22Revocation ActionPublic
Summary: The revocation action against EP 1 516 720 was dismissed as to the granted form: claims 1 and 4 lack inventive step starting from D19, and claim 9 lacks novelty over D19, so the patent in its granted form is declared invalid. However, the patent is maintained in the amended form of Auxiliary Request 1, which narrows the adhesion-promoter composition in claims 1 and 9 to polyisocyanates reacted with polyetherols and/or polyesterols at a defined isocyanate index. Costs are split 70% claimants / 30% respondent, with the court ruling only on claimants' costs as respondent filed no cost request.
Show the legal issues (8)
- standing/legal interest (Rechtsschutzinteresse) to challenge an expired patent
- admissibility of corrected auxiliary requests (editorial amendments)
- claim construction of 'reactive adhesion promoter layer' and 'noch reaktionsfähig'
- novelty of claims 1, 4, 9 over D11 (WO 99/00559) and D14 (GB 1 356 564)
- lack of inventive step of claims 1 and 4 starting from D19 (WO 98/01279)
- lack of novelty of claim 9 over D19
- density ranges (features 2.2.3 and 2.3.2) as routine technical choices within common general knowledge
- validity of Auxiliary Request 1 — admissibility under Art. 123(2) EPC and patentability
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Other Documents | 2026-08-07 | Not public |
| Other Documents | 2026-06-29 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-06-22 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-06-22 | Not public |
| Application document Defendant | 2026-06-22 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-06-11 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-06-11 | Not public |
| Application document Claimant | 2026-06-11 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-05-22 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-05-22 | Not public |
Legal interest to bring revocation action exists even after patent expiry because respondent threatened damages claims for the in-force period (Belgian evidence-preservation proceedings)
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA; general procedural law on RechtsschutzinteresseClaims 1, 4 and 9 are novel over D11 because D11 does not disclose: (a) the required density of the adhesion-promoter layer (feature 2.2.3), and (b) the adhesion-promoter being applied as a still-reactive two-component liquid mixture
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54 EPCClaims 1, 4 and 9 are novel over D14 because D14 discloses a single-component isocyanate prepolymer adhesive, not a two-component reactive mixture, and does not disclose polyurethane-containing adhesion promoter with the claimed density
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54 EPCClaims 1 and 4 lack inventive step starting from D19, because D19 already discloses the two-component reactive polyurethane adhesion promoter applied in liquid form while still reactive, and the remaining distinguishing features (density ranges 2.2.3 and 2.3.2) represent routine technical choices within common general knowledge as evidenced by D12 and D11
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPCClaim 9 lacks novelty over D19 because D19 discloses the same use of a reactive polyurethane adhesion promoter still reactive when foam is applied, and claim 9 contains no density limitation to distinguish it
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54 EPCAuxiliary Request 1 is not an inadmissible intermediate generalisation: the patentee may choose the scope of its amendment, and claim 1 as granted does not require identity between the first and second adhesion-promoter applications
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 123(2) EPCThe arguments raised by claimants against Auxiliary Request 1 (D9, D10, D11, D14) cannot undermine patentability given those same documents failed against the granted claims
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54, 56 EPC
Claims 1, 4 and 9 lack inventive step starting from D11 in combination with D14, D19, D20 or D21 because those combinations would lead the skilled person to the claimed reactive two-component adhesion promoter
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPCClaims 1 and 4 lack inventive step starting from D22, even in combination with D14, D20 or D21
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPCAuxiliary Request 1 claims 1 and 9 are unclear because features 3.2.1/Vw2.2.1 implicitly presuppose that the reaction is complete before application
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 84 EPCAuxiliary Request 1 constitutes an inadmissible intermediate generalisation because the restriction to specific polyols in step B is not applied equally to the optional second adhesion-promoter in step D
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 123(2) EPCThe adhesion promotion in the patent is achieved merely by using a PUR adhesion-promoter layer as such, without the layer needing to remain reactive at the time of foam application
ClaimantLegal basis: claim construction / Art. 69 EPC