UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 556/2025

Jun 19, 2025·EP3519207: MOTORCYCLES TYRE

Parent infringement case:UPC CFI 649/2024

Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Counterclaim for revocation
Category
Counter Claim for Revocation
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Matteo Orsingher (Orsingher Ortu Avvocati Associati); Davide Graziano (Orsingher Ortu Avvocati Associati); Federica Franchetti (Orsingher Ortu Avvocati Associati); Antonio Lasca (Pirelli Tyre s.p.a.)
Respondents
Reps: Marco F. Francetti (Jacobacci Avvocati); Marina Cristofori (Jacobacci Avvocati); Steffen Falk Leikhauf (Jacobacci Avvocati); Fabio Di Biase (Jacobacci Avvocati)
Division
Milan LD
Judges
Technology
Automotive · Tyres · Automotive
Language
Italian
First decided
May 26, 2026
Claims
At issue1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Maintained1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Infringed1
Notes: Infringement was found with respect to claim 1 only (all features 1A-1M literally reproduced). The counterclaim sought revocation of all 14 claims (claims 1-14) for insufficient description and lack of inventive step; the counterclaim was entirely rejected. The decision does not separately analyse infringement of dependent claims 2-14.
Decisions
  • 2026-05-26
    InfringedInjunction grantedRevocation meritsCounterclaim for revocation

    The Milan Local Division found that Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. literally infringed claim 1 of EP 3 519 207 B1 (Pirelli's motorcycle tyre patent) through exhibition of tyres HA-51R and HA-51F at the EICMA fair and promotion on its website. The counterclaim for revocation based on insufficient description and lack of inventive step was rejected, and an injunction was granted against SYR across all UPC Contracting Member States where the patent is in force.

    Legal issues:Literal infringement of claim 1 of EP 3 519 207 B1 by motorcycle tyres HA-51R and HA-51FCounterclaim for revocation: insufficient description (Art. 65 UPCA / R. 25 RoP)Counterclaim for revocation: lack of inventive step (Art. 65 UPCA / R. 25 RoP)Claim interpretation under Art. 69 EPC and Protocol on InterpretationMeaning of 'motorcycle' vs 'motoveicolo' under Art. 70(1) EPC (authentic text)Interpretation of 'tread pattern' and flat-plane representation (feature 1F)Interpretation of 'substantially along an axial direction' for transverse grooves (feature 1H)Infringement via trade fair exhibition and website promotionProportionality of remedies under Art. 64(4) UPCA (withdrawal/destruction of products denied for lack of commercialisation evidence)Interim award of damages (R. 119 RoP) deniedBurden of proof redistribution (proximity of evidence principle, CJEU C-104/10 Kelly)Common general knowledge: whether patent literature showing tread flat-plane representation constitutes CGK (EPO T 1000/12, T 412/09)
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Decision2026-05-26Public
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-05-26Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2026-05-26Not public
Decision2026-05-26Not public
Receipt2026-03-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-13Not public
Document Claimant2026-03-13Not public
Receipt2026-03-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-13Not public
Document2026-03-13Not public
Receipt2026-03-02Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-02Not public
Document Claimant2026-03-02Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-02-13Not public
Order2026-02-13Not public
Receipt2026-02-03Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-03Not public
Other document Claimant2026-02-03Not public
Receipt2026-02-02Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-02Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-01-23Not public
Order2026-01-23Not public
action.issueOrder.order2025-12-09Not public
Order2025-12-09Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-03Not public
Further pleadings2025-12-03Not public
Receipt2025-12-03Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-02Not public
Other document Claimant2025-12-02Not public
Receipt2025-12-02Not public
action.issueOrder.order2025-11-28Not public
Order2025-11-28Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-07Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-11-07Not public
Counterclaim rejoinder2025-11-07Not public
Receipt2025-11-07Not public
Cover sheet2025-10-10Not public
Counterclaim reply2025-10-10Not public
Receipt2025-10-10Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-08-13Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-08-13Not public
reply to the statement of defence and defence to the counterclaim for revocation2025-08-13Not public
doc. 33_ parere tecnico PGA e allegato A2025-08-13Not public
Panel-Appointment2025-07-18Not public
Panel-Appointment2025-06-27Not public
Document from EPO2025-06-25Not public
Notification Of Service2025-06-20Not public
Panel-Appointment2025-06-20Not public
EPO-Request-for-case-pending2025-06-20Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-06-20Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-06-20Not public
Doc 03 D52025-06-19Not public
Doc 03 D5 bis2025-06-19Not public
Doc 03 D12025-06-19Not public
Doc 03 D32025-06-19Not public
Doc 03 D22025-06-19Not public
Doc 022025-06-19Not public
Doc 03 D42025-06-19Not public
Statement of Defence with counterclaim for revocation2025-06-19Not public
Doc 03 D7 bis2025-06-19Not public
Doc 03 D4 bis2025-06-19Not public
Doc 03 D72025-06-19Not public
Doc 012025-06-19Not public
Doc 03 D62025-06-19Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The term 'motorcycle' in the granted English text of EP'207 has a narrower meaning than 'motoveicolo', referring primarily to two-wheeled vehicles; claim scope is restricted accordingly

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 70(1) EPC; Regulation (EU) No 168/2013

  • The 'tread pattern' representation in feature 1F means an extension (sviluppo) of the tread band onto a plane perpendicular to the equatorial plane, as consistent with paragraphs [0022]-[0030] and [0079] of the patent; this technique is common general knowledge in the tyre sector given its use across multiple prior art documents D1-D5 and D7

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC; EPO T 1000/12; T 412/09

  • All features of claim 1 (1A through 1M) are reproduced in tyres HA-51R and HA-51F as demonstrated by photographic evidence (doc. 33 al. A), promotional brochures, and physical samples seized at EICMA

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25(1)(a) UPCA

  • Exhibition at EICMA fair and promotion via English-language website en.heliostire.com constitute offering and placing on the market within UPC Contracting Member States

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25(1)(a) UPCA

  • The severity of infringement justifies an injunction; SYR's tyres are substitutes for Pirelli's patented products and pose direct risk of market erosion

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 63 UPCA; Art. 25 UPCA

  • Redistribution of burden of proof to defendant under the 'proximity of evidence' principle where claimant provided strong prima facie photographic evidence and defendant has privileged access to product specifications

    ClaimantLegal basis: CJEU C-104/10 (Kelly)
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The patent specification is insufficient because it does not provide clear instructions on how to perform the flat-plane representation of the tread pattern (feature 1F), making it impossible for third parties to verify non-infringement

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA; R. 25 RoP

  • EP'207 lacks inventive step

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA; R. 25 RoP

  • The transverse grooves in HA-51R and HA-51F are curved in two directions and therefore do not extend 'substantially along an axial direction' as required by feature 1H

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC

  • Feature 1L requires all blocks in an assembly to be delimited by circumferential grooves; the outermost lateral blocks in HA-51R/HA-51F are not delimited on their outer side by a circumferential groove

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC

  • Feature 1M (L1/L2 ratio ≥ 2) is not met because the small blocks in HA-51R/HA-51F have a ratio below 2

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC

  • Website promotion does not constitute offering or placing on the market in UPC states because the sites are not e-commerce platforms, are not targeted at European consumers, and the products have never been sold or distributed in Europe

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA

  • Proportionality requires limitation or denial of remedies (injunction, withdrawal, destruction, damages) because SYR's products have never been commercially distributed in Europe

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 64(4) UPCA; Preamble RoP para. 3