UPC CFI 612/2024
Oct 24, 2024·EP3272938 · GUTTER, GUTTER ASSEMBLY AND ASSEMBLY METHOD
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (No infringement)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Raccords et Plastiques NicollOperating co.
Representatives- Grégoire Desrousseaux-August Debouzy
- Candice Dupin
- Mehdi Mahammedi-Bouzina-August Debouzy
Respondents- First Plast FranceOperating co.
- First Plast S.R.L.Operating co.
- First CorporationOperating co.
- Plasticos First Iberica S.L.Operating co.
Representatives- Jean-Martin Chevalier
- Myriam Moatty
- Paolo Provvisionato
- Division
- Paris LD
- Technology
- Other fieldsCivil engineering
- Language
- French
- First decided
- Oct 24, 2025
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Paris LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Camille Lignières | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Carine Gillet | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Rute Lopes | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll (2 cases)·First Plast France (2 cases)
This dispute contains 1 other proceedings
- 2025-10-24Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: The Paris Local Division dismissed Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll's infringement action against First Plast and related defendants for EP 3 272 938 (invisible drainage channel grating), finding neither literal nor equivalence infringement of the patent claims by the 'Ghost' grille product.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Literal and equivalence infringement of drainage channel grating
- Scope of patent claims for invisible grating
- Fluidic function not described in patent - equivalence not established
- Costs under Art. 69 UPCA
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Case closed | 2026-06-08 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2025-11-21 | Not public |
| Application document Claimant | 2025-11-21 | Not public |
| Exhibit document Claimant | 2025-11-21 | Not public |
| Exhibit document Claimant | 2025-11-21 | Not public |
| Exhibit document Claimant | 2025-11-21 | Not public |
| Exhibit document Claimant | 2025-11-21 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2025-11-21 | Not public |
| Decision | 2025-10-24 | Not public |
| Final Order | 2025-10-24 | Public |
Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll (RPN) brought an infringement action at the Paris Local Division against First Plast and related entities alleging that the 'Ghost' invisible gutter grating infringes EP 3 272 938 (invisible drainage channel grating) both literally and by equivalence. The court dismissed the action, finding no literal infringement of claim 1 and rejecting the equivalence argument because the alleged equivalent function (improved fluid dynamics through longitudinal alignment) was neither claimed nor described in the patent and RPN failed to show the skilled person would derive it unambiguously.
The 'Ghost' grating product does not literally reproduce the claim 1 feature requiring longitudinal alignment of spacer elements and drainage openings
RespondentNote: Court found the Ghost product's structural configuration differs from the claim requirement and no literal infringement was established.
Doctrine of equivalents cannot apply where the alleged equivalent function (improved fluid dynamics) is not disclosed or derivable from the patent by the skilled person
RespondentLegal basis: UPC_CoA_523/2024 (3 March 2025)Note: Court held RPN failed to show it was more likely than not that the skilled person could derive the fluidic improvement function unambiguously from the patent; respondent's expert testimony on fluid physics was more convincing.
Patent proprietor bears burden to show alleged equivalent function is derivable by skilled person from the patent
RespondentLegal basis: UPC_CoA_523/2024Note: The court confirmed the plausibility/more-likely-than-not standard for equivalence, placing the burden on the claimant.
The Ghost product infringes claim 1 by equivalence because longitudinal alignment of spacers and openings serves the same function of improving water flow
ClaimantLegal basis: UPC_CoA_523/2024Reason: The function of improving fluid behaviour of water is neither claimed nor described in the patent; RPN failed to demonstrate it was more likely than not that the skilled person could deduce this function unambiguously from the patent.
Diagrams presented by claimant showed improved water trajectory justifying equivalence finding
ClaimantReason: Respondent's European patent attorney testified at hearing that claimant's diagrams were unrealistic given physical factors (friction, gravity), and the court found this more convincing.
Browse other cases on this principle.
The court interpreted claim 1 of EP3272938 (invisible drainage channel grating) as requiring longitudinal alignment of spacer elements separated from drainage openings. The court rejected RPN's broader reading that would encompass alignment configurations serving improved water-flow functions not described in the patent.