UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 613/2024

Oct 23, 2024·EP3397329 · AIR-FLOW IN A NEBULIZER HEAD

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent upheld as amended)
Action
Revocation
Category
Main revocation action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Milan CD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
English
First decided
Nov 27, 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.
Patent revokedMedian days to first decision
All UPC37% (34/91)124
Milan CDLockedLocked
Judge Andrea PostiglioneLockedLocked
Judge Anna-Lena KleinLockedLocked
Judge Koen CallewaertLockedLocked

At the UPC: Pari Pharma GmbH (1 case)·Philips Group (46 cases)

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

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Milan CD·2024

Decisions
  • 2025-11-27
    Revocation ActionPublic

    Summary: The Milan Central Division dismissed Pari Pharma's revocation action against Philips' nebulizer patent EP 3 397 329 (unitary effect), upholding the patent after finding the prior art combinations relied upon by the claimant do not render the invention obvious to the skilled person.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Inventive step (nebulizer head air-flow patent)
    • Standing under Art. 47(6) UPCA
    • Claim construction of schematic figures
  • 2025-11-27
    Revocation ActionPublic

    Summary: The Milan Central Division (full panel: Postiglione, Klein, Callewaert) rectified an obvious slip in its final decision of 27 November 2025 in the revocation action brought by Pari Pharma GmbH against Koninklijke Philips N.V. concerning EP 3 397 329. The decision had incorrectly stated that the patent is registered with unitary effect; this sentence was deleted. The parties did not object.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Rectification of obvious slip in decision (R. 353 RoP)
    • Unitary patent vs. European patent with national designations
Documents
Show all 146 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Communication2026-02-27Not public
Other Documents2026-02-27Not public
Order2026-02-24Not public
Order2026-02-24Public
Order2026-02-06Not public
Order2026-02-06Not public
Case closed2025-11-28Not public
Decision2025-11-27Not public
Decision2025-11-27Public
Other Documents2025-10-07Not public
Plain-English summary

Pari Pharma GmbH brought a revocation action at the Milan Central Division against Koninklijke Philips N.V.'s EP 3 397 329 (air-flow in a nebuliser head). The court found claim 1 as granted lacked novelty over D1 but upheld the patent in amended form pursuant to auxiliary request 2, rejecting all obviousness attacks including the D3+D7+D5 combination because D3 teaches away from omitting the inhalation valve. A subsequent rectification order corrected an error stating the patent had unitary effect.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Any entity operating in the technical field and potentially needing freedom to operate has standing to bring a revocation action

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 47(6) UPCA

    Note: Court confirmed Pari Pharma had standing as a company potentially needing freedom to operate in the nebuliser field.

  • Claim 1 as granted lacks novelty over D1

    Claimant

    Note: The court accepted that claim 1 as granted is anticipated by D1; this drove the need for the patent to be maintained in amended form.

  • Auxiliary request 2 claim 1 is inventive over all prior art combinations relied upon by claimant

    Respondent

    Note: Court found that D3 teaches away from omitting the inhalation valve and the skilled person would not combine D3 with D7 and D5 to arrive at the claimed invention.

  • Skilled person will not directly and unambiguously deduce dimensions from schematic figures

    Respondent

    Note: Court held as a headnote principle that schematic figures cannot serve as a source of dimensional disclosure.

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

  • Combination of D3 with D7 and D5 renders auxiliary request 2 obvious

    Claimant

    Reason: D3 is directed to a device that accumulates aerosol during exhalation using an inhalation valve — an essential feature; there is no hint to remove the valve and D3 teaches away from omitting it, so the combination is not obvious.

  • Attack based on Pari eMotion plus D2 or D7 plus D5 against claim 1 as amended

    ClaimantLegal basis: UPC RoP front-loaded proceedings principle

    Reason: This attack was raised for the first time at oral hearing and is precluded by the front-loaded nature of UPC proceedings; claimant should have anticipated the narrower claim construction and presented this attack earlier.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Any person needing freedom to operate in the patent's field has standing under Art. 47(6) UPCASkilled person will not derive dimensions from schematic figuresFront-loaded proceedings preclude new invalidity attacks first raised at oral hearingPrior art that teaches away from a modification renders an obviousness combination based on that modification untenableProblem-solution approach: objective technical problem must be identified before assessing whether the skilled person would arrive at the claimed solution

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on
References cited and the role they played.
  • D1Novelty-destroying
  • D2Obviousness combination
  • D3Obviousness combination
  • D5Obviousness combination
  • D7Obviousness combination
  • Pari eMotion (prior art device)Obviousness combination
Claim construction notes

The court construed claim 1 as amended (auxiliary request 2) of EP 3 397 329 (nebuliser head airflow) more narrowly than the claimant anticipated, particularly regarding the 'backside opening' feature. The claimant expected the respondent would accept any opening behind the aperture surface as qualifying; the court found there was reason to anticipate the narrower construction, making the late-raised Pari eMotion attack precluded.