UPC_CFI_702/2024

LOCK COMPRISING A SLIDER WHICH IS FLUSH RELATIVE TO A SOLE PLATE PROVIDED WITH A RECESS FOR RECEIVING A TRANSLATION STOP OF THE SLIDER

InfringementMain Infringement ActionParis LDInfringementCase Closed

Overview Decisions Reasoning Citations Documents Timeline

Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.

Plain-English summary

IMC Créations (France) sued Mul-T-Lock France for infringement of unitary patent UP 4 153 830 (a lock with a flush slider and sole plate recess) by the MVP 1000 padlock. The Paris Local Division upheld amended claims 1 and 6 as valid, found direct infringement since November 2023, granted an injunction and corrective measures (with a 3-month delay agreed by the parties), and ordered information disclosure; Mul-T-Lock bears 90% of costs. Claims relating to the non-UPCA Swiss national part were rejected.

Accepted arguments

What the court agreed with — by party.

Amended claims 1 and 6 of unitary patent UP 4 153 830 are valid (novelty and inventive step confirmed)
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54, 56 EPC; inventive step; common general knowledge
Note: Paris Local Division rejected Mul-T-Lock's invalidity challenge to the amended claims, confirming the patent's validity; the court held the skilled person is merely an executor and that non-publicly-accessible documents do not form common general knowledge.
MVP 1000 padlock manufactured and marketed by Mul-T-Lock infringes amended claims 1 and 6
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA; direct infringement
Note: Court found infringement of the amended unitary patent's claims 1 and 6 since 1 November 2023 (the unitary patent's grant date).
Amended unitary patent takes effect from the original grant date of the European patent
ClaimantLegal basis: Headnote 1; unitary patent law
Note: Court confirmed that an unconditionally amended European patent that became unitary takes effect from the original grant date, not the amendment date.

Rejected arguments

What the court did not agree with — and why.

Counterclaim for nullity of claims 1 and 6 of the amended patent and subsidiary requests
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC; common general knowledge definition
Reason: Dismissed in full; non-publicly-accessible documents cannot form common general knowledge; the skilled person has no creative latitude beyond executing what the art teaches.
Infringement of the Swiss national part of the patent should also be found
ClaimantLegal basis: Headnote 2; territorial scope of UPCA
Reason: Switzerland is not a UPCA member state; infringement of the national Swiss part must be assessed against the patent as originally granted, and there was a non-negligible risk of annulment by Swiss courts after the unconditional amendment; the court rejected that claim entirely.
Decision should be disseminated to Mul-T-Lock's customers
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 68 UPCA; proportionality
Reason: Request for publication of the decision to customers was rejected.

Key legal principles

Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.

Amended unitary patent takes effect from original European patent grant date National parts of a European patent in non-UPCA states assessed against the patent as originally granted Non-publicly-accessible documents do not constitute common general knowledge The skilled person is an executor, not a creative innovator Unconditional amendment of unitary patent: risk of annulment by non-UPC national courts assessed on original (unamended) claims

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The amended claims 1 and 6 relate to a lock comprising a slider flush with a sole plate provided with a recess for receiving a translation stop; the slider includes a specific flange/countersink arrangement. The court found these features present in the MVP 1000 padlock. The Swiss national part was denied because the unconditional limitation creates divergence from the originally granted text, raising a risk of invalidity before Swiss courts.