UPC CFI 829/2024
Dec 20, 2024·EP2611800 · METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PROCESSING SUGAR MIXTURES AND RESULTANT COMPOSITIONS
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent revoked)ActionRevocationCategoryMain revocation action
- Parties
- Respondents
- International N&H Denmark ApSOperating co.
Representatives- Matthew Naylor-Mewburn Ellis LLP
- Division
- Munich CD
- Technology
- ChemistryOrganic fine chemistry
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Nov 21, 2025
- Last decision
- Feb 24, 2026
| Patent revoked | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Munich CD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge András Kupecz | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Daniel Severinsson | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Anna Hedberg | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: UPM-Kymmene Oyj (4 cases)·International N&H Denmark ApS (3 cases)
This dispute contains 2 other proceedings
- 2026-02-24Revocation ActionPublic
Summary: The Central Division (Munich) revoked EP 2 611 800 (sugar compositions) in its entirety for Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands and Sweden, finding the claims lacked inventive step and the application to amend was dismissed. The defendant bears UPM's costs.
Show the legal issues (5)
- Revocation
- Inventive step
- Composition claims with numerical ranges
- Intermediate product
- Amendment application dismissed
- 2025-11-21Revocation ActionPublic
Summary: The Central Division (Munich) issued an order following the interim conference under Rule 105.5 RoP in UPM-Kymmene's revocation action against International N&H Denmark ApS, setting the case value at EUR 1,000,000 and confirming the oral hearing date of 15 January 2026.
Show the legal issues (2)
- Interim conference Rule 105.5 RoP
- Revocation action
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Other Documents | 2026-08-13 | Not public |
| Other Documents | 2026-08-13 | Not public |
| Other Documents | 2026-08-13 | Not public |
| Other Documents | 2026-08-13 | Not public |
| Other Documents | 2026-08-13 | Not public |
| Other Documents | 2026-08-13 | Not public |
| Other Documents | 2026-08-13 | Not public |
| Other Documents | 2026-08-13 | Not public |
| Other Documents | 2026-08-13 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-03-16 | Not public |
UPM-Kymmene Oyj sought revocation of International N&H Denmark ApS's EP 2 611 800 B1, which claims methods and compositions relating to sugar mixtures. The Munich Central Division revoked the patent in full for Austria, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, finding the composition claims lacked inventive step because the claimed intermediate-product composition had no inextricable link to any inventive process, and both the amendment application and subsequent auxiliary request were dismissed.
Claims of EP 2 611 800 covering sugar compositions lack inventive step
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC; problem-solution approach; intermediate product doctrineNote: Court accepted UPM-Kymmene's challenge that the composition claims were obvious because absent an inextricable link between the claimed composition and an inventive production process, no inventive step can be found for an otherwise non-inventive composition used as an intermediate product.
No inextricable link between the claimed intermediate product composition and an inventive process
ClaimantLegal basis: Headnote 2; intermediate product doctrineNote: Court held that where a composition is relied upon merely as an intermediate product, it can only have inventive step if it is inextricably linked to an inventive process for producing a known end-product — that link was absent here.
Composition claims are novel and inventive as drafted with numerical ranges of ingredients
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC; claim interpretationReason: The patentee bears responsibility for drafting precise composition claims; the numerical ranges did not confer novelty or inventive step over the prior art when the claimed composition was not inextricably tied to an inventive process.
Application to amend the patent (unconditional and subsequent auxiliary requests)
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65(3) UPCA; R. 30 RoPReason: Both the unconditional amendment application and the subsequent auxiliary request were dismissed; the decision gives no detailed subsidiary reasoning visible in the excerpt.
Browse other cases on this principle.
The court addressed the interpretation of composition claims containing numerical ranges and marker molecules, including product-by-process features. The skilled person was held to expect precision and diligence from the patentee in specifying all components of a claimed composition.