UPC CFI 999/2025

At the UPC: ALD France S.A.S. (1 case)·Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG (5 cases)

• 2026-07-23
  RevocationPublic

  Summary: The Paris Central Division allowed ALD France's application under Rule 265.1 RoP to withdraw its revocation action against Nanoval's EP 3 083 107 B1, with Nanoval's consent, and declared the case closed. The court rejected ALD France's request for 60% reimbursement of the court fee under the pre-1 January 2026 version of Rule 370.9(b) RoP, and instead ordered 50% reimbursement (EUR 10,000) under the amended rule in force from 1 January 2026, because the withdrawal and reimbursement request was filed on 8 July 2026, after that rule change took effect.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • withdrawal of action (Rule 265.1 RoP)
  • court fee reimbursement rate on withdrawal (Rule 370.9(b) RoP)
  • temporal application of amended court fee rules taking effect 1 January 2026
• 2026-01-26
  Revocation ActionPublic

  Summary: Order from the Paris Central Division (Panel 3) dated 26 January 2026 reviewing (under R. 333 RoP) the judge-rapporteur's earlier order on a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) in a revocation action brought by ALD France S.A.S. against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG regarding EP 3 083 107 B1. The panel upheld the judge-rapporteur's ruling that ALD France S.A.S. has a sufficient independent interest to bring the revocation action notwithstanding that ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (an affiliated entity) had already filed a counterclaim for revocation in parallel infringement proceedings. The panel held: (1) ALD France and ALD Vacuum are not 'the same party' under Art. 33(4) UPCA merely because they are parent/subsidiary; (2) independent business activity is the relevant criterion; (3) competition law principles on economic units do not transfer.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Party identity and 'same party' under Art. 33(4) UPCA
  • Standing to bring revocation action by affiliated entity
  • Admissibility of parallel revocation and counterclaim for revocation
  • Straw man doctrine
• 2025-12-09
  Revocation ActionPublic

  Summary: Paris Central Division rejected Nanoval's preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) seeking dismissal of ALD France's revocation action. The Court held that ALD France S.A.S. and the ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (party in the Munich Local Division proceedings) are not the same party, so the revocation action before the Central Division is not inadmissible on grounds of party identity.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP)
  • Admissibility of revocation action at Central Division
  • Art. 33(4) UPCA
  • Party identity
  • Multiple revocation proceedings