| 2026-01-26 | UPC_CFI_999/2025 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | 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. |
| 2026-01-12 | UPC_CFI_350/2025 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Partially revoked | Paris Central Division (Paris seat) issued a decision by default partially revoking European patent EP2728089 ('Sequenced chamber wave generator controller and method'). The court found Claim 1 invalid for lack of novelty (anticipated by prior art D1 combined with D3, i.e. obvious) within the scope of the UPC contracting member states in which the patent was in force. The patent was partially revoked as to Claim 1. American Wave Machines failed to participate. Costs borne by American Wave. The patent was not entirely revoked; the revocation was limited to Claim 1's territorial scope in UPC states. |
| 2026-01-07 | UPC_CFI_433/2024 | Paris CD | Counterclaim for revocation | Revocation merits | Revoked | Decision of the Paris Central Division (Panel 2) dated 7 January 2026 on Microsoft Corporation's counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 671 173 (mobile location-based search technology) owned by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy. The court found the patent invalid for lack of inventive step over prior art documents BP07 and BP08. Auxiliary Requests I through further auxiliary requests were examined: Auxiliary Request I was found inadmissible or failed on added subject-matter; subsequent auxiliary requests lacked clarity or were inadmissible. The patent was thus revoked. The decision also addresses the requirements for admissible patent amendment applications under R. 30 RoP. |
| 2025-12-09 | UPC_CFI_999/2025 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | 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. |
| 2025-10-20 | UPC_CFI_189/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent amended | Decision of the Paris Central Division (Paris Seat) dated 20 October 2025 in the revocation action by Meril entities against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and the counterclaim for infringement by Edwards regarding EP 4 151 181 B1 (prosthetic heart valve technology). The revocation action was rejected; however, the patent was maintained only in the form of Auxiliary Request 2 (amended). The infringement counterclaim was granted: Meril entities were found to infringe claims 1, 4, 6–12 as amended. Edwards was granted an injunction preventing Meril from all infringing acts with products according to those claims in Contracting Member States, with an exception for XL-size valves (exceeding 30 mm) which was denied on proportionality grounds. Meril was ordered to provide information on infringing products, recall and destroy infringing products, and publish the decision in five media. Damages are to be determined in separate proceedings. Costs of the counterclaim were borne by Meril jointly and severally; costs of the revocation action were shared (each party bears own costs given the patent amendment dynamic). |
| 2025-09-01 | UPC_CFI_258/2025 | Paris CD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Central Division Paris rejected Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.'s preliminary objection requesting dismissal of Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd.'s revocation action as inadmissible under Art. 33(4) UPCA. Seoul Viosys argued that Emporia was a 'straw company' acting as a nominee for ex-pert klein GmbH (the defendant in parallel infringement proceedings before the Court of Appeal), and therefore constituted the 'same party'. The Court held that the 'straw company' theory has a legal basis in EU law and may be relevant under Art. 33(4) UPCA, but that mere coordination of litigation strategies between a distributor and its supplier does not constitute proof that one acts as a nominee for the other. |
| 2025-07-28 | UPC_CFI_239/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent amended | The Central Division Paris rejected the revocation action filed by an anonymous claimant against Essetre Holding spa in respect of EP 2 875 923 B1 (a machine for machining walls). The patent was maintained in amended form as submitted in the Principal Request on 8 August 2024. The Court interpreted 'a working surface' as meaning 'one working surface', applying the ordinary meaning in context of the description and drawings. The revocation action was dismissed as the defendant had submitted a patent limitation during proceedings. Costs were apportioned 70% to the claimant and 30% to the defendant. The case value for costs purposes was set at EUR 100,000. |
| 2025-07-21 | UPC_CFI_231/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent maintained | Decision of the Paris Central Division dismissing the revocation action by Sibio Technology Limited against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. concerning EP 3 831 283 B1 (glucose monitoring device / CGM sensor). All grounds for revocation (lack of novelty and inventive step) failed. The patent is maintained as granted. Abbott (defendant/patentee) awarded costs. Key headnotes: novelty and inventive step are separate grounds and cannot be combined against the same prior art; grounds for revocation of dependent claims must be stated from the outset; Rule 75(3) RoP does not apply when a counterclaim for revocation in a subsequent infringement action is filed after the oral hearing in an earlier revocation action. |
| 2025-05-29 | UPC_CFI_202/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent amended | The Central Division Paris rejected Lindal's revocation action but maintained EP 3 655 346 B1 as amended by the First Auxiliary Request submitted by the patent proprietor (Rocep-Lusol). The court held that the patent lacked industrial application in its original form but could be maintained in amended form. Claimant (Lindal) bears 70% of costs; defendant (Rocep-Lusol) bears 30%. |
| 2025-05-29 | UPC_CFI_202/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent amended | The Central Division Paris rejected the revocation action filed by Lindal Dispenser GmbH against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited in respect of EP 3 655 346 B1 (a pressure pack dispenser). The patent was maintained in amended form as submitted in the First Auxiliary Request on 26 July 2024 (maintained as EP 1 552 399 in amended form). The Court held that an invention contrary to accepted laws of physics lacks industrial application under Art. 57 EPC. Drawings must be used as explanatory aids but cannot be used to extract a characteristic when contradicted by the description. Costs were apportioned 70% to the claimant and 30% to the defendant. The case value was EUR 1.4 million. |
| 2025-03-31 | UPC_CFI_412/2023 | Paris CD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | Paris Central Division rejected BMW's application to rectify an order of 9 January 2025 to add a costs provision relating to an application to set aside a default judgment. The court held that the failure to address costs in the operative part could not be corrected under Rule 353 RoP (rectification of obvious slips) because costs for the set-aside application are not a separate decision on the merits but ancillary to the main default proceedings, and any costs claim must be pursued in the separate costs determination procedure. |
| 2025-01-22 | UPC_CFI_310/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Partially revoked | The Paris Central Division partially revoked EP 3 613 453 B1, finding that claim 1 lacked inventive step; the patent was maintained in amended form based on the independent validity of claims 6, 7 and 8 in combination with claim 1 as granted. Each party bore its own costs. |
| 2025-01-09 | UPC_CFI_412/2023 | Paris CD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division (Seat) ruled on an application by ITCiCo Spain S.L. to set aside a default decision (R. 356 RoP) issued on 16 September 2024 against it in the revocation action of Bayerische Motoren Werke AG concerning EP 2 796 333. The court interpreted R. 356(2) RoP to require that the applicant demonstrate inability to comply due to reasons beyond its control (unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure). The application was considered on its merits. |
| 2025-01-08 | UPC_CFI_189/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Costs only | Order from the Paris Central Division dated 8 January 2025 on Meril entities' application for costs (App_56782/2024) seeking reimbursement of EUR 15,000 from respondents (SWAT Medical AB and others) incurred in defending a rejected public-access-to-register application. The order clarifies that a 'decision on the merits' under R. 150 RoP means a decision concluding litigation proceedings with res judicata effect; proceedings on a public access application are not 'litigation' in that sense. The court dismissed the costs application on the basis that a public access proceeding does not produce a 'decision on the merits' that triggers the costs provisions. |
| 2024-12-26 | UPC_CFI_338/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent amended | The Paris Central Division dismissed Advanced Bionics' revocation actions (main and counterclaims) against MED-EL's EP 4 074 373 B1 (MRI-safe disk magnet for cochlear implants), maintaining the patent in the amended version of Auxiliary Request 0a after overcoming added-matter objections; costs were allocated 70% to the claimants and 30% to the defendant. |
| 2024-12-18 | ACT_589997/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent maintained | The Paris Central Division dismissed Tandem Diabetes Care's revocation action against Roche's EP 2 196 231 B1 (ambulatory drug infusion system), maintaining the patent as granted and ordering the claimants to bear the costs of proceedings, finding the grounds for invalidity (including lack of inventive step over prior art Diaz/Robertson/Glejboel) were not proven. |
| 2024-11-29 | UPC_CFI_307/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent maintained | The Paris Central Division dismissed NJOY Netherlands B.V.'s revocation action against EP 2 875 740 B1 (a patent owned by VMR Products LLC relating to electronic vapour products/e-cigarettes with a magnetic cartomizer retention mechanism). The Court found the patent novel and inventive over the asserted prior art combinations (Cross + DiFonzo, Pan + DiFonzo, and common general knowledge). The patent is maintained as granted. NJOY as the unsuccessful party bears the costs up to a ceiling of EUR 500,001. |
| 2024-11-27 | UPC_CFI_308/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Revoked | The Central Division Paris revoked European patent EP 3 456 214 (relating to a vaporizer/e-cigarette device) in its entirety. The patent was found to lack inventive step over the prior art. All auxiliary requests for partial maintenance were rejected as either unsubstantiated or unreasonable in number. The defendant (patent proprietor VMR Products LLC) was ordered to bear the litigation costs. |
| 2024-09-17 | UPC_CFI_189/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Central Division (Paris) order dismissing Meril's application to reject Edwards' counterclaim for infringement as inadmissible. The court retrospectively extended the two-month deadline under Rule 49 RoP by one week to 23 July 2024, finding the counterclaim timely. The court declined to hold a hearing before deciding. |
| 2024-08-09 | UPC_CFI_122/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Withdrawn | The Paris Central Division issued a decision following Aiko Energy Germany's withdrawal of its revocation action against Maxeon Solar's EP 3 065 184 before service on the defendant, also ruling on the reimbursement of court fees under R.370(9)(b)(i) RoP. |
| 2024-07-19 | ACT_551308/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent amended | The Paris Central Division rejected the revocation actions filed by Meril Italy Srl and Meril GmbH/Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd against EP 3 646 825, maintaining the patent in amended form as per auxiliary request II submitted during the proceedings; costs were split 60% (claimants/counterclaimants) and 40% (defendant). |
| 2024-07-19 | CC_585030/2023 | Paris CD | Counterclaim for revocation | Revocation merits | Patent amended | Decision of the Paris Central Division rejecting the revocation action by Meril Italy Srl and the counterclaims for revocation by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's EP 3 646 825 (prosthetic heart valve). The patent is maintained as amended in auxiliary request II, which limits claims to a frame made up entirely of hexagonal cells. The revocation claimants (60%) and defendant (40%) share costs. |
| 2024-07-19 | CC_584916/2023 | Paris CD | Counterclaim for revocation | Revocation merits | Patent amended | The Central Division (Paris) maintained Edwards Lifesciences' EP 3 646 825 (prosthetic heart valve) in amended form (Auxiliary Request II) following revocation actions and counterclaims by Meril entities. All invalidity grounds against the amended claims were rejected. |
| 2024-05-16 | UPC_CFI_372/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Costs only | The Paris Central Division addressed allocation of costs following the patent proprietor's immediate surrender of EP 3 170 639 B1 in response to a revocation action, holding it is generally unfair to impose costs on a proprietor who immediately surrenders when confronted with new prior art, particularly where no prior warning notice was required. |
| 2024-01-22 | UPC_CFI_308/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division issued a procedural order in the NJOY v. VMR Products revocation action, ruling on the date of service of VMR's defence to revocation, determining that service was effected on 13 December 2023 when the Registry notified the corrected defence to NJOY. |
| 2023-11-13 | UPC_CFI_255/2023 | Paris CD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division issued an order on a preliminary objection filed by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation challenging the competence of the Central Division to hear a revocation action by Meril Italy srl concerning EP 3 646 825, raising issues of same parties and Article 33(2) UPCA. |