Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
108 cases · page 1 of 4
Showing 1–29Emporia UK and Ireland Limited v.Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd.
Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. filed a revocation action against Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd. seeking invalidity of European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1, which relates to a light-emitting diode. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) revoked the patent to the extent of claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 11, following a prior Court of Appeal decision that had already invalidated claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9 for added subject-matter. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against Belparts Group N.V. concerning European Patent EP3812870 before the Central Division Paris. Belparts counterclaimed for infringement and applied to amend the patent, but the parties subsequently reached an out-of-court settlement and both applied to withdraw their respective actions. The Court permitted the withdrawal of both the revocation action and the counterclaim for infringement, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the decision to be entered on the Register, with no cost decision issued.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against Belparts Group N.V. concerning European patent EP3812870 before the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court. Belparts counterclaimed for infringement and applied to amend the patent. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, both parties applied to withdraw their respective actions, and the Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed.
Veolia Propreté, Valinea Energie, Maguin SAS v.Tiru
This case before the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court (Paris seat) concerned revocation actions against European patent EP 3 178 578 B1 owned by Tiru, relating to a waste incineration installation and associated process. The claimants (Veolia Propreté, Valinea Energie, and Maguin SAS) sought revocation of the patent on grounds including Article 123(3) EPC (extension of protection), prior public use, and lack of inventive step. The court rejected the revocation requests and maintained the patent in modified form according to Tiru's subsidiary request 2.0 (rectified version), with costs split 60% to the claimants and 40% to Tiru.
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG
This case concerns a nullity action filed by ALD France S.A.S against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG regarding EP 3 083 107 B1 before the Central Division Paris. Nanoval objected under Rule 19 RoP, arguing that ALD France was a 'straw man' for its parent company (ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH), which was already a party in parallel infringement and nullity counterclaim proceedings before the Munich Local Division, rendering the action abusive and creating lis pendens. The court confirmed the order rejecting the objection, holding that ALD France's independent business activity made it a separate party from its parent, and that related companies are not 'the same party' under Art. 33(4) UPCA merely because of a parent-subsidiary relationship.
WhiteWater West Industries Inc. v.American Wave Machines Inc.
WhiteWater West Industries Inc. filed a revocation action against American Wave Machines, Inc. concerning European patent EP 2 728 089 ('Sequenced chamber wave generator controller and method') before the Central Division (Paris seat). The defendant failed to file a defence within the prescribed time limit and did not respond to the action in any way, prompting the claimant to request a decision by default. The court granted the default decision and partially revoked the patent with regard to the scope of claim 1, finding the grounds of invalidity (including lack of inventive step over the prior art) well founded, and ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This case concerns a counterclaim for revocation of European patent EP 2 671 173, which relates to a system for browsing the Internet by walking to discover location-based search results. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) revoked the patent in its entirety, finding that the claimed subject matter lacked novelty and inventive step over prior art, particularly in view of document 'BP07' alone and in combination with 'BP08' and 'BP16'.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.European Patent Office
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG challenged the European Patent Office's (EPO) decision rejecting its request for unitary effect for European Patent 3 327 608. The EPO had refused the request because the patent was not granted with the same claims for all 25 participating member states, as Malta could not be designated when the parent application was filed in 2005. The Unified Patent Court (Paris Central Division) dismissed the application, holding that the unitary effect must cover all participating member states at the time of grant and request, and that the refusal did not violate fundamental rights or non-discrimination principles.
Valéo Systèmes d'Essuyages v.Robert Bosch GmbH and Others
This is a procedural order from the Central Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning a preliminary objection on jurisdiction and language of proceedings. The court held that the Central Division of Paris lacked jurisdiction to hear a patent infringement action filed by Valeo against multiple Robert Bosch entities, and ordered the case transferred to the Local Division of Düsseldorf with English as the language of proceedings.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
This procedural order concerns a request by IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH for Belparts Group N.V. to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 500,000 under Rule 158.1 RoP in proceedings involving a revocation action, application to amend a patent, and counterclaim for infringement regarding EP3812870. IMI argued Belparts was economically vulnerable based on a 2023 loss, while Belparts countered with evidence of positive financial results, a sizable patent portfolio, and a binding assurance from its parent group company AFRISO-WERK Georg Fritz GmbH & Co. KG. The Court of First Instance dismissed the request, finding IMI failed to meet its burden of substantiation and proof.
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co . KG
Anordnung
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
This is a procedural order from the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP3812870. Belparts Group N.V. requested under Rule 340.1 RoP that its counterclaim for infringement pending before the CD Paris be heard together with its infringement action pending before the LD Munich. The court rejected the request, finding that allowing it would still result in multiple oral hearings and multiple decisions concerning the same patent, with infringement and revocation actions not being heard and decided at the same time.
Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd., Meril GmbH, Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
The Meril entities sought revocation of Edwards Lifesciences' European patent EP 4 151 181 B1, which relates to a radially collapsible and expandable prosthetic heart valve with an outer skirt having axial slack. Edwards counterclaimed for infringement based on Meril's 'Octacor System' and 'Octapro System' products. The court rejected the revocation action, maintained the patent as amended by Auxiliary Request 2, and found infringement, granting an injunction (with an exception for XL-size valves exceeding 30 mm in diameter) along with information, delivery, and penalty payment orders.
Scantrust v.Advanced Track and Trace
Scantrust filed a nullity action against European Patent EP 2 364 485, held by Advanced Track and Trace (ATT), before the Central Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court. Before the scheduled oral hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement on 22 September 2025 and jointly requested its homologation. The court approved the settlement under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure and Article 79 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, ordering that the unredacted version remain confidential and that each party bear its own costs.
SCANTRUST v.ADVANCED TRACK AND TRACE
Scantrust filed a nullity action before the Central Division of Paris against European patent EP 2 364 485 held by Advanced Track and Trace (ATT), concerning a method and device for authentication of geometric codes. Before the scheduled oral hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement on 22 September 2025. The court homologated the settlement under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure and Article 79 of the UPC Agreement, allowing it to be enforced as a final decision on the merits, while keeping certain details confidential.
IMI Hydronics Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V
Unified Patent Court decision.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation applied for an order under Rule 262A RoP to treat certain exhibit information as strictly confidential in proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The information in question consisted of invoices from Microsoft's law firm detailing hours worked, tasks performed, and billing rates. The respondent objected, arguing no specific confidentiality grounds were provided. The Court granted the confidentiality request, finding the information met the criteria for confidential treatment and attorney-client privilege, but dismissed the request for a predetermined penalty payment.
Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd. v.Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd.
This order concerns a preliminary objection filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. in a revocation action brought by Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. regarding European patent EP 3 926 698. Seoul Viosys argued that the Central Division lacked competence under Article 33(4) UPCA because the patent was already subject to a parallel infringement action and counterclaim for revocation between the same parties pending before the Court of Appeal, contending that Emporia UK was a 'straw company' for ex-pert klein GmbH. The Court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that while the 'straw company' theory has a legal basis in EU law, the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that Emporia UK was a straw company for ex-pert klein GmbH.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
This order concerns the release of a security deposit of EUR 25,000 in a revocation action before the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court. Following the revocation of Ballinno B.V.'s European patent EP 1 944 067 B1 and the subsequent settlement between the parties, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH requested the release of the security for procedural costs that Ballinno had previously deposited with the Court. Both parties consented to the release, and the Court ordered the transfer of the EUR 25,000 to Kinexon.
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v.Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA filed a revocation action against Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG concerning European Patent EP 3 876 490 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. After the interim conference and the suspension of the oral hearing, the proceedings were stayed, and Toyota subsequently applied to withdraw the action under Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure. The Court granted the withdrawal, declared the case terminated, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees (EUR 4,000) to Toyota, finding that the withdrawal occurred before the closure of the oral procedure under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP.
[Claimant name redacted] v.Essetre Holding spa
A revocation action was brought before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Court of First Instance seeking revocation of European Patent EP 2 875 923 B1, owned by Essetre Holding spa, which relates to a machine for machining walls. The claimant alleged lack of novelty and inventive step based on prior art documents. The defendant submitted a principal request to amend the patent, which the court found admissible and compliant with the requirements of the European Patent Convention.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application for a cost decision filed by Seoul Viosys following a preliminary objection in revocation proceedings concerning EP 2661892. The Paris Central Division had previously ordered the transfer of the revocation action to the Paris Local Division and directed Photon Wave to bear 80% of Seoul Viosys' legal costs for the preliminary objection proceedings. The Court held the application admissible but only partly well-founded, setting the value of the preliminary objection proceedings at one quarter of the revocation action's value (EUR 500,000) and rejecting the expert costs claim, ultimately ordering Photon Wave to reimburse Seoul Viosys EUR 11,200.
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Sibio Technology Limited filed a revocation action against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. seeking to revoke European patent EP 3 831 283 B1, which relates to in vivo analyte monitoring devices. Sibio challenged the patent's validity on grounds of added subject matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) dismissed the revocation action, finding that the alleged grounds for invalidity were either inadmissible as late-filed or not proven, and ordered the patent to be maintained as granted with costs borne by Sibio.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
This procedural order concerns an application by Claimant Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH to restrict Defendant Ballinno B.V.'s access to certain information in a cost decision application filed in underlying revocation proceedings concerning EP 1 944 067 B1. The Court denied the application under R. 262A RoP, finding Claimant's arguments too general and the proposed access restriction unduly burdensome, but granted an implied request under R. 262.2 RoP, preventing Defendant and its UPC representatives from disclosing the cost-related information to third parties.
Acer Computer GmbH v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions S.L.U. and Nokia Technologies Oy
Acer Computer GmbH applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated application-to-amend proceedings concerning EP 2 661 892 B1. The court granted access, finding that Acer had a specific interest due to a related infringement action and that the general principle of public access applies even when proceedings have ended without a decision. The court rejected Nokia's argument that Acer should be restricted from distributing the documents, holding that confidentiality conditions apply only to pending proceedings.
Acer Computer GmbH v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. and Nokia Technologies Oy
Acer Computer GmbH applied for public access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 661 892, owned by Nokia Technologies Oy. Acer had a specific interest as it faced an infringement action based on the same patent. The court granted access to most documents with redaction of personal data, rejected access to certain exhibits, granted Nokia leave to appeal, and suspended the order's effects pending appeal.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. and Nokia Technologies Oy
This procedural order concerns an application by Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB, a German law firm, for public access to written pleadings and evidence from a terminated revocation action (UPC_CFI_181/2024) involving patent EP2661892. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court granted access to most requested documents with personal data redacted, applying the Court of Appeal's Ocado v Autostore principles, but rejected access to two specific exhibits. The court also granted leave to appeal and suspended the effects of the order pending any appeal.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. and Nokia Technologies Oy
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB, a firm of UPC representatives, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for public access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated proceedings (UPC_CFI_181/2024) concerning EP2661892, a revocation action between HP and Nokia that ended by withdrawal. Nokia opposed the request, arguing the applicant lacked a sufficient specific interest and should not be permitted to distribute the file contents. The Court of First Instance granted access with personal data redacted, finding that the general principle of public access applies once proceedings have ended, and also granted Nokia leave to appeal.
Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB v.Ex Parte
Order
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Lindal Dispenser GmbH filed a revocation action before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Unified Patent Court seeking to revoke European Patent No. EP 3 655 346 B1, owned by Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited, in its entirety for all designated UPC contracting member states. The claimant alleged lack of industrial application, insufficiency of disclosure, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The court dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as amended by the defendant's First Auxiliary Request, ordering costs to be borne 70% by the claimant and 30% by the defendant.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.