Litigation
at Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
6 litigation decisions from Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat.
Litigation Decisions
6 cases | Page 1 of 1
1. Natural person: initial case 2. Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co. Ltd. (Streithelferin): joined the case later v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
The Central Chamber Paris of the Unified Patent Court dismissed a revocation action against European Patent 2 643 717 ('Farbmischende Sammeloptik'), maintaining the patent in its Art. 105a EPC-limited form. The plaintiff and intervener Chainzone Technology had sought full revocation for lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, unallowable extension, and insufficient disclosure. The court held that the subject-matter of claim 1 in both the granted and limited forms was patentable over all cited p
AMBAFLEX INTERNATIONAL B.V. v.***
Ambaflex International B.V. filed a nullity action before the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court seeking full revocation of European patent EP 2743216 B1 with effect in CH/LI, DE, ES, FR, GB, IT, PL, and RO. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, and Ambaflex withdrew its nullity claim. The defendant accepted the withdrawal, and the court recorded the withdrawal, declared the case closed, and noted the parties' agreement that each would bear its own costs.
Automobile Dacia S.A. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
Automobile Dacia S.A. filed a revocation action against Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited concerning European Patent EP1903733. After the Defendant filed its defence along with an application to amend the patent, and the Claimant filed its reply, the Claimant applied to withdraw the action pursuant to Rule 265 RoP. The Defendant consented to the withdrawal, and the parties agreed that each would bear its own costs. The Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed.
Automobile Dacia S.A. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
Automobile Dacia S.A. filed a revocation action against Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited concerning European Patent EP1770912. After the Defendant filed its Defence together with an Application to amend the patent, the Claimant applied to withdraw the action pursuant to Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure. The Defendant consented to the withdrawal, and the parties agreed that each would bear its own costs. The Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed.
Nissan Deutschland GmbH. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
Nissan Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd. concerning EP 1903733 on 7 April 2026. Before service on the Defendant, the Claimant applied to withdraw the action on 23 April 2026, stating no party would seek a cost decision and requesting partial reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 50% reimbursement of the court fees (EUR 13,250) to the Claimant.
Huntsman (EUROPE) BV , Huntsman Holland BV v.BASF SE
Huntsman (EUROPE) BV and Huntsman Holland BV filed a revocation action against BASF SE's European Patent 1 516 720 concerning a composite element containing a polyurethane adhesion promoter. The patent's maximum 20-year protection period had expired on 7 August 2024, but the court found the action admissible because BASF had initiated evidence preservation proceedings in Belgium and announced damages claims for the period when the patent was in force. The court dismissed the revocation action an
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.