Executive Summary
In this significant UPC decision, the court granted a revocation action against an LED patent (EP 3 926 698 B1) due to added subject-matter. While some claims were already invalidated in parallel proceedings, the UPC confirmed the invalidity of several remaining dependent claims. The ruling provides important guidance on how partial revocation affects dependent claims and addresses procedural hurdles related to amendments following complex litigation.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court confirmed that the patent suffered from a defect of added subject-matter. Crucially, it established that the revocation of an independent claim does not automatically invalidate dependent claims; surviving dependent claims may retain autonomous patentability due to additional technical features. The decision also addressed procedural issues regarding amendments and parallel proceedings.
Practitioner Note
This decision partially_granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat, this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
I.G.B. S.r.l.vsUnilever France
In a procedural ruling, the Paris Local Division addressed Unilever France's attempt to introduce new claims concerning financial guarantees and execution timelines for injunction, recall, and destruction measures. Unilever argued these were necessary due to new facts regarding packaging use. However, the Court found that these modifications merely complemented previously raised accessory demands and did not fundamentally alter the scope of the infringement dispute. The request for authorization under Rule 263 ROP was therefore dismissed.
Network System Technologies LLC.vsAudi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding the exchange of written pleadings during an appeal concerning security for costs. Audi AG successfully petitioned the court to allow it to submit additional facts and evidence, arguing that the initial proceedings contained factual errors by the opposing party, NST. The court granted this request, allowing both parties further time to refine their arguments before closing the written phase.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.vsPanasonic Holdings Corporation
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected an application by OPPO and OROPE to shorten the time period for the Respondent, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, to file its Statement of response. The court emphasized that while expediency is desired, procedural fairness and proportionality must be maintained. This decision highlights the court's commitment to due process, even when it means delaying a party's preferred timeline.
Netgear Inc.vsHuawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This UPC appellate decision addresses procedural law concerning the review of a Rapporteur's decisions, specifically regarding an 'R.20.2-Unterrichtung' (notification that an opposition should be heard in the main proceedings). The court found that the Rapporteur improperly rejected an application for judicial review (R.333.1 VerfO) on their own authority. This ruling clarifies the strict procedural requirements for challenging a Rapporteur's actions, emphasizing that certain discretionary decisions must be subject to review by the full judicial body.
Volkswagen AGvsNetwork System Technologies LLC
In a decision concerning security for legal costs, the UPC Local Division in Munich rejected the request by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide financial guarantees. NST argued that its limited assets and US domicile made cost enforcement difficult. The Court countered this by stating that general claims of unenforceability were insufficient, noting that foreign judgments are generally enforceable in the US. The ruling reinforces the principle that access to justice must be balanced against security requirements, especially for SMEs.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.