Short Summary
REEL International filed a nullity action against European Patent EP 1 740 740 owned by Fives ECL before the Central Division (Munich Section) of the Unified Patent Court. Fives ECL raised a preliminary objection seeking to have the court decline jurisdiction based on REEL International's alleged lack of standing (intérêt à agir) and the res judicata effect of German court decisions on the German part of the patent. The judge-rapporteur rejected the preliminary objection, holding that lack of standing and res judicata are not among the exhaustive list of preliminary objections under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure.
Detailed Summary
On December 31, 2025, REEL International filed a nullity action before the Munich Section of the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) seeking revocation of European Patent EP 1 740 740, titled 'Module de service compact destiné aux usines de production d'aluminium par électrolyse' (Compact service module for aluminum production plants by electrolysis), owned by Fives ECL. The action was registered as UPC 2296/2025.
On February 23, 2026, Fives ECL filed a preliminary objection requesting the court to decline jurisdiction on two grounds: (1) REEL International's lack of standing (intérêt à agir) to bring a nullity action against the French, Dutch, and German parts of EP 1 740 740, and (2) the res judicata effect of the Bundesgerichtshof's decision of November 26, 2024 concerning the German part of the patent. Subsidiarly, Fives ECL requested that these issues be decided prior to any substantive discussion. Fives ECL argued that REEL International, as the parent company of Reel GmbH, had no legal interest to act because the patent had expired by the time the action was filed, and because Fives ECL had irrevocably waived any action against REEL International in a letter dated February 5, 2026. Fives ECL further argued that REEL International and Reel GmbH should be treated as a single party for res judicata purposes.
REEL International contested the admissibility of the preliminary objection, arguing that the list of preliminary objections in Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure is exhaustive and does not include lack of standing or res judicata. On the merits, REEL International argued that any person may be considered 'concerned by a patent' under Article 47(6) of the UPCA without needing to justify specific investments or developments in the field.
The judge-rapporteur, Mélanie Bessaud, rejected the preliminary objection. The court reasoned that lack of standing and res judicata do not affect the material or territorial jurisdiction of the court and fall outside the exhaustive list of preliminary objections enumerated in Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The court further rejected Fives ECL's requests for early orders under Rules 361 and 362, finding that the issues raised were not manifestly unfounded and required substantive discussion. The court also rejected the request for a dedicated preliminary hearing, citing the objectives of speed and efficiency set out in the preamble of the Rules of Procedure, and noting that a hearing on the merits was expected in early 2027, by which time the Court of Appeal's position on the scope of res judicata should be known. The court granted REEL International's request to be exempted from translating English-language documents and decided that costs relating to the preliminary objection would be addressed in the final decision on the merits. The court declined to authorize immediate appeal under Rule 220.2.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section. Understanding the court's reasoning in REEL International vs Fives ECL is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Align Technology, Inc.vsAngelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' request for security for legal costs in provisional measures proceedings concerning European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1. The court held that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of substantiation regarding the alleged difficulty of enforcing a costs order in the United States, as their reliance on a prior Munich Local Division order was insufficient to establish facts specific to this case.
Occlutech GmbHvsLepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd.
Occlutech GmbH sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical entities before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 1 998 686 B2 (relating to an occlusion instrument) by the MemoCarna ASD and VSD occluders in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The court rejected the application for provisional measures, finding that the requirements for such measures were not met, and ordered Occlutech to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Versah LLCvsHaeNaem Co., Ltd., Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH, and Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd.
Versah LLC filed a patent infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 402 420 B1 against three defendants. Before the written procedure was concluded, the plaintiff partially withdrew the action against Defendant 2 (Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH) following an out-of-court settlement. The court allowed the partial withdrawal, declared the proceedings against Defendant 2 terminated, and ruled on costs in accordance with the parties' agreement.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbHvsCeraCon GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 108 413 in a patent infringement action. The Claimant sought leave under R. 263 RoP to amend its damages claim to include profits from sales of CeraPUR sealing materials and service/maintenance contracts related to the allegedly infringing CeraFLOW machines. The court held that the original request IV. already encompassed all damages from the alleged infringing acts and permitted the clarifying amendment without needing a R. 263 RoP application, while postponing the remaining aspects of the amendment request until after the oral hearing.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbHvsTandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., VitalAire GmbH, Dinno Santé s.a.i., Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 1 970 677 B1. The court granted the request of Defendants 1, 2, and 6 (Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS) for protection of confidential information under R. 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The order classifies certain information contained in unredacted versions of specific annexes as confidential and restricts access to a limited number of named persons on the plaintiffs' side.
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.