Short Summary
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal by Sidel Participations SAS challenging the Central Division Paris's rejection of a Preliminary objection. The core issue was whether the UPC has competence to hear an action for a declaration of non-infringement of patents filed before their grant. The Court held that this is a question of admissibility rather than competence, and that the UPC has competence under Art. 32(1)(b) UPCA for declarations of non-infringement of patents.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns an appeal by Sidel Participations SAS against an order of the Central Division Paris dated 7 May 2026, which had rejected Sidel's Preliminary objection in proceedings brought by OMNIA Technologies S.p.A., ACMI Labelling S.r.l., and ACMI S.p.A. (collectively referred to as OMNIA). The underlying proceedings concerned European patents EP 4 594 194 (EP 194) and EP 4 624 351 (EP 351).
On 3 March 2026, OMNIA filed an action before the Central Division Paris seeking a declaration that its "Opera Omnia labelling module" does not directly or indirectly infringe EP 194 and EP 351. At the time of filing, neither patent had been granted, although the intention to grant under R. 71(3) EPC had been issued for EP 194 on 11 February 2026 and was expected for EP 351. Sidel subsequently filed opt-out applications for both patents on 2 April 2026 (EP 194) and 8 April 2026 (EP 351). The patents were later granted on 22 April 2026 (EP 194) and 20 May 2026 (EP 351).
On 9 April 2026, prior to the grant of the patents, Sidel filed a Preliminary objection arguing that the UPC lacked competence under Art. 32(1)(b) UPCA to hear an action for a declaration of non-infringement of patent applications. Sidel also sought dismissal under R. 361 RoP or, alternatively, a stay of proceedings. The judge-rapporteur dismissed the Preliminary objection on 7 May 2026, finding that the UPC had competence. Sidel was granted leave to appeal on 26 May 2026 and lodged its appeal on 8 June 2026.
On appeal, Sidel argued that the UPC is not competent to decide on declarations of non-infringement of patent applications, contending that Art. 2 and Art. 32(1)(b) UPCA refer only to "patents" and not patent applications, and that a European patent only takes effect upon publication of its grant. Sidel further argued that competence must be assessed at the time the action is filed, not when the Statement of defence is filed. Sidel also raised procedural arguments regarding the timeliness of the leave to appeal.
OMNIA countered that the action effectively concerned a declaration of non-infringement of patents, not patent applications, and that the reference to patent applications in the Statement of claim was merely descriptive of their status at the time of filing. OMNIA further argued that its action, filed before Sidel's opt-out applications, rendered those opt-outs ineffective under Art. 83(3) UPCA.
The Court of Appeal, composed of Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß, Judge Bart van den Broek, and Judge-Rapporteur Nathalie Sabotier, dismissed the appeal in its entirety. The Court held that the decisive question was not whether the UPC has competence to hear actions for declarations of non-infringement of patent applications, but whether such an action can be filed before grant, which is a question of admissibility rather than competence. The Court found that OMNIA's action clearly aimed at obtaining a declaration of non-infringement with respect to the patents following their grant, and therefore fell within the UPC's competence under Art. 32(1)(b) UPCA. The Court further held that the question of admissibility is not among the permissible Preliminary objections exhaustively listed in R. 19 RoP, and that any admissibility concerns must be determined in further proceedings.
Regarding the opt-out issue, the Court relied on its prior decision in UPC-CoA-489/2023 (AIM v Supponor) to confirm that the term "action" in Art. 83 UPCA covers all actions under Art. 32 UPCA. Since OMNIA's action was filed before Sidel's opt-out applications, the opt-outs were deemed ineffective. The Court also addressed procedural questions regarding the timeliness of the appeal, ultimately finding that even if the appeal were admissible, it was unfounded on the merits. The Court rejected OMNIA's request for an order on costs and enforceability, as the order did not conclude the action within the meaning of R. 150.1 RoP.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Sidel Participations SAS vs OMNIA Technologies S.p.A. and Others is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.