Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
This consolidated decision of the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court (Paris seat), rendered on 18 March 2026, addressed three joined revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_417/2025, UPC_CFI_509/2025, and UPC_CFI_528/2025) concerning European patent EP 3 178 578 B1 titled 'installation d'incinération de déchets et procédé associé' (waste incineration installation and associated process), owned by Tiru, a subsidiary of the Paprec group specialized in energy recovery from waste.
The claimants were Veolia Propreté and Valinea Energie (both part of the Veolia group, active in waste recycling and recovery) and Maguin SAS (specialized in the design and manufacture of machines for agricultural and agri-food industries, including rotary kilns for industrial waste incineration). The dispute arose after Tiru sought evidence preservation measures against Valinea, which operates a kiln manufactured by Maguin at a waste treatment site in Montbéliard. Tiru subsequently filed infringement actions against Valinea and Maguin before the Paris local division. In response, Veolia filed a central revocation action on 13 May 2025, while Valinea and Maguin filed counterclaims for revocation in June 2025. The Paris local division ordered the transfer of these counterclaims to the central division, which joined all three proceedings by order of 2 January 2026, with the value of the dispute set at 2 million euros.
The court established several key legal principles: (1) Article 123(3) EPC aims to guarantee legal certainty for third parties by prohibiting any extension of the protection conferred by patent claims after grant, and it suffices to identify one embodiment covered by the modified patent but not by the granted patent to conclude an unlawful extension; (2) an obvious material error in a granted patent claim can be rectified during amendment; (3) an obvious material error in a party's submission can be rectified without constituting a new late submission; and (4) when contradictions exist between the description and a claim, and the skilled person would readily identify them, the claim text prevails in interpretation.
The claimants raised multiple grounds for revocation, including arguments that Tiru's amendments extended the protection beyond the granted patent (Article 123(3) EPC), that the patent lacked novelty and inventive step over prior art including the 'Four Laurent Bouillet 1987' and various plans and operating manuals, and that there were contradictions between the description and the claims. Tiru defended by submitting a main request and several subsidiary requests for amendment, some of which contained obvious material errors that were subsequently rectified.
The court admitted all parties' submissions into the proceedings, declared the main request and subsidiary requests 1.1, 1.3, 1.6, 2.0, 2.3, and 3.0 admissible in their rectified versions, and ultimately rejected all requests for annulment of the patent. The patent was maintained in modified form according to subsidiary request 2.0 in its rectified version. Regarding costs, the court ordered that 60% of the costs be borne by the claimants and 40% by Tiru, finding this apportionment appropriate given that the revocation action was rejected because the defendant presented a limitation of the patent during the proceedings. The determination of the actual cost amounts was reserved for a separate procedure under Rules 150 RoP and following.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat. Understanding the court's reasoning in Veolia Propreté, Valinea Energie, Maguin SAS vs Tiru is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Nissan Deutschland GmbHvsAvago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd.
Nissan Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against EP 1903733 before the Unified Patent Court's Central Division in Paris. Before service on the Defendant (Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd.), the Claimant applied to withdraw the action under Rule 265 RoP. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees (EUR 13,250) under the amended Rule 370.9 RoP.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SAvsModerna et al
A procedural order of the Court of First Instance addressing three applications in a patent infringement action concerning EP2590626. The court granted GSK's R.263 application to amend its claim to include Moderna's new product mNEXSPIKE, dismissed Moderna's R.9 application to strike out GSK's allegedly late-filed submissions and evidence, and ordered GSK to submit a tabular overview of its 40 auxiliary requests while rejecting Moderna's request to limit the number of ARs to ten or dismiss them en bloc.
BSN Medical GmbHvsBrightwake Ltd., Advancis Medical Deutschland GmbH, and Advancis Medical Nederland B.V.
This is a decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Munich, concerning the confirmation of a settlement agreement and a confidentiality order. BSN Medical GmbH had sued the defendants for infringement of European patents EP 3 033 058 and EP 3 831 350, but the parties subsequently settled the dispute. The court confirmed the settlement, ordered that the details of the settlement be treated confidentially, and ruled that each party bears its own costs as agreed in the settlement.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. a.o.vsCrystal Clear Codec Sp.z.o.o.
The defendants in a patent infringement action brought by Crystal Clear Codec Sp.z.o.o. before the Local Division Munich requested a change of the language of proceedings from German to English under Rule 323 RoP. The claimant agreed to the change, and the President of the Court of First Instance ordered the language of proceedings changed to English, the language in which the patent EP2622601 was granted.
igus GmbHvsWhale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
Default judgment (Versäumnisentscheidung) of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 912 243 B1, which protects a compact line guide for clean room applications. The plaintiff, igus GmbH, alleged that the Chinese defendant, Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., infringed the patent by offering a 'CPY' line guide at the Hannover Messe and through associated catalog distribution. Because the defendant failed to appear or respond, the court granted the plaintiff's claims in full, including a finding of infringement, an injunction, recall and information orders, and provisional cost reimbursement.
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.