2025-07-21 - CD Paris - Sibio Technology v. Abbott - UPC_CFI_231/2024

1. Lack of novelty and lack of an inventive step are separate grounds for revoking a patent and cannot be absorbed when asserted against the same prior art document. Simply indicating in general terms that a prior art document will be used to challenge the patent's novelty and/or inventive step, providing a detailed analysis of the document only with respect to inventive step, is insufficient to establish that the document is being used to challenge the patent's novelty. 2. Although the dependent claims are subordinated to the independent claims, the grounds for their revocation must be stated at the outset, as the latter form part of the overall challenge to the patent in its entirety. 3. In accordance with the principle of flexibility and efficiency set out in paragraph 4 of the Preamble to the Rules of Procedure, Rule 75(3) 'RoP' must be interpreted as not applying when a counterclaim for revocation concerning the same patent is brought in a subsequent infringement action before a local division of the UPC, provided that the oral hearing in an earlier revocation action before a central division has already taken place.

The Paris Central Division rejected a revocation action and upheld the patent as granted. In its decision, the Court dealt in detail with the timing of validity arguments and auxiliary requests, claim construction and the individual validity attacks. The Court decided not to apply Rule 75.3 (generally requiring a stay in case of parallel proceedings before a local or regional division) because the oral hearing had already taken place.