2026-03-30 - CD Paris - Emporia UK and Ireland v. Seoul Viosys - UPC_CFI_258/2025

ENGLISH: o 1. The revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged dependent claims, as the latter may possess autonomous patentability due to additional technical features. o 2. Following the revocation of an independent claim, the patent proprietor may amend the patent to recast surviving dependent claims into independent form, provided the resulting configuration complies with the requirements of clarity and unity of invention. o 3. As a general rule, the mere deletion of claims does not necessitate a consolidated document. o 4. A subsequent request to amend the patent under Rule 30 (2) ‘RoP’ is not justified by a need to ‘react’ to a Court of Appeal decision in parallel proceedings if there is no direct logical nexus between the new procedural development therein and the proposed amendments or where the findings of that decision were based on arguments already pleaded and were thus foreseeable.

Paris CD grants revocation of remaining claims of EP 3 926 698 (LED flip-chip patent) for added matter under Art. 76(1)/123(2) EPC. The court finds that openings near the edge of the substrate are inextricably linked to inner openings — isolating one feature from the other constitutes impermissible intermediate generalization. All 23 auxiliary requests fail: AR1a-AR10a do not address the defect; AR0b-AR10b are refused as untimely subsequent amendments under R. 30(2) RoP; AR11a-AR13a also do not cure the defect. Establishes important principles on dependent claim survival after independent claim revocation and the strict standard for subsequent amendments.