2026-04-16 - LD Paris - Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Goodyear - UPC_CFI_138/2025

ENGLISH: 1. Probative value of the “affidavit”: Although the written statements do not carry the probative value of an independent and objective expert, the Court considers them to be valuable technical information. 2. Novelty: The claimed invention is for the skilled person directly and unambiguously derivable from a single prior art disclosure, using common general knowledge. However, the same technical effect is not required in the case of a product invention defined by structural technical features only, which covers a product considered in its own right, independently of any technical result or effect. 3. A single prior art document was cited in the Patent description, and it is expressly mentioned that this document discloses a product according to the preamble of Claim 1. For these reasons, it has been sufficiently demonstrated that this document constitutes a relevant prior art document for the assessment of the novelty of the structural technical features of claim 1 of the patent in question, regardless of the technical effect described in the prior art document. 4. Auxiliary requests (reasonable number): Parties provided a table with the various combinations categorised according to the additional features, and the parties’ ensuing discussions focused on this summarised presentation. Therefore, the panel considers that the number of auxiliary requests presented in this case is reasonable, as it is ‘manageable’ by the Court.

The Paris Local Division revoked Michelin's EP 2 323 858 tire-tread patent in full and dismissed the infringement action against Goodyear. On novelty, the panel held that KUNUGI (JP 2001/063323) — the only prior-art document cited in the patent's description — directly and unambiguously disclosed all structural features of claim 1, and that the different intended technical effect (air-pumping-noise reduction rather than water drainage) was irrelevant where the claim defines a product by its structural features alone. None of the 14 auxiliary requests cured the defect: added matter issues and/or absence of a substantive limiting technical effect left each feature insufficient. The decision also refines UPC practice on written witness/'affidavit' evidence from party-affiliated technical staff, and confirms that a structured table-based presentation of auxiliary requests is 'manageable' and satisfies R. 30.1(c) RoP.