2026-05-29 - LD Paris - Tiru v. Maguin et al. - UPC_CFI_130/2025

FRENCH: 1. S’agissant de la remise en cause de la régularité des mesures d’exécution de la saisie et de la force probante du rapport de l’expert chargé de la saisie, il revient au panel dans le cadre de la décision au fond de trancher la question, et non pas au juge de la rétractation des mesures de saisie. Ce dernier apprécie la validité de l’ordonnance ayant autorisé la saisie. 2. Il importe d’adopter une approche cohérente entre l’appréciation de la validité du brevet et celle de la contrefaçon alléguée. Dès lors qu’un titulaire de brevet, en défense de la validité de son titre, expose qu’une caractéristique revendiquée ne peut être présumée être présente dans l’état de la technique sans une divulgation claire et non ambiguë de celle-ci, ce titulaire de brevet, demandeur à l’action en contrefaçon, a l’obligation de démontrer que cette même caractéristique revendiquée est présente dans le produit ou procédé argué de contrefaçon de manière claire et non ambiguë. 3. L’Art. 32.1(a) de l’AJUB sur la compétence de la JUB prévoit que la Juridiction a une compétence exclusive pour les défenses afférentes aux actions de contrefaçon (incluant certaines demandes reconventionnelles, l’exemple étant donné d’une demande reconventionnelle concernant une licence). En l’espèce, l’abus de droit est un moyen de défense afférent à l’action en contrefaçon devant la présente Juridiction, en ce qu’elle est intrinsèquement liée à celle-ci qui en est le support. ENGLISH: 1. As regards the objection on the validity of the measures to preserve evidence and on the probative value of the report written by the expert appointed to carry out the measures, it is for the panel, in the context of the decision on the merits, to rule on the issue, and not for the judge hearing the application to revoke the saisie order. The latter assesses the validity of the order authorising the saisie. 2. It is important to adopt a consistent approach between the assessment of the validity of the patent and that of the alleged infringement. Where a patent proprietor, defending the validity of its title, argues that a claimed feature cannot be presumed to be present in the prior art without a clear and unambiguous disclosure thereof, that same patent proprietor, as claimant in the infringement action, has to demonstrate that the same claimed feature is present in the allegedly infringing product or method in a clear and unambiguous manner. 3. Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA on the competence of the Court provides that the Court shall have exclusive competence in respect of actions for infringement and related defences (including certain counterclaims, such as those concerning licences). In the present case, abuse of rights is a defence related to the infringement action before this Court, insofar as it is inherently linked to that action, which forms its basis.

The Paris Local Division dismissed TIRU's infringement action against the operator and the manufacturer of a waste-incineration furnace, on a patent the Paris Central Division had maintained in amended form. Two independent grounds carry the dismissal. First, a claim term the validity decision had left open — a secondary part of the envelope 'arranged downstream of' the primary part — was construed on the ordinary meaning of the words as requiring the two parts to sit one after the other without overlap; in the accused furnace the primary part overlaps the secondary one entirely, so that feature was plainly not reproduced. Second, infringement must be assessed consistently with validity: because the patentee, defending validity, had argued that a functionally-defined 'cooling air' could not be presumed present in prior art absent a clear and unambiguous disclosure, it bore the burden of proving to the same standard that the accused furnace's secondary air actually performed that cooling function, and it did not discharge it. Equivalence failed on the first prong of the four-step test the parties agreed and the Court adopted from the Hague Local Division: technical equivalence is the minimum necessary condition, and the function said to be equivalent was the very function left unproven. The Court also held it had competence under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA over an abuse-of-rights counterclaim as a related defence but rejected it, upheld the saisie expert's report against an impartiality challenge, and applied a single recoverable-costs ceiling shared between the two defendants.