2026-06-25 - CD Paris - Chainzone Technology (Foshan) et al. v. Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme - UPC_CFI_425/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_425/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- 1. Natural person: initial case 2. Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co. Ltd. (Streithelferin): joined the case later v. SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
Kernaussage: GERMAN:
2026-06-25 - CD Paris - Chainzone Technology (Foshan) et al.
v.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme - UPC_CFI_425/2025
GERMAN:
- 1. Wird das streitige Patent während eines Verfahrens zur Nichtigerklärung vor dem Einheitlichen Patentgericht durch das Europäische Patentamt mittels eines Beschränkungsverfahrens beschränkt, so beurteilt das Gericht die Gültigkeit des Patents in seiner beschränkten Fassung.
- 2. Art. 105a (2) EPÜ hat auf Gerichtsverfahren zur Nichtigerklärung eines Patents vor dem Einheitlichen Patentgericht keinen Einfluss
landmark
In a revocation action before the Paris Central Division, the patentee obtained an EPO limitation of the patent under Art. 105a EPC while the UPC proceedings were pending. The Court held that it assesses validity in the limited version: under Art. 105b(3) and Art. 68 EPC the limitation takes effect ex tunc and is the only legally effective version at the close of the proceedings, and Art. 105a(2) EPC — which bars a limitation request only while an EPO opposition is pending — does not extend by analogy to UPC nullity proceedings, since Art. 33(10) UPCA expressly contemplates parallel EPO/UPC proceedings. On the merits, the Court rejected all invalidity grounds: the claim (focus-positioning features M10/M11/M14 and the sharp-edged polygonal cross-section M12) was held novel over all cited art, inventive over every asserted starting point under the CoA 'would-not-could' framework, free of added matter, and sufficiently disclosed. The action was dismissed and the patent maintained.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Novelty attack rejected. The claim is novel over D1 (US 2009/0073710), D2 (US 7,607,804), D1' (US 2008/0285984), D2', D3' and D4'. Focus-positioning features M10/M11/M14 are absent from D1; the sharp-edged polygonal cross-section M12 distinguishes over D2 (which teaches rounded corners) [82]-[105].”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Inventive step affirmed over every asserted starting point (D1, D2, D8, D10, D3', D4') alone or in combination. Applying the CoA Nanostring/Meril 'would-not-could' framework, none of the cited combinations would have led the skilled person to the claimed focus-positioning without hindsight; several references (D3', D8) teach away [106]-[157].”
Added Matter
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“Added matter under Art. 138(1)(c) EPC rejected. Features M10, M11 and M12 ('region of the focus', parallel collimation, optically polished walls) are directly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application WO 2012/068603; the broader 'region of the focus' wording is supported by the original disclosure [72]-[81].”
Insufficiency of Disclosure
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 83 EPC · Art. 138(1)(b) EPC
“Insufficiency under Art. 83 / Art. 138(1)(b) EPC rejected. The 'region of the focus' wording (M10) and the virtual light exit are executable; the skilled person can position a virtual light exit in the focal region without undue burden [64]-[71].”
Inoffiziell
Inoffizielle KI-Übersetzung
Dies ist eine automatische, von KI erstellte Übersetzung, die Fehler enthalten kann. Rechtsverbindlich ist allein das Originaldokument in der Verfahrenssprache (German).