2026-05-07 - CD Paris - OMNIA TECHNOLOGIES et al. v. SIDEL PARTICIPATIONS - UPC-CFI-0000799/2026

ENGLISH: 1. The Court is competent to hear actions seeking a declaration of non-infringement of a patent under Art. 32(b) UPCA if the patent is granted and published in the European Patent Bulletin after the action has been filed but before the statement of defense is submitted. 2. The Court is also competent to hear actions seeking a declaration of non-infringement if the patent has been granted pursuant to Art. 97(1) EPC before the statement of defense is submitted, but the grant has not yet been published in the European Patent Bulletin at that time.

The Paris Central Division held that the UPC is competent to hear an action for a declaration of non-infringement where the patent was still an application when the action was filed, provided it is granted before the statement of defence. A patent application is not a 'patent' within Art. 2(e) to (g) UPCA, but the decisive moment is the statement of defence, not the filing of the action, so competence under Art. 32(1)(b) UPCA is established once the grant is published in the European Patent Bulletin in the meantime — and also where the patent has been granted under Art. 97(1) EPC but the mention of grant is still to be published. The Court grounded that on procedural efficiency and on keeping subject matter reserved to the UPC away from national courts, distinguished the Brussels Local Division in Barco v Yealink as concerning the timeliness of provisional measures, and held that Art. 49(6) UPCA is a language rule from which no jurisdictional conclusion follows. Opt-out applications entered in the register after the action had been lodged were held ineffective under Art. 83(3) UPCA and R. 5(6) RoP. The Court also refused a preliminary ruling under R. 361 RoP and a stay, restating the Court of Appeal's principle that proceedings are as a rule not stayed because the oral hearing at first instance should normally take place within one year.