2026-09-09 - LD Paris - BYD v. BMS Innovations - UPC-CFI-0002437/2026

Headnotes : 1-The defendant cannot seriously argue, under R. 61.1 RoP, that it did not have sufficiently precise and comprehensive information to enable it to take a position,given that, on the one hand, Claimant's letter of 18 May 2026 was sent in the context of a pending infringement action between the same parties and relating to the same patent and on the other hand, although claiming to be insufficiently informed, it did not request any further technical information in its response. 2- The present case does not correspond to any of the scenarios covered by R361 RoP and the ground for inadmissibility is not clearly recognisable without further examination. 3- No absolute procedural obstacle; The bar is neither obvious, nor absolute nor irremediable. Notes : 1- Le défendeur ne peut sérieusement soutenir, en vertu de la règle 61.1 du Règlement de procédure, qu’il ne disposait pas d’informations suffisamment précises et complètes pour lui permettre de prendre position, étant donné que, d’une part, la lettre du demandeur du 18 mai 2026 a été envoyée dans le cadre d’une action en contrefaçon en cours entre les mêmes parties et portant sur le même brevet et, d’autre part, qu’il n’a sollicité aucune information technique complémentaire dans sa réponse. 2- La présente affaire ne correspond à aucun des cas de figure visés par la règle 361 du règlement de procédure et le motif d’irrecevabilité n’est pas clairement identifiable sans un examen plus approfondi. 3- Absence d’obstacle procédural absolu ; l’obstacle n’est ni évident, ni absolu, ni irrémédiable.

The Paris Local Division (judge-rapporteur Gillet) refused to dismiss or stay an action for a declaration of non-infringement that the accused infringers had brought five months into the patentee's infringement action and alongside their counterclaim for revocation. On R. 61.1 RoP the Court held that the pre-action letter gave sufficiently precise and comprehensive particulars: it photographed and described the redesigned product, identified the claim feature said to be absent and the acts said not to infringe, and it was sent in the context of a pending infringement action between the same parties on the same patent, while the patentee, though pleading ignorance, asked for no further technical information in its reply. On R. 361 RoP the Court applied the Court of Appeal's line that the provision is reserved for clear-cut cases needing no in-depth analysis: the DNI action fell within none of its three scenarios, and whether a claim is sufficiently substantiated is not decided under that rule. R. 362 RoP is confined to an absolute, obvious and irremediable procedural bar such as res judicata. Filing a DNI action at the same time as a counterclaim for revocation is the exercise of a right that R. 77 RoP expressly provides for, not an abuse. The alternative stay was refused because the patentee could have responded or sought further information when it received the letter. The order carries three headnotes.