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:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- REDACTED PARTY, Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v. Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges. m. b. H.
Kernaussage: The Paris Central Division dismissed a revocation action and, in two headnotes, settled how a limitation granted by the European Patent Office during pending UPC revocation proceedings affects those proceedings.
2026-06-25 - CD Paris - Chainzone Technology (Foshan) et al.
v.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme - UPC_CFI_425/2025
landmark
The Paris Central Division dismissed a revocation action and, in two headnotes, settled how a limitation granted by the European Patent Office during pending UPC revocation proceedings affects those proceedings. Because a limitation decision takes effect for all contracting states and retroactively under Art. 105b(3) and Art. 68 EPC, the limited version is the only legally effective version at the close of the court proceedings, and the Court therefore assesses validity in that version. Art. 105a(2) EPC, which bars a limitation request while an opposition is pending, cannot be applied by analogy to court revocation proceedings: neither the EPC nor the UPCA extends the bar, and Art. 33(10) UPCA positively contemplates parallel EPO and UPC proceedings — opposition, limitation and revocation alike — providing for a stay where a rapid EPO decision is expected, so there is no unintended lacuna. The EPO's limitation decision is an autonomous administrative act not open to indirect review by this Court, so objections to the admissibility of the limitation request were irrelevant. On the merits all grounds failed. The claim was held sufficiently disclosed, no added matter was found, novelty was established over each cited document, and inventive step was upheld from every realistic starting point relied on, two of the intervener's documents being rejected as starting points because they belong to the field of image projectors and address a different problem.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Novelty was established over every cited document: D1 lacks features M10, M11 and M14 [88]-[90]; D2 lacks M12, teaching at least one rounded corner instead [95]-[96]; D1' lacks M3 and M10 [99]-[102]; D2', D3' and D4' were also held not to anticipate [103]-[105].”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Inventive step was upheld from each realistic starting point pursued — D1, D2, D8, D10 and D3' [119]-[151] — and D4' and D6' were held not to be realistic starting points at all, belonging to the field of image projectors [153]-[156].”
Added Matter
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“The attack under Art. 138(1)(c) EPC on features M10, M11 and M12 failed: the original application discloses that the focus lies 'im Bereich' of the light exit, and claim 13's reference to all surfaces being polished does not change the skilled person's understanding [77]-[81].”
Insufficiency of Disclosure
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 83 EPC · Art. 138(1)(b) EPC
“The Art. 138(1)(b) EPC attack on the combination of M10 and M11 failed: the skilled person can define a virtual light exit and position it in the focus region of the collecting lens 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).