2024-09-16 - CD Paris - Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. Itcico Spain - UPC_CFI_412/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_412/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
- Art:
- Application Order
- Parteien:
- Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. ITCiCo Spain S.L.
Kernaussage: In the first substantive elaboration of Rule 355 RoP, the Paris Central Division granted BMW's revocation action by default against ITCiCo, revoking EP 2 796 333 in its entirety.
2024-09-16 - CD Paris - Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
v.
Itcico Spain - UPC_CFI_412/2023
notable
In the first substantive elaboration of Rule 355 RoP, the Paris Central Division granted BMW's revocation action by default against ITCiCo, revoking EP 2 796 333 in its entirety. The panel distilled three cumulative conditions for default decisions under Rule 355 RoP: (i) claimant's request; (ii) expiry of the defence time limit following proper service; and (iii) the claimant's facts justifying the remedy with no procedural obstacle. It confirmed that a statement of claim can be validly served under Rule 271 RoP without its annexes, because annexes have an evidentiary function and are not an integral part of the document instituting proceedings within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784. On the merits, the panel found claims 1 and 8 anticipated by US 2011/0267205 A1 ('D9') under Art. 54 EPC, and found all dependent claims lacking novelty or inventive step in view of D9 combined with D11, D12, D13 and D14. Costs were shifted to the defendant with a €1 million value for the scale of recoverable costs.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“The panel found independent claims 1 and 8 lack novelty in view of US 2011/0267205 A1 ('D9') under Art. 54(2) EPC, holding that all features — including the compliance-signal/non-compliance-signal outcomes and the time-threshold feature — are disclosed in D9 [27]–[40].”
Inventive Step
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“The panel found the dependent claims (2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13) lack inventive step under Art. 56 EPC starting from D9 as the closest prior art, combined with D11, D12, D13 and D14 as appropriate [41]–[67]; claim 4 was held not to add anything beyond D9 [52]–[53].”