Casalonga UPC rules of procedure
Powered by Casalonga

 Case Law
Rule 44: Contents of the Statement for revocation

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat, Order dated 21/01/2025, NJOY Netherlands B.V. v. VMR Products LLC (Case/ Registry number: ACT_571745/2023, ORD_598528/2023)
Example of a decision on identifying realistic starting points in assessing inventive step: "In order to assess whether or not a claimed invention lacks inventive step, it is first necessary to determine one or more realistic starting points in the state of the art, which would be of interest to a person skilled in the art who, at the priority date of the patent in suit, was seeking to develop a product or process similar to that disclosed in the prior art. In particular, realistic starting points are the documents which disclose the main relevant features as those disclosed in the challenged patent or which address the same or a similar underlying problem.
(...)In this regard, it must be noted that Rule 44 ‘RoP’ requires an “indication” of the facts relied on and this seems to support an interpretation of the relevant provisions contrary to an overly strict application of the ‘front loaded’ procedural system."

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat, Order dated 17/01/2025, NJOY Netherlands B.V. v. Juul Labs International, Inc. (Case/ Registry number: ACT_571808/2023, ORD_598564/2023)
Example of a decision on illustrating procedural front-loading: "Due to the front-loaded approach of the UPC system, R44 RoP requires the Statement for revocation to contain an indication of the facts relied on (R44 (f) RoP) and the evidence relied on, where available and an indication of any further evidence which will be offered in support (R44 (g) RoP). Similarly, the RoP contain provisions which define the admissible content of the further submissions. The parties are under an obligation to set out their full case as early as possible (Preamble RoP 7, last sentence) and to provide all their legal and factual arguments, and any evidence supporting it in a timely manner."

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat, Order dated 29/11/2024, NJOY Netherlands BV v. VMR Products LLC (Case/ Registry number: UPC_CFI_307/2024, ORD_598496/2023)
Example of decision on common general knowledge: "The common general knowledge is information which has been commonly known to the skilled person from written sources or from practical experience in the relevant technical field available at the prior date: it includes knowledge which is directly available from familiar sources of information relating to the specific technical field but does not necessarily include all the publicly available knowledge, which may not be general and common."

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat, Order dated 27/11/2024, NJOY Netherlands B.V. v. VMR Products LLC (Case/ Registry number: ACT_571565/2023, ORD_598498/2023)
Example of decision on the "front loaded" procedural system: "1. The Unified Patent Court legal provisions introduce the so-called ‘front loaded’ procedural system whereby a claimant is required to concretely elaborate his arguments and evidence in its first written pleading. However, these provisions must be interpreted in the light of the principle of proportionality, which requires that the parties should not be burdened with tasks that are unnecessary to achieve the stated objective, and in the light of the principle of procedural efficiency, which is contrary to excessive and overly detailed allegations of facts and production of multiple documents in relation to matters that can be presumed to be known to the opposing party and not to be disputed by them.
2. In revocation actions, the claimant is required to specify in detail the grounds of invalidity that allegedly affect the contested patent, as well as the prior art documents relied upon to support any allegation of lack of novelty or inventive step. Consequently, the claimant cannot introduce new grounds of invalidity of the attacked patent or introduce new documents considered novelty destroying or convincing starting points for the assessment of lack of inventive step in subsequent written acts.
3. In certain situation, following the defence raised by the defendant, the claimant may allege new facts and new evidence, insofar as they are considered capable of supporting the main facts already timely alleged and disputed by the defendant or the probative value of the evidence already filed.
4. While it is in general questionable that a particular published patent application or a patent specification can be considered as an indication of common general knowledge, however the statement of the author of the patent that a teaching is widely spread at the time can used as evidence of the fact that this teaching forms part of common general knowledge."