CD Paris, December 18, 2024, decision in revocation action, UPC_CFI_454/2023

Even if a standstill provision requiring pre-suit notification is breached, this does not affect the Court’s jurisdiction or the admissibility of the action. The Court emphasized that access to justice is a fundamental right (Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU), but that such a breach may have contractual implications.

The Court highlighted again the principle of ‘front-loaded’ proceedings by excluding late-filed prior art (documents ‘Menot’ and ‘Lieberman’) and invalidity arguments. This emphasizes the importance of Rules 13 and 44 RoP, requiring parties to present their complete case early on for procedural efficiency and fairness.

The Court rejected the added matter objection, finding that the disputed feature (feature 1.5) was sufficiently disclosed in the initial application, thus complying with Article 123(2) EPC. Particularly, the Court held that feature 1.5, which was introduced into the claim and another feature, which was ommited, were “not related one to the other” (mn. 54) so that the intermediate generalization was deemed admissible.

‘Diaz’ describes a medication delivery system with a flexible reservoir and a pump assembly. The Court identified that ‘Diaz’ did not disclose feature 1.3iii, as the figures showed a gap between the flexible reservoir and the rigid structure, indicating no limitation on the reservoir’s expansion. The Court also noted that ‘Robertson’, which relates to a container for solid medicaments, did not provide any suggestions to modify ‘Diaz’ to include the missing features. The combination of ‘Diaz’ and ‘Robertson’ was deemed insufficient to affect the inventive step of claim 1.

The Court reiterated that neither ‘Glejboel’, ‘Diaz’, nor ‘Robertson’ disclosed feature 1.3iii. Consequently, the combination of these documents could not affect the inventive step of claim 1.