A subsidiary is not the “same party” as its parent under Art. 33(4) UPCA if it has its own genuine business activity, regardless of corporate control
“Same party” is a strict concept. Parent and subsidiary are normally distinct parties, even with 100% shareholding or strong control. They are only treated as one if their interests are so identical that a decision against one would have res judicata effect against the other. The focus is on whether the claimant has its own genuine business activity and its own interest in revocation; if so, it is not a straw man.
The objecting party bears the burden under R. 171.1 RoP to prove lack of real operations and purely instrumental use.
The “single economic unit” doctrine from EU competition law is not transferable to the procedural question of party identity under Art. 33(4) UPCA
The “single undertaking” or “single economic unit” doctrine in competition law is designed to attribute liability and fines within a corporate group. It rests on economic unity and decisive influence, but does not abolish separate legal personality.
Art. 33(4) UPCA serves a different purpose: managing parallel proceedings and avoiding conflicting judgments. For that, the relevant test is identity or near‑identity of parties and litigation interests, not economic unity. Therefore, 100% ownership or presumed decisive influence cannot, by itself, establish that parent and subsidiary are the “same party” for UPC.
A stay of proceedings under R. 295(m) RoP is not justified merely by the risk of conflicting decisions, as this possibility is inherent in the UPCA framework
R. 295(m) RoP allows a stay where “the proper administration of justice so requires”. This must be interpreted in light of the right to effective judicial protection and a decision within a reasonable time.
The UPCA deliberately permits parallel validity paths (Central Division revocation and local division counterclaims), so some risk of divergent results is structurally accepted and cannot alone justify a stay. In this framework, staying the nullity action simply to await the outcome of the parallel Munich proceedings would unduly delay the claimant’s access to validity review without reliably avoiding inconsistent outcomes.
Leave to appeal may be refused if the legal question has already been clarified by the Court of Appeal, making a further appeal unnecessary for legal uniformity
The Unified Patent Court’s framework limits appeals against interlocutory orders. Under Rule 220.2 RoP, such orders are generally only appealable together with the final decision, or separately if the Court of First Instance grants leave within 15 days. If leave is refused, a party may request discretionary review by the Court of Appeal, but the standing judge may deny this without giving reasons, which underscores the selective nature of such review.
Division
Central Division Paris
UPC number
UPC_CFI_999/2025
Type of proceedings
Review of a preliminary objection in a nullity action
Parties
Claimant (Respondent to Review): ALD France S.A.S.
vs.
Defendant (Applicant for Review): Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG
Patent(s)
EP 3083107 B1
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 33(4) UPCA
R. 19 RoP
R. 171.1 RoP
R. 295(m) RoP
R. 333 RoP
