UPC CFI, LD Paris, 22 July 2025: joining infringment actions, bifurcation validity to Central Division, no stay of infringement action

Hearing together of two parallel actions based on the same patent concerning the same alleged infringing product (R. 302 RoP) in view of the very similar arguments put forward in defence, and in view of the parallel evidence preservation measures that were carried out and which were the subject of almost identical criticism in defence, it is good administrative practice to examine the two cases together and, to that end, to order their joinder. 

Bifurcation of the counterclaims for invalidity for reasons of economy and efficiency to the Central Division, which was first seized of the application for revocation of the patent (Article 33(3) (b) UPCA). It is appropriate to order the bifurcation of the counterclaims for patent invalidity to the Central Division. This takes into account the fact that the Central Division was first seized of the application for revocation of the patent and should therefore deliver its decision more quickly, and that the arguments on the validity of the patent developed by VEOLIA before the Central Division are virtually identical to those developed in the counterclaims before this local division by VALINEA and MAGUIN. 

No stay of infringement action granted pending the outcome of the parallel action before the Central Division (R. 295(m) RoP) to avoid slowing down the infringement proceedings, which is in the interest of the claimant, but also in the interest of the defendants, as the duration of this dispute inevitably has an economic impact, particularly for companies in the VEOLIA group (such as VALINEA), a direct competitor of PAPREC, to which TIRU belongs, in the waste treatment by incineration market.
 

IPPT20250722, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Tiru v Maguin