UPC CFI, CD Paris, 1 September 2025: PO rejected regarding revocation action by straw man
20-11-2025 Print this page
Preliminary objection rejected in revocation action, claiming lack of jurisdiction because claimant in this revocation action is a straw company and effectively the same party as in previous proceedings regarding the same patent before the LD Düsseldorf (R. 19 RoP, R. 20 RoP, Article 33(4) UPCA).
Article 33(4) UPCA, second sentence, is not a provision on lis pendens, but rather a rule on derogatory jurisdiction that overrides the general competence of the central division for declaration of non-infringement actions and revocation actions. It grants jurisdiction to the local division previously seized to hear a case between the same parties concerning the same patent.
EU law, abuse of right and “straw companies” (Article 24 UPCA).
European Union law does not specifically provide for an institution corresponding to contractual simulation or explicitly regulate “straw companies”, but it does include a general principle of the prohibition of abuse of rights.
Insufficient evidence that the claimant for invalidity is a straw company.
The fact that the two companies resorted to substantially overlapping defence strategies, including having the same exhibits, does not mean that they are not conducting autonomous business activities or pursuing their own interests, even if, in this case, those interests converge in challenging the patent claimed by the applicant.
The UPC framework does not exclude that a patent may be attacked by different subjects, even if linked by organizational ties or commercial relationships, and by the means of different claims, even if structured in the same grounds of invalidity.
