UPC CFI , LD Paris, 16 January 2026 : Unitary patents, common general knowledge of skilled person, cross border injunction and more.

28-04-2026 Print this page
Editor:
Navya Vade
IPPT20260116, UPC CFI LD Paris, IMC Creations v Mul-T-LockĀ 

Unitary patent valid (Article 65 UPCA) and infringed (Article 25 UPCA). Permanent injunction granted.(Article 63 UPCA

 

Inventive step - common general knowledge of the skilled person (Article 56 EPC

Documents not part of common general knowledge :

 Document not sufficiently widely disseminated to form part of the basic knowledge of a person skilled in the art. 

 If they constitute specialized literature, and it has not been established that they are documents forming part of the basic technical background .

 

Cross border injunction for infringement of Swiss part of European patent, denied. (Article 4 Brussels  Regulation

Infringement of the national part of the European patent granted by a state outside the UPC is assesed in light of the european patent as originally granted. The Local Division is unable to assess the substance of the alleged infringement of the Swiss portion of the patent and cannot stay proceedings, in the absence of pending invalidity proceedings in Switzerland. 

 

A unitary patent takes effect retroactively, (Articles 64(1) , 68 EPC , Article 4(1) Unitary patent regulation

as of the date of the European patent became a unitary patent, pursuant to the combined provisions of Articles 64(1) and 68 of the EPC and Article 4(1) of the Unitary patent regulation.  

Furthermore, the patent as granted, so long as it has not been judicially invalidated, is deemed valid from the date of its grant.

 

Defendant cannot rely on exempting itself from liability on grounds that it did not know or had no reasonable grounds to know it was infringing (Article 68(4) UPCA

when, on the one hand, it exploited the product alleged to be infringing without taking any steps to revoke the patent, and, 

on the other hand, that it could not rule out the possibility of a subsequent limitation of the patent  which is conflicting with the statement of defence, made prior to the amendment to the patent. 

 

IPPT20260116, UPC CFI LD Paris, IMC Creations v Mul-T-Lock