Article 65
Print this pageDecision on the validity of a patent
1. The Court shall decide on the validity of a patent on the basis of an action for revocation or a counterclaim for revocation.
2. The Court may revoke a patent, either entirely or partly, only on the grounds referred to in Articles 138(1) and 139(2) of the EPC.
3. Without prejudice to Article 138(3) of the EPC, if the grounds for revocation affect the patent only in part, the patent shall be limited by a corresponding amendment of the claims and revoked in part.
4. To the extent that a patent has been revoked it shall be deemed not to have had, from the outset, the effects specified in Articles 64 and 67 of the EPC.
5. Where the Court, in a final decision, revokes a patent, either entirely or partly, it shall send a copy of the decision to the European Patent Office and, with respect to a European patent, to the national patent office of any Contracting Member State concerned.
Case Law
Court of Appeal
IPPT20260422, UPC CFI CD Paris, Huntsman v BASF
Patent maintained in amended form. Court must examine the standing to sue on its own motion. Revocation action admissible despite patent expiry (Article 65 UPCA). A revocation action remains admissible after expiry if infringement damages for the past are at stake. Claimants had a legitimate interest due to pending enforcement actions (evidence preservation and damages). Application to amend the patent (R. 30 RoP). When examining the auxiliary claims, the court is bound by the arguments put forward by the plaintiff regarding their patentability and takes only those into account. The grounds cited in the main claim with respect to the granted version are therefore taken into account when examining the auxiliary claims only if the plaintiff invokes them.
IPPT20260217, UPC CoA, Rematec v Europe Forestry
Revocation decision set aside (Article 65 UPCA).
IPPT202511225, UPC CoA, Amgen v Sanofi & Regeneron
IPPT20251125, UPC CoA, Meril v Edwards
General principles regarding inventive step (Article 56 EPC). The burden and presentation of proof lies with the claimant in a revocation action (Art. 54 and 65(1) UPCA, R. 44(e)-(g), 25.1(b)-(d) RoP). Even though proof of certain facts, if contested, may be required, the assessment of the relevant facts and circumstances is a question of law.
Court of First Instance
IPPT20260318, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Veolia v Tiru
Patent valid in amended form (Article 65 UPCA, Article 123 (3) EPC ).
IPPT20260311, UPC CFI, LD Munich, NST v Qualcomm
Patent revoked and not infringed (Article 65 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA). Added matter in claim 1 and 5 .(Article 138 1(c)) The skilled person cannot infer directly and unambiguously that “network interface means” are coupled between the modules and the network, being structurally interposed between them.
Patent valid and not infringed. (Article 65 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA) Claim interpretation on the basis of the language of the patent (German) (Article 69 EPC, Article 70 (1) EPC).
IPPT20260421, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Dainese v Alpinestars
Dismissal of revocation action (Article 65 |UPCA) and of infringement action (Article 25 UPCA).
IPPT20260416, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Corning v TCL
Injunction granted for (partly uncontested) infringement claim (Article 25 UPCA). Counterclaim for revocation rejected (Article 65 UPCA)(Cfr: IPPT20260224, UPC CFI, CD Munich, TCL Europe v Corning)
IPPT20260318, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Cup&Cino v Alpina
Patent valid and infringed (Article 65 UPCA , Article 25(a) UPCA , Article 26 UPCA). Permanent injunction granted for recall and destruction of goods. (Article 63(1) UPCA)
IPPT20260224, UPC CFI, CD Munich, TCL Europe v Corning
Revocation action dismissed (Article 65 UPCA). Inventive step (Article 56 EPC).
IPPT20260224, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, TRUMPF v IPG
Patent valid and infringed (Article 25 UPCA , Article 65 UPCA).
IPPT20260212, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Align v Angelalign
Preliminary injunction granted . (Article 62(1) UPCA , Rule 209 RoP, Rule 211 RoP) . Infringement is assumed. Late filed non infringement arguments submitted in the rejoinder. (Article 25 (a)UPCA, Rule 52 RoP). Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC) Defendants disagreement with claim interpretation applied by the EPO in the examination concerning lack of validity of the patent does not mean that the burden of proof should shift to the patent proprietor (Article 65 UPCA, Article 54 UPCA). It is not more likely than not that the patent in suit is not valid(Article 65 UPCA). The mere fact that the Applicant has relied on combinations of claim 1 with sub-claims, does not lead to the invalidity of claim 1 being more likely than not.
IPPT20260116, UPC CFI LD Paris, IMC Creations v Mul-T-Lock
Unitary patent valid (Article 65 UPCA) and infringed (Article 25 UPCA). Permanent injunction granted.(Article 63 UPCA)
IPPT20260115, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona Patents v Google
Patent valid (Article 65 UPCA) but not infringed. (Article 25 UPCA)
IPPT20260112, UPC CFI, CD Paris, WhiteWater v American Wave
Decision by default (Rule 355 RoP). Patent partially revoked (Article 65 UPCA). Claim 1 lacks inventive step (Article 56 EPC).
IPPT20251218, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Polidoro v Bekaert
Counterclaim for revocation unfounded (Article 65 UPCA),
IPPT20251210, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, MAS Maschinen v Altech
Revocation dismissed (Article 65 UPCA). Substantiating of grounds for revocation (R. 25 RoP). If the applicant for a declaration of invalidity relies on a lack of inventive step to support their application, it is not sufficient merely to name the documents on which they base their challenge. Rather, it is for him to explain the disclosure content of the relevant documents and, furthermore, to set out specifically why and how a person skilled in the art would combine the individual documents and thus arrive at the claimed solution without exercising an inventive step. The defendant’s submissions do not meet this requirement.
IPPT20251128, UPC CFI, LD Munich, JingAo Solar v Chint
Counterclaim for revocation dismissed (Article 65 UPCA).
IPPT20260107, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno
European patent revoked (Article 65 UPCA) Added subject matter (Article 138 EPC) .
IPPT20251219, UPC CFI, LD Munich, GXB-Bio Corporation v Myriad
Patent revoked for added matter. (Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 65(2) UPCA)
IPPT20251212, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Sanofi v Zentiva
Counterclaim for revocation of a secondary use medical claim patent successful, patent revoked in entirety. Infringement action dismissed. (Article 56 EPC, Article 65 UPCA , Article 25 UPCA) . Validity - Inventive step (Article 56 EPC). The invention of the patent is obvious over the clinical trial document cited as prior art (Phase III TROPIC trial (NHSC). Test to determine inventive step of a second medical use claim same as in (Amgen v. Sanofi-Aventis)
IPPT20251127, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Pai Pharma v Philips
Partial revocation (Article 65(3) UPCA). Auxiliary request 1 inadmissible: leaves the amendment of the patent to the discretion of the Court, and is furthermore illogical, thus perplex.
IPPT20251118, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Advanced Cell Diagnostics v Molecular Instruments
Patents valid (Article 65 UPCA) but not infringed (Article 25 UPCA).
IPPT20251030, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Van Loon v Inverquark
An examination of the validity of the patent is not to be carried out in the present proceedings. (Art 65 UPCA).
IPPT20251020, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences
Patent maintained in amended form (Article 65 UPCA), direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA).
IPPT20251010, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, HL Display v Black Sheep Retail
Revocation dismissed (Article 65 UPCA).
IPPT20250829, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, City Glass v Maars
Patent valid (Article 65 UPCA) but not infringed (Article 25 UPCA, Article 69 EPC).
IPPT20250822, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Brita v Aquashield
When plaintiff defends the contested disputed patent only to a limited extent in accordance with the respective sets of claims (Article 65(3) UPCA), there is no need to investigate whether subordinate claims of the contested patent in the registered version are to be declared partially invalid and, if necessary, upheld in combination with uncontested (sub)claims, since the court must decide in accordance with the parties' submissions (Article 76(1) UPCA).
IPPT20250813, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Winnow v Orbisk
Patent partially revoked (Article 65 UPCA); not infringed (Article 25 UPCA).
IPPT20250730, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics
Patent revoked to the extent of claim 1 because of added matter (Article 65 UPCA).
IPPT20250728, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Essetre Holding
Revocation rejected, patent maintained in amended form (Article 65 UPCA).
IPPT20250722, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Eoflow v Insulet
Direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA), revocation action dismissed by default (Article 65 UPCA, R. 355 RoP).
IPPT20250721, UPC CFI, RD Nordic Baltic, Edwards v Meril
Article 65(3) UPCA applies to limitations of the patent as granted but not to applications to amend the patent.
IPPT20250721, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Sibio v Abbott
Revocation dismissed, maintained as granted (Article 65 UPCA).
IPPT20250718, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - II
Infringement action dismissed for lack of patentability of UK part of European bundle patent (Article 25 UPCA, Article 65 UPCA). Reference is made to the decision of 2 April 2025.
IPPT20250710, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Nera Innovations v Xiaomi
Patent upheld in limited form (Article 65 UPCA).
IPPT20250616, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Steros v Otec
PI granted. Sufficient degree of certainty regarding the validity of the patent in suit (Article 65 UPCA, R. 209 RoP) lacks if the Court considers it on the balance of probabilities to be more likely than not that the patent is invalid. The burden of presentation and proof for facts concerning the lack of validity of the patent in suit lies with the defendant. It should be noted that the assessment of these probabilities is based on an examination of how the Court – consisting of a panel including a technical qualified judge – would probably decide about the revocation of the patent in the event of a counterclaim on the merits. Decisions of other European Courts or decisions of the EPO concerning the same patent do not bind the Court but may provide helpful indications that the Court may take into account. Defendant was unable to demonstrate that feature group 1.1 was directly and unambiguously disclosed by the public prior use (Article 54 EPC). It can be noted that the attacked embodiment and the alleged prior use differ in their composition, so that no conclusion can be drawn regarding the measurements of the attacked embodiment with regard to the public prior use.
IPPT20250606, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Tiroler Rohre v SSAB
Patent partially invalid (Article 65 UPCA) and infringed (Article 25 UPCA).
IPPT20250606, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Dish v Aylo
Partial revocation (Article 65 UPCA). Revocation of dependent subclaims (Article 65 UPCA). There is generally no legal interest in the isolated removal of dependent subclaims by means of an action for annulment (or counterclaim) without removing the independent claim to which they refer. The subject matter of the patent in suit is not extended by these subclaims as such. Appropriate number of auxiliary request depends on the circumstances of the case and the number of attacks on the patent in suit may also be taken into account (R. 30.1 c) RoP)
IPPT20250529, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Lindal v Rocep-Lusol
Revocation action dismissed; patent maintained as amended by the First Auxiliary request (Article 65 UPCA).
IPPT20250528, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Aylo Premium v Dish Technologies
German part (only) of European patent revoked (Article 65 UPCA). The Unified Patent Court can revoke European patents for one or more individual UPC Member States if so requested (Article 34 UPCA, Article 76 UPCA).
IPPT20250523, UPC LD Paris, Hurom v NUC
Dutch, French, German and Italian parts of European patent revoked as amended (Article 138(1) EPC, Article 65(2) UPCA); infringement claims concerning Poland admissible but dismissed as unfounded.
IPPT20250513, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Sanofi v Amgen
Second medical use claims: both infringement action and counterclaim for revocation unfounded (Article 25 UPCA, Article 65 UPCA).
IPPT20250508, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Grundfos v Hefei
Patent infringed (Article 25 UPCA) and valid (Article 65 UPCA).
IPPT20250430, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Kinexon v Ballinno
Patent revoked (Article 65 UPCA): lack of novelty (claim 8) and lack of inventive step.
IPPT20250430, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, AGFA v Gucci
Both infringement action (Article 25 UPCA) and counterclaim for revocation (Article 65 UPCA) dismissed. Counterclaim for revocation may attack the patent in its entirety, even though single claims are not a part of the infringement request (Article 32(1)(e) UPCA, Article 65 UPCA).
IPPT20250410, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Yellow Sphere v Tabbert
Direct patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA), revocation dismissed:
IPPT20250404, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards v Meril
Direct infringement of patent (Article 25 UPCA), counterclaim for revocation dismissed (Article 65 UPCA).
IPPT20250402, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - II
Patent revoked (Article 65 UPCA). Lack of inventive step . Partially fending off counterclaim for revocation –(Article 65(3) UPCA. R. 30 RoP) requires filing a proper request specifying the extent to which the patent-in-dispute shall be maintained in part. A separate defence of dependent claims as granted is not admissible in the case at hand. Claimant did not properly apply for an amendment of the patent-in-suit based on dependant claims or a combination thereof as new independent claim.
IPPT20250402, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - I
Revocation counterclaim dismissed (Article 65 UPCA). .
IPPT20250228, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY v Juul Labs
Patent maintained in amended form (Article 65 UPCA).
IPPT20250219, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Lionra v Cisco
Infringement claim and counterclaim for revocation unfounded.
IPPT20250131, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Rematec v Europe Forestry
Patent in suit declared null and void (Article 65 UPCA). Product claim 1 lacks novelty (Article 54 EPC). All the features of device claim 1 are directly and unambiguously known from document D3. Process claim 15 lacks an inventive step.
IPPT20250128, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Fujifilm v Kodak
Patent revoked in the territory of all Contracting Member States in which the patent has effect (Article 65 UPCA). Insufficient disclosure of the claimed invention over the complete scope of the granted claims. (Article 83 EPC, Article 138(2) EPC).
IPPT20250122, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY v VMR
EP 453 maintained in part based on claims 6, 7 and 8 in combination with claim 1 as granted (Article 65 UPCA). Alternative request to maintain the patent at suit with respect to one or more of its dependent claims is a sufficiently clear request (Article 65 UPCA), even if it does not specify a particular claim, and, as such, imposes on the Court the obligation to rule on the matter and decide which claims, if any, remain valid.
IPPT20250121, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY Netherlands v VMR Products
Revocation action dismissed (Article 65 UPCA). Court not convinced that it would have been obvious to suggest the claimed vaporizer, regardless of ‘Cross’ being combined with an alleged common general knowledge or with ‘Lee’.
IPPT20250117, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY Netherlands v Juul Labs
Patent revoked because of ‘added matter (Article 65 UPCA)(Article 138(1)(c) EPC). It extends beyond the content of the European Patent Application as filed (MWE 3) and beyond the content of the parent application (MWE 4).
IPPT20241226, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Advanced Bionics v MED-EL
Revocation rejected, maintained as amended by auxiliary request (Article 65 UPCA).
IPPT20241218, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Tandem Diabetes Care v Roche Diabetes Care
Revocation action dismissed; EP 231 maintained as granted (Article 65 UPCA).
IPPT20241211, UPC CFI, LD Paris, DexCom v Abbott
EP 282 revoked (Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 65(2) UPCA). Lack of inventive step claim 1 as granted (article 56 EPC): the invention set out in claim 1 as granted does not involve an inventive step when considered in view of Valdes combined with Goodnow. Two aspects of the solution - the presence of a server between the host and the remote devices, and an invitation scheme – are rendered obvious by Goodnow. Added matter auxiliary requests (Article 138(1)(c) EPC) claim 1 according to the auxiliary requests extends the subject-matter of the European patent beyond the content of the earlier application as filed. “Whole-content approach” must be adopted in the present case to determine added matter. Question to be addressed is whether the skilled person considering claim 1 would be confronted with new technical information based on what was derivable, directly and unambiguously, from the whole contents of the description, claims and figures of WO 631.
IPPT20241129, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY Netherlands v VMR Products
Revocation EP 740 dismissed (Article 65 UPCA). No alleged lack of inventive step. The validity of the independent claim 1 justifies validity of the dependent claims 2 – 6.
IPPT20241127, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY Netherlands v VMR Products
Patent revoked in its entirety (Article 65 UPCA). Lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC).
IPPT20241105, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY v Juul - I
EP 115 revoked. Added subject matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC): No parts of the disclosure that would show the skilled person a preferred embodiment, in which the mouthpiece is affixed to a second end of the fluid storage compartment without enclosing the fluid storage compartment. Court may amend the patent, independent from auxiliary request (Article 65(3) UPCA). Independent of an application to amend the patent as may be filed by the patent proprietor (R 50 (2) RoP) the Court, according to Art. 65 (3) UPCA, limits the patent by a corresponding amendment of the claims and revokes it (only) in part. Article 65(3) UPCA only pertains to the granted not to an application to amend the patent. No obligation to the Court to evaluate, if an application to amend the patent filed by the patent owner can be allowed in part. Within an application to amend the patent a certain claim set is either allowable (as such; the complete claim set proposed) or not. Defendant’s request is unclear and for this reason unallowable. Defendant did not file any particular claim-sets that would indicate to the Court, which combinations of claims the Defendant would want the Court to examine under request (2) d. in which order.
IPPT20241010, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Seoul Viosys v epert e-Commerce - II
Patent revoked (Article 65 UPCA). Lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC). On this basis, a person skilled in the art who approaches the embodiment shown in (prior art) Figures 23 to 26 on the basis of the description will come to the conclusion that the light-emitting diode forming the subject matter of this embodiment has several, but at least two electrodes (140).
IPPT20240916, UPC CFI, CD Paris, BMW v ITCiCo Spain
Decision by default in revocation action (Article 65 UPCA, R. 355 RoP).
IPPT20240826, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Avago v Tesla
Partial revocation (Article 65(3) UPCA). In the opinion of the local division, a patent only be revoked in nullity proceedings before the UPC to the extent that the grounds for revocation are sufficient, so that a patent can also remain (partially) in force to the extent of individual independent patent claims within the scope of the complete set of claims filed as the main or auxiliary request, if this corresponds to the procedural concern of the patent proprietor.
IPPT20240704, UPC CFI, LD Paris, DexCom v Abbott
Patent revoked because of lack of inventive step. Reasons for validity dependent claims to be presented by patentee (Article 65(2) UPCA). It is not for the Court to provide reasons why any of the grounds for revocation referred to in Art. 65(2) UPCA, as presented by ABBOTT, would not apply to dependent claims 2 to 9.
