UPC_CFI_130/2025 – TIRU v Valinea
- Court
- Local Division Paris
- Date
- Outcome
- Denied
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- MERITS
Expert Commentary
Seizure not valid? Abuse of proceedings Facts 1. TIRU alleges infringement of EP 3 178 578. 2. Valinea disputes the validity of an evidentiary seizure, asserting the expert was biased because he had held a meeting with the claimant before the seizure, and had not correctly stated the information obtained from certain persons. 3. The Local Division had sent the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division, because a revocation action was already pending before that Division. 4. The Central Division maintained the patent. The Court 1. The Court rejects the allegations with respect to the seizure. 2. The Court adopts the same claim interpretation as the Central Division. 3. The Court concludes that several claim features are not infringed. 4. With respect to equivalence, the Court adopts the test of the Local Division in The Hague. 5. The Court rejects a claim by defendants for abuse of proceedings. 6. The Court awards costs up to the ceiling, because the actual costs exceed the ceiling. Comment 1. It is quite customary in France to raise procedural objections against the acceptance of evidence (here the evidentiary seizure). One of the stories I was told about procedural niceties in France: a young associate of the law firm bought the infringing product in France while the bailiff stayed outside the shop and testified that he had seen her going in the shop without and coming out of the shop with the infringing product. However, after a procedural objection, the Court held that there was no evidence that the infringing product was sold in France. 2. The foregoing is certainly not the attitude of the Paris Local Division, which rejects all objections with respect to the neutrality of the expert and shows realism. Of course, every responsible expert will organize a briefing in order to know what the case is all about, what kind of evidence the claimant is looking for, etc. 3. The same is true for a claim for abuse of procedure. The Court is right that such a counterclaim belongs to the competence of the UPC, but of course such a claim will only have success in extreme situations. In this case, the claim clearly lacked basis. 4. The equivalence test of the Local Division The Hague is popular. Also in this case, the risk and uncertainty which that theory can cause, do not play a role, because the Court rightly held that there was no technical equivalence. 5. The Court deals with costs in an efficient way. The parties have established that they spent more than the ceiling, so the Court awards the ceiling. 6. The Local Division gives its decision in 14 months, which in view of the various complications is a perfect result in accordance with the Rules. 7. Living in Paris during a heat wave (with this week a temperature of 34 degrees Celsius), I am happy that the garbage is collected and can be incinerated. This would have been a good example of an injunction (to stop the ovens used by the city of Paris) being disproportionate!
Key Holdings
- The Court rejected objections regarding the validity of an evidentiary seizure, including claims of expert bias.
- The Court adopted the Central Division's claim interpretation and found that several claim features were not infringed.
- The equivalence test of the Local Division in The Hague was applied, concluding there was no technical equivalence.
- A claim for abuse of proceedings was rejected, with the Court affirming UPC competence for such claims but noting their limited success in extreme situations.
- Costs were awarded up to the ceiling, acknowledging that the actual costs incurred by the parties exceeded this amount.
Tags
- Evidentiary Seizure
- Abuse of Proceedings
- Infringement
- Revocation
- Claim Construction
- Doctrine of Equivalence
- Costs
- Procedural Law