ARTICLE
24 August 2026

LD Paris, August 19, 2026, Infringement Action With Conditional Counterclaim For Revocation, UPC_CFI_301/2025 And UPC_CFI_713/2025

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
The Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision on the merits in an infringement action brought by Orange SA against HMD Global Oy concerning European Patent EP 2 345 029. The case involved jurisdictions across France, Germany, and Italy, with the defendant filing a conditional counterclaim for revocation under Article 33(3) of the UPCA and Article 69 of the EPC.
France Intellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
  • within Technology topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

Making a counterclaim for revocation conditional upon a finding of infringement is permissible under Art. 33(3) UPCA and promotes procedural economy.

Where the defendant requests, and the claimant does not object, that the counterclaim be decided only if infringement is found, the court may examine infringement first and defer the validity analysis to a later stage, if at all needed.

This intra-procedural conditioning aligns with established case law from other Local Divisions and the Court of Appeal, allowing the court to avoid a redundant validity assessment once infringement is not established, thereby saving procedural resources.

The claimant bears the burden of proving infringement, and a claim scope excluding transmission of additional corrective data cannot be satisfied by an implementation relying on such data.

The claimant must establish that the accused standard-compliant products necessarily implement every claimed feature, based on the claim as construed in light of Art. 69 EPC and its Interpretative Protocol, from the perspective of the skilled person.

Where the accused implementation relies on a mechanism transmitting additional corrective information to resolve aliasing at a coding transition, this falls outside the claimed solution, since the patent expressly presents avoidance of such additional data transmission as its technical contribution.

This conclusion applied irrespective of whether the corrective mechanism was optional or mandatory under the relevant industry standard, since the decisive question was whether the claimed technical effect could be achieved without transmitting extra data.

2. Division

Paris Local Division

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_301/2025; UPC_CFI_713/2025

4. Type of proceedings

Infringement action with conditional counterclaim for revocation (decision on the merits)

5. Parties

Claimant: Orange SA

Defendant: HMD Global Oy

6. Patent(s)

EP 2 345 029

7. Jurisdictions

France, Germany, Italy

8. Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 33(3) UPCA, Art. 69 EPC

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More