Paris Central Division

Paris Central Division: revocation dismissed, patent survives in amended form – costs split 70 / 30 against the challenger

Decision of 28 July 2025, UPC_CFI_239/2024 (ACT_28227/2024)

Background of the action

The case was based on a revocation action against Essetre Holding’s EP 2 875 923 B1 (machine for machining wood-based wall elements). Essetre replied with an unconditional main request (plus auxiliary requests) that inserted a new feature.

Claim construction

The case centred on the seemingly harmless phrase “a working surface”. The Court held — after reviewing the specification’s ambition to eliminate lateral carriages — that “a” means one working surface shared by two opposing support frames mounted on the same fixed base. That reading undercut the prior art: the cited machines had two separate tables and therefore lacked the feature “one” working surface.

Cost allocation: why 70 % / 30 %?

The claimant’s action was dismissed only because Essetre narrowed the patent during the proceedings; the original grant would probably not have survived unchanged. The panel therefore considered each side to have “partly prevailed” and awarded costs 70 % against the challenger, 30 % against the patentee. Note: Even an immediate, unconditional amendment (i.e. a prompt partial surrender) cannot prevent a partial allocation of costs.

Takeaways

• “A” can be construed as “one” when the description demands a single shared element.
• Costs may be split even when the unconditionally amended main request survives.

To the decision  To the Blog Overview