Natural person v SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme (CFI, 25 June 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 25 June 2026, the Paris Central Division rules on the revocation action (UPC_CFI_425/2025) against SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH’s EP 2 643 717, which concerns colour-mixing collecting optics for signalling. Its main contribution lies in its two headnotes: where the EPO limits the patent during UPC revocation proceedings, the UPC assesses validity in the limited form, and Art. 105a(2) EPC has no bearing on revocation proceedings before the UPC. The panel rejects every ground of invalidity, dismisses the action and maintains the patent as limited by the EPO. The claimant and the intervener bear the costs.

Facts and procedure

The action was brought by a natural person whose name is redacted, supported by the intervener Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. Both seek revocation of the patent in its entirety, which the proprietor defends, in the alternative, through auxiliary requests. During the proceedings, the proprietor obtained from the EPO, on 6 March 2026, a limitation of claim 1 (deletion of the word “insbesondere”), published on 8 April 2026. The claimant and the intervener argued that the limitation was inadmissible and asked for the patent to be assessed as granted. The 42 auxiliary requests filed with the rejoinder were reduced to six, plus combinations, following an order of 26 March 2026 under Rule 105 RoP.

The applicable law

The panel relies on Arts 105b(3) and 68 EPC, which give the limitation retroactive effect in all contracting states, and on Art. 33(10) UPCA, which allows EPO and UPC proceedings to run in parallel (paragraphs 19 to 23). Validity is assessed under Art. 65 UPCA and Art. 138(1)(a) to (c) EPC. Inventive step is examined using the Court of Appeal’s approach (paragraphs 106 to 111).

Question

Where the EPO limits the patent during a revocation action, must the UPC assess the validity of the limited version, and does Art. 105a(2) EPC preclude such a limitation by analogy? Does the patent as limited withstand the grounds for revocation?

Decision

The panel sides with the proprietor (paragraph 18). The limited version applies retroactively and is, at the end of the proceedings, the only valid version of the patent, which the Court must take into account (paragraphs 19 to 21 and 26). Art. 105a(2) EPC merely bars filing a request for limitation while an opposition is pending. Neither the EPC nor the UPCA extends that bar to revocation actions, and there is no unintended gap justifying an analogy (paragraphs 22 to 24). The EPO’s limitation decision is a separate administrative act, not open to indirect judicial review, so the claimant’s criticism of the limitation request is irrelevant (paragraph 25). On validity, the panel finds the disclosure sufficient (paragraphs 64 to 71), holds that features M10 to M12 do not add matter (paragraphs 72 to 81) and that claim 1 is novel (paragraphs 82 to 105). It rejects lack of inventive step starting from D1, D2, D8, D10 and D3’ (paragraphs 125, 130, 137, 143 and 151) and holds that D4’ and D6’, which concern projector optics, are not realistic starting points (paragraphs 153 to 156), the attack based on D5’, confined to feature M10, is not substantiated (paragraph 157). The limitation has no effect on novelty, claim 1 being patentable both as granted and as limited. The validity of the independent claim carries that of dependent claims 2 to 15, and the auxiliary requests need not be considered (paragraphs 158 to 161). The revocation action is dismissed and the patent maintained as limited. The value of the dispute having been set at EUR 1,000,000 for the costs ceiling, the claimant and the intervener jointly bear the defendant’s costs under Art. 69(1) UPCA (paragraphs 162 to 164).

Key points for practice

• A limitation obtained from the EPO during the proceedings binds the UPC, which assesses the validity of the limited version (paragraphs 19 to 21 and 26).
• Art. 105a(2) EPC does not apply, even by analogy, to revocation actions before the UPC (paragraphs 22 to 24).
• Practical point: a proprietor may use central limitation at the EPO while a UPC revocation action is pending, and the claimant must then direct its attacks at the limited version (paragraphs 18 to 26).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 33(4) and (10), 65, 69(1) and 76(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19.1(b), 105 and 334

European Patent Convention

Arts 52, 54, 56, 57, 64, 67, 68, 69, 83, 105a, 105b, 138 and 139

Case law cited

Veolia v Tiru, Paris Central Division, 18 March 2026, Huntsman v BASF, Paris Central Division, 22 April 2026, SWARCO Futurit v Strabag, Vienna Local Division, 15 January 2025, NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, SES-imagotag v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Abbott v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, Fujifilm v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 28 January 2025, Wonderland v Cybex, Düsseldorf Local Division, 27 May 2026.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.