TIRU v MAGUIN (CFI, 22 July 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 22 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_132/2025), the Paris Local Division (Presiding Judge Lignières as judge-rapporteur, Judges Gillet and Lopes, and technically qualified Judge Fulconis) joined TIRU’s infringement actions against MAGUIN and against VALINEA ENERGIE, based on EP 3 178 578 (waste incineration plant), under number UPC_CFI_130/2025. It referred the counterclaims for revocation to the Paris Central Division, already seised of a revocation action by VEOLIA PROPRETE, but declined at this stage to stay the infringement proceedings. A parallel order (ORD_33136/2025) was issued the same day in the action against VALINEA ENERGIE.

Question

How should a Local Division handle counterclaims for revocation where the Central Division is already seised of a revocation action against the same patent on almost identical grounds?

Decision

Both actions concern the same patent and the same allegedly infringing kiln, with parallel defences and challenges to the saisies: joining them serves sound case management (Rule 302.3 RoP, the request based on Rule 340 RoP being requalified). Weighing the interests at stake in light of the efficiency and fair trial principles in the preamble to the Rules, the panel notes that the Central Division was seised first and that VEOLIA PROPRETE’s grounds almost entirely overlap with the counterclaims. Only the counterclaims are referred (Article 33(3)(b) UPCA). The infringement action proceeds without a stay: TIRU must reply by 11 August 2025 on the basis of the version of the patent it seeks to have amended unconditionally before the Central Division. The panel will take into account the claim construction adopted there (Article 69 EPC) and may still stay the case (Rule 295(m) RoP) or give a conditional decision (Rule 118.2 RoP).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: where the Central Division was seised first, the Local Division may refer only the counterclaims while pursuing infringement, the proprietor must then align its reply with the amended version defended before the Central Division.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 33(3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 28, 37.4, 37.5, 118.2, 220.2, 295(m) and 302.3

European Patent Convention

Art. 69

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_335/2023 and UPC_CoA_1/2024

Related decisions

• TIRU v MAGUIN, 23 December 2024, order for preservation of evidence and inspection.
• VEOLIA PROPRETE v TIRU, 18 March 2026, later Central Division decision on validity.
• TIRU v VALINEA ENERGIE, 29 May 2026, later decision in the joined infringement action.

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.