3V Sigma v A.C.E.F (CFI, 22 April 2026)
| Date | 22 April 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Milan (IT) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Registry reference | UPC_CFI_2052-2025 |
| Parties | 3V Sigma S.p.A. and 3V Chimica Porto Marghera S.r.l. v. A.C.E.F. S.r.l., A.G.A. SRL, MFCI Co., Ltd. |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By order of 22 April 2026 (UPC_CFI_2052/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division stayed, at MFCI’s request and with the express consent of all other parties, the infringement action brought by 3V Sigma and 3V Chimica Porto Marghera against A.G.A., A.C.E.F. and MFCI, settlement talks being under way. The order notes that some commentators regard a stay as mandatory on a joint request and concludes that it is warranted in any event in the interest of efficient case management.
Question
Does the Court retain any discretion where all parties jointly request a stay under Rule 295.1(d) RoP?
Decision
The judge-rapporteur refers to the view that, despite the word « may », a joint request binds the Court under Arts 43 and 76(1) UPCA, and holds that, even assuming some discretion, a stay is appropriate: the proceedings are at an early stage and the parties wish to avoid unnecessary steps while they negotiate. The proceedings are stayed until four weeks after a request to resume by any party, the effect on written procedure time limits being governed by Rule 296.3 RoP.
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a joint request for a stay based on settlement talks is readily granted at an early stage, resumption requires a request by a party, followed by a four-week period.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Arts 43 and 76(1)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 1.2(a), 295.1(d) and 296.3
Related decisions
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.
Decisions in the same proceedings
Going further
Lexicon: Patent infringement action.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).
Source and translations
- Official source
- Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
- Original language
- not recorded
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
Follow this case
Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.
Proceedings
Parties
- claimant3V Sigma S.p.A. and 3V Chimica Porto Marghera S.r.l.2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantA.C.E.F. S.r.l., A.G.A. SRL2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantMFCI Co., Ltd.2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Infringement Action
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La procédure est suspendue à la demande conjointe des parties, en pourparlers, jusqu'à quatre semaines après une demande de reprise, la suspension étant opportune même si la juridiction conserve un pouvoir d'appréciation.
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- 3V Sigma v A.C.E.F (CFI, 24 March 2026) cited in this record
- 3V Sigma v A.G.A (CFI, 24 March 2026) cited in this record
Receive an alert
Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.