ALD France v Nanoval (CFI, 26 January 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 26 January 2026 (UPC_CFI_999/2025), the panel of the Paris Central Division upheld on review the dismissal of Nanoval’s preliminary objection to ALD France’s revocation action against EP 3 083 107. Nanoval argued that the action duplicated the counterclaim for revocation brought by the parent company, ALD Vacuum Technologies, pending before the Munich Local Division. The order clarifies the concept of the « same party » in Art. 33(4) UPCA within a group of companies.

Question

May a subsidiary bring a revocation action before the Central Division where its parent company has already counterclaimed for revocation before a local division, and should the proceedings be stayed?

Decision

The subsidiary and the parent are not the same party (paragraph 34). Identity requires the parties to be identical or their interests to coincide to such an extent that a judgment against one would be res judicata against the other (paragraph 36). The indicators of a straw man, namely lack of its own assets and employees, are absent (paragraph 38), and neither the parent-subsidiary link nor the degree of control is decisive (paragraph 40). Nanoval did not prove that ALD France had no business of its own (paragraph 44). The order in which the actions were filed is irrelevant (paragraph 45). A stay under Rule 295(m) was refused: the risk of conflicting decisions is inherent in the system and the Munich hearing is due in June 2026 (paragraphs 48 to 50). Leave to appeal was refused (paragraph 51).

Key points for practice

• Within a group, a subsidiary with its own business may bring a revocation action before the Central Division despite its parent’s counterclaim before a local division.
• A defendant alleging a straw man bears the burden of proving the absence of independent business activity (Rule 171.1).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 33(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19, 171.1, 295 and 333

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 29

Case law cited

Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Italy, Paris Central Division, 13 November 2023, Seoul Viosys v Emporia UK, Paris Central Division, 1 September 2025, Netgear v Huawei, Court of Appeal, 21 March 2024, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, UPC_CoA_464/2024 and others, Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_22/2024, CJEU, 19 May 1998, C-351/96, CJEU, 10 September 2009, C-97/08

Related decisions

• ALD France v Nanoval, 9 December 2025, order of the judge-rapporteur dismissing the preliminary objection, confirmed by the present order.

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.