Opens in a new tab

ALD France v Nanoval (CFI, 23 July 2026)

Date23 July 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Central Division - Seat
Type of actionRevocation Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_999/2025
Registry referenceUPC-CFI-0000999/2025
PartiesALD France S.A.S. v. Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 23 July 2026 (UPC_CFI_999/2025), the Paris Central Division allows the withdrawal of ALD France’s action for revocation of Nanoval’s patent EP 3 083 107, declares the case closed and grants the claimant a refund of only 50% of the court fees (EUR 10,000), not the 60% it sought. The decision applies amended Rule 370.9(b) RoP to withdrawal requests filed after 1 January 2026, even for an action brought in 2025.

Question

Where an action was brought before 1 January 2026, is the refund of court fees on withdrawal before the close of the written procedure governed by former Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP (60%) or by the amended rule (50%)?

Decision

The withdrawal is allowed, since no decision had been given and the defendant consented on 13 July 2026 (paragraphs 8 to 10). The main request for a 60% refund is dismissed: former Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP provided for that rate on withdrawal before the close of the written procedure, but the amended rule reduces it to 50% (paragraphs 11 to 14). Following Court of Appeal case law, from which the panel declines to depart, the amended rule applies where the withdrawal and the refund request are filed after 1 January 2026, as the request was filed on 8 July 2026, the former rule does not apply (paragraphs 16 and 17). The alternative request for 50% is granted (paragraphs 18 and 19), no decision on recoverable costs is made, as none was requested (paragraph 20).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 265, 370.9(b) and 370.11
Case law cited
Black Sheep Retail Products v HL Display, Court of Appeal, 6 March 2026, Hurom v NUC Electronics, Court of Appeal, 26 May 2026, Bekaert Combustion v Polidoro, Court of Appeal, 6 July 2026, Tiru v Veolia, Court of Appeal, 13 July 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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Revocation action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: G 1/25, Take Three: Anything You Leave in the Description May Be Used Against You (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
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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

  • UPC_CFI_999/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 9 December 2025 ALD France v Nanoval (CFI, 9 December 2025) Revocation Action · UPC_CFI_999/2025

    L'exception préliminaire et la demande de sursis de Nanoval sont rejetées : ALD France n'est pas la même partie que sa société sœur qui a formé une demande reconventionnelle en nullité à Munich.

  2. 23 July 2026 ALD France v Nanoval (CFI, 23 July 2026) Revocation Action · UPC_CFI_999/2025

What the record states

Nature of the act
Revocation Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Le désistement est autorisé et l'affaire close. Le remboursement des frais de justice est limité à 50 % (10 000 euros) en application de la règle 370.9(b) modifiée.
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.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 083 107Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): ALD France v Nanoval (CFI, 26 January 2026) · ALD France v Nanoval (CFI, 9 December 2025) · Nanoval v ALD Vacuum Technologies (CFI, 22 July 2025) · Nanoval v ALD Vacuum Technologies (CFI, 28 May 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.