ALD France v Nanoval (CFI, 23 July 2026)
| Date | 23 July 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
| Type of action | Revocation Action |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_999/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC-CFI-0000999/2025 |
| Parties | ALD France S.A.S. v. Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 9 December 2025 : ALD France v Nanoval (CFI, 9 December 2025) UPC-CFI-000999/2025
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
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
- Practical point: for a withdrawal filed since 1 January 2026, the refund of court fees before the close of the written procedure is at most 50%, whatever the date on which the action was brought.
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
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.
Parties
- claimantALD France S.A.S3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantNanoval GmbH & Co. KG4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 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.
- 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
EP 3 083 107mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- TIRU v VEOLIA PROPRETE (CoA, 13 July 2026) cited in this record
- Bekaert Combustion v Polidoro (CoA, UPC_CoA_29/2026, 6 July 2026) cited in this record
- Hurom v NUC Electronics (CoA, 26 May 2026) cited in this record
- Black Sheep Retail Products v HL Display (CoA, 6 March 2026) cited in this record
- ALD France v Nanoval (CFI, 9 December 2025) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 083 107 | Mentioned 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.