C-KORE SYSTEMS v Novawell (CFI, 26 November 2024)

Date	26 November 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Paris (FR) Local Division
Type of action	Infringement Action
Registry reference	ACT_592899/2023 · ORD_598523/2023
Parties	C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v. Novawell

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.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 26 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_468/2023, ACT_592899/2023), made after the interim conference of 22 November 2024, the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division (C. Lignieres), in C-KORE Systems’ infringement action on EP 2 265 793 against Novawell, closed the interim procedure, kept English as the language of oral pleadings, refused to hear the expert and the bailiff who had carried out the saisie, and set the value of the case at EUR 1 million.

Question

May the defendant plead in French, have an affidavit disregarded and call the expert and bailiff who carried out the saisie as witnesses?

Decision

Pleading in French was refused: the proceedings are in English, Novawell’s representatives pleaded in English at the review of the saisie and its managers work in English, simultaneous interpretation is unnecessary, as the parties agreed. The affidavit of the applicant’s representative at the saisie is not covered by professional secrecy and stays on file, its probative value being for the court, the bailiff’s minutes carrying the highest probative value. The expert’s report and those minutes are sufficient, so hearing them as witnesses was refused. The value of the case, based on the objective interest pursued when the action was filed (Rule 370.6), was set at EUR 1 million, damages will be determined in separate proceedings (Rule 125).

Key points for practice

Practical point: where a party’s representatives and managers work in English, it cannot obtain leave to plead in a language other than that of the proceedings.
Where the expert’s report and the saisie minutes are on file, hearing their authors as witnesses is not necessary.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Arts. 25 and 68(3)(a)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 104, 105.5, 109, 125, 196 and 370.6
European Patent Convention: Art. 84, Art. 123
Case law cited: Confidentiality order ORD_12088/2024 (UPC_CFI_397/2023), between the same parties

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.

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

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantC-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED5 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantNovawellnormalised name: NOVAWELL4 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La procédure intermédiaire est close. L'anglais reste la langue des plaidoiries, l'audition de l'expert et du commissaire de justice est refusée et la valeur du litige est fixée à un million d'euros.
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 2 265 793 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 265 793`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): C-KORE Systems v NOVAWELL (CFI, 29 January 2025) · NOVAWELL v C-KORE SYSTEMS (CFI, 26 March 2024) · C-KORE SYSTEMS v NOVAWELL (CFI, 1 March 2024) · C-KORE SYSTEMS v NOVAWELL (CFI, 14 November 2023)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet 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.