Carrier v BITZER Electronics (CFI, 8 January 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 8 January 2024 (UPC_CFI_263/2023, ACT_555899/2023, App_590707/2023), the Paris Central Division (F. Thomas, P. Catallozzi, U. Keltsch) rejected the request of Carrier Corporation, proprietor of EP 3 414 708, to stay the revocation action brought by BITZER Electronics A/S pending the EPO’s decision on the opposition filed on 28 June 2023. It granted leave to appeal to secure a consistent reading of « rapid decision » in Art. 33(10) UPCA.

Question

Does an opposition pending before the EPO, in which accelerated processing has been requested, justify staying the revocation action on the ground that a rapid decision is expected?

Decision

The division weighs the interest in a timely UPC decision against the interest in avoiding the cost of parallel proceedings: a stay is justified only where the EPO proceedings are close to completion while the UPC action has just begun (paragraphs 12 to 15). The wider territorial or substantive scope of the opposition is disregarded, so as not to restrict the claimant’s access to justice disproportionately (paragraph 17). No concrete date for the EPO decision was shown and Carrier’s estimate of nine to ten months was unsupported (paragraphs 18 and 19), whereas the UPC action is expected to last about one year (paragraph 20, Preamble point 7).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a proprietor seeking a stay pending the EPO must prove that an opposition decision is imminent, a request for acceleration or an unsupported estimate is not enough.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 33(10)

Rules of Procedure

Preamble points 2, 4 and 7 and Rule 295(a)

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.