Opens in a new tab

Carrier v BITZER Electronics (CFI, 30 April 2024)

Date30 April 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Central Division - Seat
Type of actionApplication Rop 333
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_263/2023
Registry referenceApp_20743/2024 · ORD_24607/2024 · UPC_CFI_263/2023
PartiesCarrier Corporation v. BITZER Electronics A/S

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

By an order of 30 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_263/2023, ACT_555899/2023, App_20743/2024), the Paris Central Division (F. Thomas, P. Catallozzi, U. Keltsch), on Carrier Corporation’s application for panel review under Rule 333 RoP, partly set aside the judge-rapporteur’s order of 5 April 2024 and held inadmissible the application to amend EP 3 414 708 insofar as it concerned claims other than claim 1, the only claim attacked by BITZER Electronics A/S. The order confines amendment of the patent to the scope of the revocation action.

Question

In a revocation action limited to claim 1, may the proprietor propose amendments to claims that are not challenged?

Decision

The panel ruled without waiting for the oral hearing, since Carrier had an interest in an early decision in order to organise its defence (paragraphs 9 to 11 and 28). Amendment is a means of defence against the revocation claim and cannot go further than answering that claim requires (paragraphs 18 to 20). The proprietor cannot obtain a general ruling on validity, and the court, bound by the subject matter of the dispute, does not act of its own motion (paragraphs 21 to 23). EPO practice, that of an administrative body rather than an adversarial court, is no valid comparison (paragraph 24). The limit serves the speed sought by the UPCA, while the proprietor remains free to amend its patent before the EPO (paragraphs 25 to 27).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 24
Rules of Procedure
Rules 30, 50, 105.5, 333 and 334(d)
European Patent Convention
Art. 84, 123(2) and (3), 138(3)

Related decisions

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: Written procedure (UPC).

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_263/2023 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. 8 January 2024 Carrier v BITZER Electronics (CFI, 8 January 2024) Revocation Action · UPC_CFI_263/2023

    Le sursis à statuer sur l'action en nullité est refusé faute de preuve qu'une décision de l'OEB sur l'opposition est imminente. L'appel est autorisé.

  2. 5 April 2024 BITZER Electronics v Carrier (CFI, 5 April 2024) Revocation Action · UPC_CFI_263/2023

    Les attaques en nouveauté tardives fondées sur MB5 et MB6 sont écartées, le défaut de droit de priorité et l'insuffisance de description visant la version modifiée restant dans le débat. Valeur fixée à 250 000 euros.

  3. 30 April 2024 Carrier v BITZER Electronics (CFI, 30 April 2024) Application Rop 333 · UPC_CFI_263/2023
  4. 28 May 2024 Carrier v BITZER Electronics (CoA, 28 May 2024) Appeal RoP220.2 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision

    La JUB ne sursoit en principe pas à statuer en raison d'une opposition parallèle. Faute de décision rapide attendue de l'OEB, le refus de sursis est confirmé et l'appel rejeté.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Application Rop 333
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La demande de modification du brevet est irrecevable pour les revendications autres que la revendication 1, seule visée par l'action en nullité.
Appeal
An appeal is documented in the corpus (see above).
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 3 414 708
Adaptive sensor sampling of a cold chain distribution system
recorded proprietor: Carrier Corp
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 7 other decision(s): BITZER Electronics v Carrier (CFI, 29 July 2024) · Mathys & Squire LLP v BITZER Electronics (CFI, 29 July 2024) · Carrier v BITZER Electronics (CoA, 28 May 2024) · BITZER Electronics v Carrier (CFI, 5 April 2024) · BITZER Electronics v Carrier (CFI, 6 March 2024) · Carrier v BITZER Electronics (CFI, 8 January 2024) · BITZER Electronics v Carrier (CFI, 5 July 2023)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
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.