Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v Goodyear France (CFI, 16 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 16 April 2026 in the infringement action (UPC_CFI_138/2025) and the counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_522/2025), the Paris Local Division revokes in its entirety, for France, Michelin’s EP 2 323 858 B1 on a variable surface area tyre tread, and consequently dismisses the infringement claims against Goodyear’s ‘Fuelmax D Endurance’ and ‘Fuelmax D GEN-2’ tyres. Claim 1 is held to lack novelty over the Japanese prior art KUNUGI, and none of the fourteen auxiliary requests saves the patent. The decision confirms that, for a product claim defined by structural features, the intended technical effect is irrelevant to novelty.

Facts and procedure

The patent, filed on 11 September 2008 and granted on 20 March 2013, is now in force only in France. It was neither opted out nor opposed. Michelin sued Goodyear France, Goodyear S.A. and Goodyear Operations on 21 February 2025 on the basis of claims 1, 3 and 13. Goodyear counterclaimed for revocation on 16 June 2025, Michelin responded with 14 auxiliary requests to amend. After the interim conference and the order of 20 February 2026 (Rule 105.5 RoP), Goodyear ranked its main prior art: KUNUGI (JP 2001/063323), RICHES 1 and RICHES 2.

The applicable law

Revocation is ordered under Art. 54 and 138(1)(a) EPC and Art. 65(2) UPCA, the claim is construed under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol. The Division’s jurisdiction rests on Art. 33(1)(a) and (b) UPCA and Art. 4 and 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012.

Question

Is claim 1 novel over KUNUGI, which discloses an alternating arrangement of lateral grooves without pursuing the same technical effect, and does any auxiliary request allow the patent to be maintained?

Decision

The Division accepts jurisdiction (paragraphs 31 to 33). It declines to limit the ‘tread element’ to the single embodiment relied on by Goodyear and clarifies how the spacing between lateral sipes is measured (paragraphs 46 to 59). The written statements filed, from current or former industry employees, are not those of independent experts but provide useful technical information (paragraphs 60 to 65). KUNUGI is relevant, the patent’s own description stating that it discloses the preamble (paragraphs 79 to 84), technical effect is irrelevant for a structurally defined product claim (paragraphs 85, 94 and 95), and Figure 1 and paragraphs [0012] and [0013] of KUNUGI disclose the alternating arrangement of feature 7 (paragraphs 115 to 123). The dependent claims fall for want of separate argument (paragraphs 124 to 126).

The number of auxiliary requests is held reasonable (paragraphs 127 to 131), but feature F3 adds matter, F1, F2 and F4 bring neither novelty nor technical effect, and the 5 to 20 mm spacing range in F5 is arbitrary and lacks inventive step (paragraphs 132 to 147). The order revokes the patent for France, dismisses all of Michelin’s claims and orders it to bear the costs of both actions, the amount being left to separate cost proceedings (paragraphs 148 to 151).

Key points for practice

• Novelty of a structural product claim is assessed without regard to the technical effect or purpose pursued by the prior art.
• An acknowledgement in the patent’s description of what a prior art document discloses may be held against the proprietor.
• Dependent claims not specifically defended fall with the independent claim.
• Practical point: the proprietor must substantiate, for each dependent claim and auxiliary request, the novelty and technical effect of the added feature, since a numerical range without demonstrated effect will be treated as arbitrary.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 33(1)(a) and (b), 65(2) and (5), 69 and 73(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 30.1, 105.5, 118.5, 118.8 and 220.1

European Patent Convention

Art. 54, Art. 69 and Protocol on its interpretation, Art. 138(1)(a)

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 4 and 7(2)

Case law cited

Amgen v Sanofi, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Lindal v Rocep, Paris Central Division, 29 May 2025, Labrador v bioMérieux, Milan Central Division, 23 October 2025, Brita v Aquashield, Munich Local Division, 22 August 2025, Munich Local Division, 31 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_233/2023), Düsseldorf Local Division, 28 January 2025 (UPC_CFI_355/2023)

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.