IMC Créations v Mul-T-Lock France (CFI, 16 January 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In its decision of 16 January 2026 (UPC_CFI_702/2024 and UPC_CFI_369/2025), the Paris Local Division upholds, as limited, IMC Créations’ unitary patent EP 4 153 830 (lock with a slider and a base plate with a recess), dismisses Mul-T-Lock France’s counterclaim for revocation and finds that the MPV1000 padlock has infringed amended claims 1 and 6 since 1 November 2023, the limitation taking effect from grant. It rejects, however, all claims relating to the Swiss part, since the limitation raises a doubt as to that part’s validity which the Court cannot resolve. The decision shows the limits of long-arm jurisdiction where the validity of a non-UPCA part is in question.

Facts and procedure

IMC Créations sued Mul-T-Lock France and its Swiss branch on 20 November 2024 and later withdrew against the branch. The preliminary objection for Switzerland, Spain and the United Kingdom was rejected on 21 March 2025. Mul-T-Lock France counterclaimed for revocation on 25 April 2025, IMC Créations unconditionally limited claims 1 and 6 on 25 June 2025 in the light of an earlier British patent (paragraphs 52, 139 and 140).

The applicable law

Validity is governed by Articles 52(1) and 56 EPC, infringement by Article 25(a) UPCA, and the effect of the limitation by Articles 64(1) and 68 EPC and Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012. For the Swiss part, the division refers to the Lugano Convention and to BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux (C-339/22) (paragraphs 121 to 123).

Question

Do limited claims 1 and 6 involve an inventive step, does the MPV1000 padlock fall within them, and may the UPC rule on infringement of the Swiss part where the limitation of the unitary patent casts doubt on that part’s validity?

Decision

The “recess” is understood as a state and does not require a fit with the shape of the stop (paragraphs 40 to 45). Novelty not being disputed (paragraph 54), inventive step is assessed from document A1: none of the combinations relied on leads to the invention without hindsight, and the limited claims are valid (paragraphs 88 to 119). Since the UPC cannot rule on the validity of the Swiss part, and the limitation creates a reasonable risk of invalidity of that part with no Swiss action pending, the claims relating to Switzerland are rejected (paragraphs 123 to 125). The padlock falls within claims 1 and 6, offering being understood in the economic sense (paragraphs 126 to 138). The limitation takes effect on 1 November 2023, and Mul-T-Lock cannot rely on Article 68(4) UPCA, having taken no step against the patent when a limitation to a single base plate was foreseeable (paragraph 141). The injunction, recall, removal and destruction are confined to the territory of the Contracting Member States and take effect three months after the decision, as the claimant agreed (paragraphs 144 and 145), notification of customers is refused (paragraph 146). The right of information is granted within two months (paragraph 147), under Article 58 UPCA, Rule 262A.6 RoP and Article 9 of Directive 2016/943, the information is reserved to the representatives and one person from each party, with no time limit (paragraphs 151 to 153). Damages will be set in separate proceedings and costs are apportioned 90% to Mul-T-Lock and 10% to IMC Créations (paragraphs 154 and 155).

Key points for practice

• Limiting only the unitary patent during the proceedings may deprive the proprietor of any relief for the Swiss part, the UPC declining to examine infringement of a part whose validity has become doubtful (paragraphs 123 to 125).
• A limitation made during the proceedings takes effect from grant: the defendant cannot argue that infringement only begins on the date of the amendment (paragraph 141).
• Contested common general knowledge must be proved. Brochures, an internal industrial drawing or isolated patents do not establish it (paragraphs 59 to 61).
• Practical point: a proprietor contemplating a limitation should assess its effect on non-UPCA national parts covered by a long-arm claim (paragraphs 123 to 125).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25(a), 34, 58, 67(1), 68(4) and 69

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.5, 172.1, 190.1, 191 and 262A.6

European Patent Convention

Art. 52(1), Art. 54(2), Art. 56, Art. 64(1), Art. 68 and Art. 69(2)

Other provisions

Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012, Art. 4(1), Directive (EU) 2016/943, Art. 9

Case law cited

NJOY Netherlands v VMR Products, 22 January 2025 (UPC_CFI_310/2023), Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_528/2024), Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_464/2024), Sumi Agro v Syngenta, Court of Appeal, 3 March 2025, Düsseldorf Local Division, 28 January 2025, UPC_CFI_355/2023, Belkin v Koninklijke Philips, Court of Appeal, 3 October 2025 (UPC_CoA_534/2024 and UPC_CoA_19/2025), Court of Appeal, 12 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_621/2024).

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.