Julius Blum v ARTURO SALICE (CFI, 3 August 2026)

Date	3 August 2026
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Infringement Action
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_675/2025
Registry reference	UPC_CFI_675/2025
Parties	Julius Blum GmbH v. ARTURO SALICE S.p.A.

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

In an order of 3 August 2026 issued after the interim conference of 31 July 2026 (Rule 105.5 RoP), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division sets the value of the infringement action (EUR 3.3 million) and of the counterclaim for revocation (EUR 4.95 million) in the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_675/2025 and UPC_CFI_1340/2025 (Julius Blum v ARTURO SALICE, EP 3 392 438, furniture hinge), admits all submissions on file and confirms the oral hearing of 1 October 2026. The order shows two useful practices: the 1.5 multiplier for the value of a counterclaim, and an interim agreement on costs reached at the court’s suggestion.

Question

How should the value of the counterclaim for revocation be set, and late submissions handled, at the close of the interim conference?

Decision

The value of the action is set at EUR 3.3 million on the basis of the defendant’s figures, which the claimant did not dispute. The counterclaim is valued at EUR 4.95 million under the 1.5 rule, since the defendant put forward no argument to depart from it (point 8). At the court’s suggestion, the parties agree on a lump-sum reimbursement of representation costs of EUR 480,000 for the successful party, to be apportioned in a mixed costs decision (point 10). The rapporteur declines a differentiated approach to late submissions: all are admitted, with the parties’ consent (point 12). Preliminary views on claim construction and validity are given (points 17 and 18), the request for simultaneous interpretation into Italian remains open (point 22).

Key points for practice

The value of a counterclaim for revocation is set by default at 1.5 times that of the action. A party wishing to depart from it must argue the point.
Practical point: the interim conference can be used to agree a lump sum on costs, which narrows any later cost-fixing dispute.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 102.2, 103.1, 105.5, 109, 115, 333 and 355

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

UPC_CFI_675/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantJulius Blum GmbHFollow this party
defendantARTURO SALICE S.p.A.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 valeur de l'action est fixée à 3,3 millions d'euros et celle de la demande reconventionnelle à 4,95 millions d'euros (règle du coefficient 1,5), toutes les écritures sont admises et l'audience du 1er octobre 2026 est confirmée.
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 3 392 438 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 3 392 438`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)	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.