Lindal Dispenser v Rocep-Lusol (CFI, UPC_CFI_202/2024, 29 May 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 29 May 2025, the Paris Central Division dismissed Lindal Dispenser’s revocation action against Rocep-Lusol’s EP 3 655 346 and maintained the patent as amended by the first auxiliary request (UPC_CFI_202/2024). Claim 5 as granted was held to lack industrial application. Costs were apportioned 70% to the claimant and 30% to the proprietor, which had limited its patent during the proceedings. The operative part refers to the patent as EP 1 552 399, whereas the heading and the description of the parties refer to EP 3 655 346.

The decision shows how the UPC deals with industrial application, a ground seldom argued, and confirms the single-document test for novelty and the reading of a drawing in the light of the description.

Facts and procedure

The patent concerns a pressure pack dispenser in which a compressed gas replaces the liquid propellant, a clearance between the piston and the wall, filled with viscous sealant, reducing friction (paragraphs 3 and 12 to 15). The parties had a licence relationship covering WO 99/18010, which both accepted as the closest prior art. An infringement action brought in Edinburgh in December 2023 had been dismissed (paragraph 10). After the defence of 26 July 2024 with three auxiliary requests, the interim conference of 3 March 2025 and the oral hearing of 27 March 2025 (paragraphs 5 to 9), the division ruled on the claimant’s grounds of lack of industrial application, insufficiency, lack of novelty and lack of inventive step (paragraph 4).

The applicable law

The decision applies Arts 54, 56, 57, 83 and 138(1)(a) EPC. It relies on Court of Appeal case law on claim interpretation (paragraph 17) and, on industrial application, on Board of Appeal decision T 541/96 (paragraph 29), while setting aside G 2/21 since the credibility of a technical effect was not in issue (paragraph 39). Novelty is assessed against a single document (paragraph 62).

Question

Is the patent, and claim 5 in particular, susceptible of industrial application, and is the patent as amended by the first auxiliary request sufficiently disclosed, novel and inventive over WO 99/18010?

Decision

The division found that the clearance and sealant can be produced reliably and work as described, as the video evidence confirmed (paragraphs 36 and 37). Claim 1 and its dependent claims therefore satisfy Art. 57 (paragraphs 27 to 40). Claim 5, however, is invalid: once the piston stops, the propellant pressure cannot equal the vapour pressure of the liquid in the static position (paragraphs 41 to 44).

Auxiliary requests are examined in the order set by the proprietor (paragraph 46). The first adds to claim 1 a propellant consisting « only » of compressed gas and deletes several claims (paragraphs 47 and 48). The claimant’s tests did not undermine sufficiency, the clearance dimensions and sealant examples being disclosed in the patent (paragraphs 50 to 60). On novelty, WO 99/18010 describes a piston in contact with the wall, and a drawing cannot support a feature contradicted by the description (paragraphs 68 to 71). On inventive step, the problem is to reduce the environmental impact of liquid propellants while keeping a constant dispensing rate. The combination of compressed gas and clearance produces a synergistic effect not suggested by the prior art (paragraphs 78 to 81). The value of the action was set at EUR 1,400,000 (paragraph 86).

Key points for practice

• Industrial application can be examined claim by claim: a dependent claim describing a physically impossible state may fall on its own.
• A prior art drawing does not disclose a feature that the description clearly contradicts.
• Auxiliary requests are dealt with in the order indicated by the proprietor, absent indications to the contrary.
• Practical point: limiting the patent during the proceedings, even where the action is then dismissed, leads to a costs split against the proprietor (here 30%).

Provisions applied

European Patent Convention

Art. 54(1) and (2), 56, 57, 83, 138(1)(a)

Case law cited

10x Genomics v NanoString, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Munich Central Division, 17 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_252/2023), Munich Local Division, 31 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_233/2023), Düsseldorf Local Division, 28 January 2025 (UPC_CFI_335/2023), Paris Local Division, 3 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_230/2023), Düsseldorf Local Division, 10 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_363/2023), EPO, T 541/96 and G 2/21

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.