Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v Neo Wireless (CFI, 25 April 2024)

Date	25 April 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_18259/2024 · ORD_18484/2024
Parties	Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG

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

By an order of 25 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_361/2023, ACT_579176/2023, App_18259/2024, ORD_18484/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division (M. Haedicke) rejected the request by Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG to stay the revocation action brought by Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA against EP 3 876 490 pending the EPO opposition and the appeal against the rejection of its preliminary objection. The order confirms a strict approach to stays.

Question

Should the revocation action be stayed because of an accelerated EPO opposition or of the pending appeal against the order rejecting the preliminary objection?

Decision

Neither the lodging of a preliminary objection nor the prospects of the appeal are relevant to a stay, and the judge-rapporteur is not to assess the prospects of an appeal against his own order (paragraph 2). Article 33(10) UPCA allows, but does not require, a stay where a rapid EPO decision is expected. Following the Munich section of the Central Division, « rapid » requires a concrete and near-term decision date, which was lacking here, the UPC oral hearing (25 September 2024) being likely to precede the EPO decision (paragraph 3). The balance of interests favours the claimant: cost savings do not outweigh its interest in the action, the patent expires on 27 January 2025, and the risk of divergent outcomes was accepted by the Member States (paragraph 4).

Key points for practice

Practical point: an accelerated EPO opposition justifies a stay only if a concrete and near-term decision date is established, an appeal against the rejection of a preliminary objection does not suspend the revocation action.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 33(8) and (10) and Art. 73(2)(b)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 19, 220.2, 224.1(b) and 295(a)
Case law cited: Munich Central Division, 20 November 2023 (UPC_CFI_80/2023)

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.

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantNeo Wireless GmbH Co. KG2 decisions in the corpus 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: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La demande de sursis à statuer est rejetée : aucune décision rapide de l'OEB n'est attendue et l'appel contre le rejet de l'exception préliminaire est sans incidence.
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 3 876 490 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v Healios K.K (CFI, 20 November 2023) cited in this record

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 3 876 490`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): Toyota Motor Europe v Neo Wireless (CFI, 31 July 2025) · Neo Wireless v Toyota Motor Europe (CoA, 4 June 2024) · Neo Wireless v Toyota Motor Europe (CoA, 11 April 2024)	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.