Nokia Technology v Mala Technologies (CFI, 2 July 2024)

Date	2 July 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_29031/2024 · ORD_33370/2024
Parties	Nokia Technology GmbH

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 2 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_484/2023, ACT_595045/2023, ORD_33370/2024, App_26882/2024), the judge-rapporteur of panel 1 of the Paris Central Division (M. Haedicke), in Nokia Technology GmbH’s revocation action against Mala Technologies Ltd. concerning EP 2 044 709 B1, rejected the request to declare inadmissible the application to amend the patent filed in the Defence to revocation rather than in the dedicated case management system workflow. The order puts compliance with the time limit ahead of the electronic form of filing.

Question

Is an application to amend the patent inadmissible where it is filed within the Defence to revocation without using the « Application to amend » workflow of the case management system?

Decision

The application was filed within the two-month time limit of Rule 49 RoP (paragraphs 6 and 7). The Rules do not unambiguously require a separate workflow, and Rule 4.1 RoP, which requires use of the workflows provided, does not justify setting the application aside (paragraphs 8 to 10). The Rules are to be read in light of fairness and proportionality (point 2 of the Preamble): ambiguities in the system should not harm the parties (paragraph 11). Using the wrong workflow does not, for now, make a filing inadmissible, all the more so as the claimant suffered no disadvantage (paragraphs 12 and 14), the parties are nonetheless strongly encouraged to use the proper workflows (paragraph 13). Whether the patent can be maintained under auxiliary requests 1 to 7 will be decided after the oral hearing (paragraphs 15 and 17).

Key points for practice

Practical point: an application to amend filed in time but in the wrong electronic workflow is not, for now, inadmissible, using the dedicated workflow remains advisable.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 4.1, 29(a), 30.1, 32.1, 49, 55 and 333, and point 2 of the Preamble
Case law cited: Edwards Lifesciences v Meril, Munich Local Division, 29 September 2023, UPC_CFI_367/2023, ORD_19619/2024, UPC_CFI_360/2023, ORD_25657/2024

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.

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

claimantNokia Technology GmbH4 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 modification du brevet, formée dans le délai au sein du mémoire en défense, est recevable malgré l'absence de recours au flux électronique dédié.
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 2 044 709 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 29 September 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 2 044 709`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): Mala v Nokia (CoA, 17 September 2024) · Mala v Nokia (CoA, 21 June 2024) · Nokia v Mala (CFI, 2 May 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.