Omnia Technologies v Sidel Participations (CFI, 7 May 2026)
| Date | 7 May 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
| Type of action | Declaration of Non-Infringement |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_799/2026 |
| Registry reference | UPC-CFI-799/2026 |
| Parties | OMNIA TECHNOLOGIES S.P.A., ACMI S.P.A., ACMI LABELLING S.R.L. v. SIDEL PARTICIPATIONS |
| Language | English |
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.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
In an order of 7 May 2026 (UPC_CFI_799/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division dismisses Sidel Participations’ preliminary objection to the action for a declaration of non-infringement brought on 3 March 2026 by Omnia Technologies, ACMI and ACMI Labelling over EP 4 594 194 and EP 4 624 351, before their grant had been published. The UPC has competence provided the patent is granted before the statement of defence, even if the mention of grant has not yet been published.
Question
Does the UPC have competence (Art. 32(1)(b) UPCA) over a non-infringement action brought before grant, and does a later opt-out defeat it?
Decision
It suffices that the patent is granted before the statement of defence is filed, which ensures a defined subject matter (paragraphs 25 and 26), declining competence only for the claim to be refiled on grant would defeat procedural efficiency (paragraphs 27 and 28). The opt-outs filed on 2 and 8 April 2026, after the action was lodged, are ineffective (Art. 83(3) UPCA and Rule 5.6 RoP, paragraph 34). Competence is not a matter for Rule 361 RoP (paragraphs 37 to 39), and a stay is refused, the Court aiming at a hearing within one year (paragraphs 43 to 46). Costs are reserved for the merits.
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a party seeking a declaration of non-infringement may seize the UPC at the application stage and so neutralise a later opt-out by the applicant.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 32(1)(b), 41(3), 42, 49(6), 52(1) and 83(3)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 5.6, 19, 61, 295(m) and 361
- European Patent Convention
- Art. 97(1)
- Case law cited
- XSYS v Esko-Graphics, Court of Appeal, 2 June 2025, Roku v Dolby, Court of Appeal, 6 October 2025, NanoString v 10x Genomics, Munich Local Division, 19 September 2023, Alexion v Amgen, Hamburg Local Division, 26 June 2024, Barco v Yealink, Brussels Local Division, 21 March 2025, Network System Technologies v Audi, Court of Appeal, 18 September 2024, Carrier v Bitzer, Court of Appeal, 28 May 2024, Mala v Nokia, Court of Appeal, 17 September 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: Action for a declaration of non-infringement, 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
- English from the language of proceedings
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
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.
Parties
- claimantSIDEL PARTICIPATIONS2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantOMNIA TECHNOLOGIES S.P.A2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantACMI S.P.A2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantACMI LABELLING S.R.L2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantv14 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Declaration of Non-Infringement
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La JUB est compétente pour une action en non-contrefaçon introduite avant la délivrance dès lors que le brevet est délivré avant le mémoire en défense. Les opt-out ultérieurs sont sans effet, et le sursis est refusé.
- 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 4 594 194mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patentEP 4 624 351mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Roku International v Dolby International (CoA, 6 October 2025) cited in this record
- XSYS Italia v Esko-Graphics Imaging (CoA, 2 June 2025) cited in this record
- Barco v Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology (CFI, 21 March 2025) cited in this record
- Audi v Network System Technologies (CoA, 18 September 2024) cited in this record
- Mala v Nokia (CoA, 17 September 2024) cited in this record
- Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company (CFI, 26 June 2024) cited in this record
- Carrier v BITZER Electronics (CoA, 28 May 2024) cited in this record
- 10x Genomics v NanoString (CFI, 19 September 2023) cited in this record
- Sandoz v Novo Nordisk (CFI, UPC_CFI_2221/2026, 22 October 2026) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 4 594 194 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): SIDEL PARTICIPATIONS v OMNIA (CoA, 21 September 2026) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
EP 4 624 351 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): SIDEL PARTICIPATIONS v OMNIA (CoA, 21 September 2026) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.