Opens in a new tab

Omnia Technologies v Sidel Participations (CFI, 7 May 2026)

Date7 May 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Central Division - Seat
Type of actionDeclaration of Non-Infringement
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_799/2026
Registry referenceUPC-CFI-799/2026
PartiesOMNIA TECHNOLOGIES S.P.A., ACMI S.P.A., ACMI LABELLING S.R.L. v. SIDEL PARTICIPATIONS
LanguageEnglish

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 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

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
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_799/2026 official number

Follow this case

Parties

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
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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 4 594 194Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): SIDEL PARTICIPATIONS v OMNIA (CoA, 21 September 2026)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
EP 4 624 351Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): SIDEL PARTICIPATIONS v OMNIA (CoA, 21 September 2026)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.