PAPST LICENSING v EPO (CFI, 30 December 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 30 December 2025 (UPC_CFI_1771/2025), the standing judge of the Paris Central Division dismissed PAPST LICENSING’s application against the EPO decision of 10 November 2025 refusing unitary effect for EP 3 327 608. The patent, which stems from a chain of divisional applications going back to a 2005 Euro-PCT application, could not designate Malta, which acceded to the EPC in 2007, although Malta was a participating Member State on the date of the request for unitary effect. The decision takes a strict view of uniformity: unitary effect requires a patent granted with the same claims for all participating Member States, regardless of what could be designated at filing. It matters to any proprietor of old divisional families.

Facts and procedure

The patent was granted on 16 April 2025 on a divisional application filed on 11 December 2017, itself a divisional of a divisional of a Euro-PCT application filed on 31 July 2005 (paragraphs 1 and 2). Malta, which acceded to the EPC on 1 March 2007, could not be designated (paragraphs 3 and 4). After two warnings based on Rule 5(2)(a) of the Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection, the EPO refused the request. The application for review was filed on 28 November 2025 (paragraphs 6 to 9).

The applicable law

The application falls under Rule 97 of the Rules of Procedure and is decided by the standing judge alone (paragraph 18). Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 makes unitary effect conditional on grant with the same claims for all participating Member States (Article 3(1) and recital 7), Rule 7(2) of the Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection requires refusal where that condition is not met (paragraphs 31 to 35). The Court applies EU law in full, including the Charter, when reviewing EPO decisions (Articles 1 and 20 UPCA) (paragraphs 26 and 27).

Question

Could the EPO refuse unitary effect where a participating Member State could not be designated when the original application was filed, and does the refusal breach proportionality or Articles 17 and 21 of the Charter?

Decision

The application was dismissed. The administrative procedure complied with the principle of good administration (paragraph 30). Unitary effect depends on grant and on the date of the request, not on designations: this is a deliberate legislative choice, not a gap (paragraphs 38 and 43). The argument that Malta’s absence is harmless if the patent is not used there was rejected, since uniformity concerns validity, not use (paragraph 44). Rule 7(2) being mandatory, the EPO could only refuse, and proportionality cannot produce an act contra legem (paragraphs 46 and 50). There was no breach of the right to property and no discrimination (paragraphs 55 and 57).

Key points for practice

• The relevant date is that of the request for unitary effect: every participating Member State at that date must be covered by the grant.
• Divisional applications whose chain predates a participating Member State’s accession to the EPC cannot obtain unitary effect.
• The Court reviews EPO decisions against EU law and the Charter, leaving open whether the EPO is directly bound (paragraph 27).
• Practical point: for portfolios built on old divisionals, national validation should be planned early, as a Rule 97 action cannot cure a missing State.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 1 and 20

Rules of Procedure

Rules 97.1, 97.4 and 97.5

European Patent Convention

Art. 76, Art. 79 and Art. 149

Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012

Art. 2(a), Art. 3(1) and (2), Art. 9(1) and recital 7

Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection

Rules 5(2)(a), 6(1) and 7(2)

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Arts 17, 21 and 41

Case law cited

expert klein v Seoul Viosys, Court of Appeal, 20 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_380/2025)

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.