Pari Pharma v Koninklijke Philips (CFI, 27 November 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 27 November 2025, the Milan Central Division, hearing Pari Pharma’s revocation action against Koninklijke Philips’ EP 3 397 329 B1 (air-flow in a nebulizer head), holds claim 1 as granted to lack novelty but maintains the patent as amended by Auxiliary Request 2 for France and Germany. The value of the proceedings is set at €250,000 and each party bears its own costs. The decision takes a broad view of standing to bring a revocation action, rejects an auxiliary request that leaves it to the court to pick the claims to be upheld, and applies the front-loaded procedure strictly.

Facts and procedure

The revocation action was filed on 23 October 2024 and limited to Germany and France (paragraph 10). In its defence of 21 January 2025, Philips sought maintenance of the patent as granted and, in the alternative, Auxiliary Request 1 and then Auxiliary Request 2, the latter incorporating the content of claims 4 and 5 into claim 1. An interim conference took place on 16 September 2025 and the oral hearing was held in Milan on 7 October 2025. The statement for revocation had mistakenly named, in the Rule 44 information, another group company at the same address. The panel allows the correction, as it caused the defendant no unreasonable prejudice (paragraphs 20 to 26).

The applicable law

Standing to bring a revocation action lies with any person concerned by the patent (Art. 47(6) UPCA), the grounds for revocation are those of Art. 65 UPCA and Art. 138 EPC. Validity is assessed on novelty and inventive step (Arts 54 and 56 EPC), and the claims are construed under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol. Amendments proposed by the proprietor fall under Rules 30.1 and 50.2 and Art. 123 EPC, costs under Art. 69 UPCA.

Question

Does a competitor have standing without showing any particular interest? Is claim 1 novel over D1? Is an auxiliary request seeking maintenance of whichever claims are found valid admissible? Is Auxiliary Request 2 valid?

Decision

The panel holds that being “concerned” by a patent requires no specific legal or economic interest: anyone who may be seeking freedom to operate, or who may be active in the patent’s technical field, has standing, with only “straw men” arguably excluded, having been sued or warned suffices but is not required (paragraphs 28 to 35). Pari Pharma, as a competitor, therefore has standing.

On construction, the “backside opening” is a physical feature, an opening at the rear opposite the mouthpiece (paragraphs 64 to 69), and feature 3.1 refers to orientation relative to the air-flow, not to gravity (paragraphs 70 to 72). The skilled person generally cannot derive dimensions from schematic figures (paragraphs 82 and 103). Claim 1 as granted is fully disclosed in D1 (paragraphs 79 to 107).

Auxiliary Request 1 is inadmissible: the proprietor must file specific amended claims, and the Court will not of its own motion move features of dependent claims into an independent claim (paragraph 111), the request is also illogical, since its scope could exceed that of Auxiliary Request 2 (paragraph 113). Auxiliary Request 2 is admissible, clear and novel (paragraphs 116 to 125). It is also inventive: the Pari eMotion device has no backside opening (paragraphs 143 to 148), the skilled person would not consult D5, which concerns ventilator nebulisers (paragraph 157), and the attacks based on D2, D7 and D3 fail (paragraphs 159 to 199). The attack combining the Pari eMotion with D2 or D7 and D5, not pursued at the hearing, is in any event late (paragraphs 200 to 202). Success being shared, each party bears its own costs (paragraphs 204 to 206).

Key points for practice

• Standing to seek revocation is broad: a competitor need not explain how it is concerned, unlike the requirement placed on an infringement claimant by Rule 13.1(f) (paragraph 32).
• An auxiliary request that leaves the Court to select the valid claims is inadmissible. Each claim set must be spelt out.
• Dimensions taken from schematic figures do not amount to a direct and unambiguous disclosure.
• Practical point: every combination of prior art should be pleaded as soon as the opponent’s construction is known, the panel does not raise attacks of its own motion and excludes those advanced late.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 47(6), 65, 69, 73(1), 76(1) and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 13.1, 30.1, 44, 50.2, 118.3, 158, 220.1(a), 224.1(a), 354 and 355.4

European Patent Convention

Art. 54, 56, 69, 84, 123(2) and (3) and 138(3)

Case law cited

Juul Labs v NJOY Netherlands, Court of Appeal, 3 April 2024, NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Insulet v EOFlow, Court of Appeal, 20 April 2025, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Amgen v Sanofi, Court of Appeal, 25 November 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.