Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll v First Plast France (CFI, 24 October 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 24 October 2025 (UPC_CFI_612/2024, proceedings in French), the Paris Local Division dismissed the action for literal and equivalent infringement brought by Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll (RPN) against First Plast France, First Plast, First Corporation and Plasticos First Iberica, based on EP 3 272 938 concerning a partly concealed drainage gully. The Ghost grille, used with the Pratiko gully, has a single rib rather than ‘at least two spacer elements’. The decision is useful on two points: the indicative but real weight of the patentee’s statements during prosecution, and the failure of equivalence at the function stage.

Facts and procedure

RPN, a member of the Aliaxis group, brought the action on 31 October 2024 against four First group companies established in France, Italy and Spain. No revocation counterclaim was filed. A request for information was rejected on 11 April 2025 and the written procedure closed on 11 July 2025. The value of the action was set at EUR 750,000. The patent covers a gully whose cover has spacer elements placed alongside the floor coverings. RPN relied on claims 1 and 5 to 9.

The applicable law

The division applied Art. 24, 25, 26 and 54 UPCA and Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol in line with the Court of Appeal’s approach, the skilled person being, as the parties agreed, a building professional specialised in floor drainage systems. In the absence of agreement between the parties on the test for equivalence, it adopted a harmonised approach whose first question is whether the modified means performs essentially the same function to achieve essentially the same effect. Costs fall under Art. 69 UPCA and Rule 118.5 RoP.

Question

Does a grille with a continuous, unitary rib reproduce, literally or by equivalence, the feature of ‘at least two spacer elements’ in claim 1?

Decision

No. The parties agree that the Ghost grille’s rib is continuous and unitary: it is a single element and does not reproduce feature 1.3. Statements made by the applicant during prosecution are only indicative, but RPN had then amended its application to overcome a novelty objection, showing that it considered the two parallel walls necessary, that stance contradicts its present reading. The longitudinal portions support the coverings and the transverse portions act as reinforcement, not as spacers. The dependent features fall with feature 1.3, and claims 5 to 9 with claim 1. On equivalence, the spacers’ function is derived from the patent: supporting the coverings and leaving the drainage gap. The improved water flow relied on by RPN does not follow from it and its diagrams were not shown to be realistic. Equivalence fails at the function stage. RPN bears the costs, to be determined in separate proceedings, and must pay the defendants an interim award of EUR 70,000 on account of costs. The decision has no numbered paragraphs.

Key points for practice

• The unitary nature of a component of the accused product may be enough to defeat a claim requiring ‘at least two’ elements.
• Statements made during prosecution do not bind the court, but an amendment made to avoid prior art weighs against a later broad reading.
• The function relevant for equivalence is the one the skilled person derives from the patent, not an advantage argued during the action.
• Practical point: the successful party may obtain, in the merits decision itself, an interim payment on account of costs supported by an unchallenged fee statement.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 24, 25, 26, 54 and 69

Rules of Procedure

Rules 104, 118.5, 172.1, 220.1(a), 354 and 370.6

European Patent Convention

Art. 64, Art. 69

Case law cited

Court of Appeal: UPC_CoA_335/2023 and UPC_CoA_1/2024 (claim interpretation), UPC_CoA_402/2024 of 20 December 2024 (statements during prosecution), UPC_CoA_523/2024 of 3 March 2025, Local Divisions of Paris (UPC_CFI_363/2024, 1 August 2025), Mannheim (UPC_CFI_471/2023, 6 June 2025), Brussels (UPC_CFI_376/2023, 17 January 2025) and Düsseldorf (UPC_CFI_272/2023, 31 October 2024, UPC_CFI_213/2025, 10 July 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.