REEL International v Fives ECL (CFI, UPC_CFI_2296/2025, 26 October 2026)

Date	26 October 2026
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Central Division - Section
Type of action	Revocation Action
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_2296/2025
Registry reference	UPC-CFI-0002296/2025
Parties	REEL International v. Fives ECL
Language	French

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

2 October 2026 : REEL International v Fives ECL (CFI, UPC_CFI_2296/2025, 2 October 2026) UPC-CFI-0002296/2025

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 1 November 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a procedural order issued in French and dated 26 October 2026 (UPC_CFI_2296/2025, EP 1 740 740), the Munich Central Division, sitting as a full panel, rejects Fives ECL’s request to hear the parties’ legal experts in person in the revocation action brought by REEL International. Fives relies against REEL International on the res judicata effect of the German decisions dismissing the revocation action brought by its subsidiary REEL GmbH (Federal Patent Court, 18 May 2022; Federal Court of Justice, 26 November 2024). The division notes that, since the Court of Appeal’s Heraeus v Vibrantz decision of 16 September 2026, the parties agree that German law governs res judicata; that the written opinions and briefs sufficiently inform it on the “straw man” theory; and that the effects of the patent’s expiry and of Fives’ waiver of infringement claims fall under Article 47(6) UPCA, not German law.

Provisions applied

UPC Agreement: Articles 47(6) and 53(2)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 104(e), 176, 177.1 and 181
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I recast): Article 36(1)
Case law cited: Heraeus v Vibrantz (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_919/2025, 16 September 2026); Federal Patent Court, 18 May 2022; Federal Court of Justice, 26 November 2024.

Related decisions

Munich Central Division, 2 October 2026, UPC_CFI_2296/2025, REEL International v Fives ECL: order after the interim conference.
Court of Appeal, 26 October 2026, UPC_CoA_42/2026, Fives ECL v REEL.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 1 November 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.

Going further

Lexicon: Revocation action, Local and central divisions (UPC)

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: French 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_2296/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

defendantFives ECL7 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantREEL International2 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

2 October 2026 REEL International v Fives ECL (CFI, UPC_CFI_2296/2025, 2 October 2026) Revocation Action · UPC_CFI_2296/2025
Après la conférence de mise en état, la juge-rapporteure fixe la valeur du litige à 4,5 millions d’euros, confirme l’audience du 9 décembre 2026 à Munich et ordonne d’office une interprétation simultanée du français vers l’anglais aux frais de la juridiction.
26 October 2026 REEL International v Fives ECL (CFI, UPC_CFI_2296/2025, 26 October 2026) Revocation Action · UPC_CFI_2296/2025

What the record states

Nature of the act: Revocation Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La division centrale rejette la demande de Fives ECL d’audition en personne des experts en droit allemand des parties, la cour s’estimant suffisamment éclairée par les consultations écrites sur l’autorité de chose jugée, la théorie de l’« homme de paille » et l’intérêt à agir.
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 1 740 740 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Fives ECL v REEL (CoA, UPC_CoA_42/2026, 26 October 2026) cited in this record
REEL International v Fives ECL (CFI, UPC_CFI_2296/2025, 2 October 2026) cites this decision

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 1 740 740` Compact service module which is intended for electrolytic aluminium production plants recorded proprietor: Fives ECL SAS	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 10 other decision(s): Fives ECL v REEL (CoA, 17 July 2026) · Fives ECL v REEL (CoA, 17 June 2026) · REEL International v Fives ECL (CFI, 24 March 2026) · Fives ECL v REEL (CFI, 11 February 2026) · Fives ECL v REEL (CoA, 16 January 2025) · Fives ECL v REEl (CFI, 25 January 2024) · Fives ECL v REEL (CFI, 17 November 2023) · Fives ECL v REEL (CoA, 14 October 2026)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) 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.