VEOLIA PROPRETE v TIRU (CFI, 18 March 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 18 March 2026, the Paris Central Division ruled on Veolia Propreté’s revocation action (UPC_CFI_417/2025) and on the joined counterclaims for revocation of Valinea Energie and Maguin (UPC_CFI_509/2025 and UPC_CFI_528/2025) against Tiru’s EP 3 178 578 (waste incineration plant with an oscillating rotary kiln). The panel rejected the main request to amend and three auxiliary requests for extending protection (Art. 123(3) EPC), then held auxiliary request 2.0 compliant with Art. 123 and 84 EPC. It then rejects the alleged prior use, acknowledges inventive step and maintains the patent as per request 2.0. The headnotes matter for practice: a single embodiment covered by the amended claim but not by the granted claim is enough to establish a prohibited extension, and an obvious error may be corrected during the proceedings.

Facts and procedure

Tiru had obtained evidence preservation and an inspection against Valinea Energie, holder of the concession for the Pays de Montbéliard waste treatment plant, which runs a kiln supplied by Maguin, and then sued for infringement before the Paris Local Division on 17 February 2025. Veolia brought a standalone revocation action before the Central Division. Valinea’s and Maguin’s counterclaims were referred to it on 22 July 2025, and the three cases were joined by order of 2 January 2026, which set the value in dispute at EUR 2 million. Tiru defended its patent with a main request and auxiliary requests, reduced to seven, plus a late request 3.2. The oral hearing took place on 3 February 2026.

The applicable law

Claims are construed under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol: they are the starting point and the decisive basis, the description being an aid to interpretation (paragraphs 54 and 55). Amendments are reviewed under Art. 123(2) and (3) and 84 EPC, lack of clarity is not a ground for revocation under Art. 138(1) EPC, but Art. 84 applies to amendments proposed before the UPC (Rules 30.1(b) and 50.2 RoP, paragraph 138).

Question

Do Tiru’s proposed amendments extend the protection conferred by the patent as granted, and does auxiliary request 2.0 meet the added-matter and clarity requirements?

Decision

The Division rejected Tiru’s requests to strike passages from the opposing submissions (paragraphs 30 to 34). Under granted claim 1, combustion air and cooling air may be one and the same air flowing in a single circuit (paragraph 62), and feature 1.9 covers any air introduced under features 1.6 and 1.8 (paragraphs 66 to 69), claim 15 does not require cooling air to pass through the channels (paragraphs 75 and 76). Obvious errors in claims 4 and 15.8, and the duplication in request 1.6, may be corrected (paragraphs 83 to 87, 109 and 110).

The main request, which covers cooling air passing through the casing without using the channels, extends protection and was rejected (paragraphs 88 to 97), as were requests 1.1, 1.3 and 1.6 (paragraphs 114 and 115). The number of auxiliary requests was not excessive (paragraphs 107, 108 and 113). Request 2.0 complies with Art. 123(3) (paragraphs 122 to 125), involves no intermediate generalisation (paragraphs 126 to 135) and is clear (paragraphs 136 to 141). Five documents were held to form part of the prior art (paragraphs 142 and 143).

Prior public use of the « Four Laurent Bouillet 1987 » is not established: no drawing or manual was actually made available to the public before the priority date of 9 December 2015, and the mere possibility of supervised site visits gave no access to the internal structure of the furnace (paragraphs 144 to 150). Novelty being undisputed, inventive step is acknowledged: starting from Grannec, which does not disclose injecting cooling air into the cell, neither Heliox, Vanderpol nor LBI prompts the skilled person to divide the hollow jacket into two separate parts for combustion air and cooling air, the contrary argument resting on hindsight (paragraphs 151 to 205). The order rejects the revocation claims, maintains the patent as per request 2.0 and apportions costs 60% to the claimants and 40% to Tiru, the limitation of the patent during the proceedings justifying that split (paragraphs 206 to 208).

Key points for practice

• A single embodiment covered by the amended claim and excluded from the granted claim is enough to show an extension of protection, even if the amendment narrows the claim in other respects (paragraphs 89 and 90).
• An obvious error in a granted claim, or in a party’s submissions, may be corrected without amounting to a new late argument (paragraphs 85 and 110).
• Where the skilled person readily perceives a contradiction between the description and the claim, the claim wording prevails (paragraph 74).
• Practical point: a proprietor amending a claim drafted with ‘and/or’ should check, configuration by configuration, that no covered variant fell outside the granted wording.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 30.1(b), 30.2, 50.2 and 150

European Patent Convention

Art. 54, Art. 56, Art. 69, Art. 84, Art. 123, Art. 138, Rule 43(7)

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Meril Italy, 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.