WIRPLAST Więcek Spółka Jawna v VILPE (CFI, 8 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 8 April 2026 (UPC_CFI_280/2025), the Munich Central Division dismisses the revocation action brought by WIRPLAST Więcek Spółka Jawna against VILPE’s EP 2 649 380 B1, concerning an accessory for an exhaust ventilation pipe with an integrated circular spirit level. Only lack of inventive step was pleaded: none of the combinations proposed starting from D1 leads obviously to the invention. The decision illustrates the burden of argument on the revocation claimant and the effect of a restrictive reading of one feature on the choice of the closest prior art.

Facts and procedure

The patent, derived from an international application of 25 November 2011 claiming Finnish priority of 9 December 2010, was granted on 27 June 2018 and has effect in Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Sweden. The revocation action, filed on 2 April 2025, relied only on Art. 56 EPC and on four documents: D1 (DE 10118226 C1), D2 (JP 2002106855 A), D3 (US 2007/0167130 A1) and D4 (CN 2255012 Y) (paragraphs 1, 5 and 16). VILPE sought dismissal and filed four conditional auxiliary requests. WIRPLAST stated that it relied only on the passages translated into English (paragraphs 7, 18 and 47). The oral hearing took place on 25 February 2026.

The applicable law

The Central Division’s jurisdiction follows from Art. 33(4) UPCA. The claim is construed under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol, and inventive step is assessed under Art. 56 EPC for the purposes of Art. 138(1)(a) EPC and Art. 65 UPCA.

Question

Is an exhaust ventilation pipe extending through the roof, with a hat and a circular spirit level integrated into a conical cup, obvious over D1 alone or combined with D2, D3 or D4?

Decision

Jurisdiction and admissibility are established (paragraphs 11 to 13). The skilled person is a mechanical engineer experienced in designing and installing exhaust ventilation pipes (paragraph 27). Feature F4 (‘extending through an outer roof of a building’) limits claim 1 to pipes that pass through and protrude above the roof (paragraphs 34 to 40). It is for the claimant to substantiate obviousness (paragraph 59). The objective technical problem is to provide a pipe extending through the roof and designed for simple, quick vertical installation (paragraphs 62, 71 and 88).

D1 is a realistic starting point, but it is a different kind of ventilation device that does not address vertical installation. F4 is not disclosed in it and WIRPLAST does not explain how to adapt it (paragraphs 70 to 79). Nothing prompts the addition of a level to D1, whose base plate lies flat on the roof, and integrating a circular level on the conical cup requires inventive skill (paragraphs 78, 96 and 103). D4, a passive roof convector, is a different kind of device from D1, and D2 and D3 give no useful guidance (paragraphs 87 to 104). As claims 1 and 2 are inventive, the auxiliary requests are not considered (paragraph 106). The action is dismissed and WIRPLAST must pay VILPE the agreed sum of EUR 75,000 in costs (paragraph 107).

Key points for practice

• The revocation claimant must explain concretely how the skilled person would have adapted the prior art to arrive at each missing feature.
• A realistic starting point may lose its force where it belongs to a different kind of device, unconcerned with the objective problem.
• Combining documents describing devices of different kinds is not obvious without an identifiable prompt.
• Practical point: a revocation action based solely on inventive step is better built on a document concerning the same kind of device, with each step of adaptation demonstrated, than on heterogeneous combinations.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 32(1)(d), 33(4), 65, 69(1) and 76(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 17.3, 25.1, 42, 44, 118.5 and 118.8

European Patent Convention

Art. 56, Art. 69 and Protocol on its interpretation, Art. 138(1)(a)

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Insulet v EOFlow, Court of Appeal, 30 April 2025, Amgen v Sanofi, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, VMR v NJOY, Court of Appeal, 29 December 2025, Dyson v Dreame, Court of Appeal, 6 March 2026, Sumi v Syngenta, Court of Appeal, 3 March 2025, Brita v Aquashield, Munich Local Division, 22 August 2025, Baussmann v Raimund Beck, Munich Central Division, 20 November 2025, NJOY v Juul, Paris Central Division, 5 November 2024, NJOY v VMR, Paris Central Division, 21 January 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.