1. Key takeaways
A default decision under R. 355 RoP can be granted if a defendant, properly served under R. 274 and R. 277 RoP, fails to act within the R. 49 RoP time limit
The Court exercises its discretion to issue the default decision, emphasizing the claimant's right to an expeditious procedure.
The defendant was served in the USA via the Hague Service Convention but failed to file a defence or any other application.
Skilled person defined narrowly and strict standard for what constitutes Common General Knowledge (CGK) is applied, distinguishing it from generally available public information
The Court defines the skilled person as a mechanical engineer who specialises in wave generators (and has general knowledge of fluid mechanics, computer control, and automation).
CGK is limited to knowledge from familiar, reliable sources a skilled person in that specific field would regularly consult, not just any publicly available information.
Claim construction clarifies optional "water valve" and a distributed "mobile application controller"
The Court interpretes the "valve structure (24, 26, 28)" feature to require a gas supply valve (26) and a vent valve (28), a water valve (24) is optional.
It also interpretes the "mobile application controller" feature functionally as a two-part system (fixed component and mobile component) in light of a dependent claim not subject to this revocation action.
A claim can be found obvious by combining prior art documents even if they are concerned with different technologies (e.g., pneumatic vs. hydraulic)
The Court found it obvious to combine a pneumatic wave generator (D1) with the software controller from a mechanical/hydraulic system (D3).
The reasoning was that the control sequence and software interface were independent of the specific physical actuation mechanism, and the skilled person would not be deterred by this difference.
Partial revocation effective across all Contracting Member States where the EP was in force at filing
The claimant initially requested revocation for France and Germany.
The Court's order declares claim 1 revoked in the territories of the Contracting Member States for which the Euorpean patent was in effect at the time the revocation action was filed.
2. Division
Central Division Paris
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_350/2025
4. Type of proceedings
Revocation action (decision by default)
5. Parties
Claimant: WhiteWater West Industries Inc.
Defendant: American Wave Machines, Inc.
6. Patent(s)
EP 2 728 089 B1 — "Sequenced chamber wave generator controller and method"
7. Jurisdictions
UPC
8. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 355 RoP
Rule 49 RoP
Rule 274.1(a)(ii) RoP
Rule 277 RoP
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]