- within Transport topic(s)
- in European Union
1. Key takeaways
The revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged dependent claims, as the latter may possess autonomous patentability due to additional technical features.
Following the revocation of an independent claim, the patent proprietor may amend the patent to recast surviving dependent claims into independent form, provided the resulting configuration complies with the requirements of clarity and unity of invention.
This formal adaptation must comply with Art. 84 EPC (clarity) and Art. 82 EPC (unity of invention). The Court considered this a mandatory adaptation, not a substantive amendment requiring leave
As a general rule, the mere deletion of claims does not necessitate a consolidated document.
As a general rule, the mere deletion of claims does not necessitate a consolidated document.
A subsequent request to amend the patent under Rule 30 (2) RoP is not justified by a need to react to a Court of Appeal decision in parallel proceedings if there is no direct logical nexus between the new procedural development therein and the proposed amendments or where the findings of that decision were based on arguments already pleaded and were thus foreseeable.
2. Division
Central Division Paris
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_258/2025
4. Type of proceedings
Revocation Action
5. Parties
Claimant: Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd.
Defendant: Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 926 698
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.
