CD Paris, Preliminary Objection Of A Revocation Action, May 2, 2024, UPC_CFI-484/2023

Bardehle Pagenberg


BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
The UPC has jurisdiction for the central revocation action even if a prior national revocation action is pending
Germany Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on

Key takeaways

The UPC has jurisdiction for the central revocation action even if a prior national revocation action is pending

The asserted patent is only validated in Germany.

In 2021, Nokia Solutions and Networks GmbH & Co. KG filed a national revocation action with the German Federal Patent Court (GFPC) against the proprietor (Mala Technologies), which was dismissed by the GFPC in 2023 and the decision was served in December 2023.

On 15 December 2023, one day after the service from the GFPC, Nokia Technology GmbH filed a central revocation action with the UPC Paris CD.

On 15 January 2024, Nokia Solutions and Networks GmbH & Co. KG filed an appeal against the decision of the GFPC.

The Paris CD decided that the UPC has jurisdiction even though a prior national revocation action is pending.

Art. 29 to 32 Brussels I Reg recast (“BR”) and the relation to Art. 71a – 71d BR

The Paris CD decided that there is no direct applicability of Art. 29 to 32 BR to the UPC because the UPC is a “common court” (Art. 71a (1), (2a) BR), i.e., not a court of a Member State as required by Art. 29 to 32 BR.

Art. 71a (1) BR is not applicable to the UPC, otherwise Art. 71c (2) BR would be superfluous.

A literal application of Art. 71c (2) BR is not possible in the case-at-hand because the German revocation action was lodged before the transitional period, i.e., not within the transitional period as required by Art. 71c (2) BR.

Application of Art. 71c (2) BR by analogy is also not possible because there is no unintended gap and a similarity of the interests. As a general principle, national and international courts can act independently. Moreover, a party which filed a lawsuit in a national court before the entry into force of the UPCA should not be barred from filing a lawsuit before the UPC.


Paris (FR) Central Division

UPC number


Type of proceedings

Revocation action. Preliminary objection.


Applicant (=Defendant in the main proceedings): Mala Technologies Ltd. = proprietor of patent-in-suit

Defendant (=Claimant in the main proceedings): Nokia Technology GmbH


EP 2 044 709 B1 (valid only in Germany)


UPC, German Federal Court of Justice

Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 29-31 Brussels I Reg, Art. 71a – 71d Brussels I Reg recast


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.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More