UPC_CFI_860/2025

The parallel revocation counterclaim did not make LS9’s action inadmissible because the court treated the invoked prior-art documents and supporting arguments as part of the action’s subject matter.

The court held LS9 to be concerned by the patent under Article 47(6) UPCA and rejected its contention that Article 65(1) UPCA dispensed with that requirement.

The attacks based on D6, D7 and D8 were not considered because they were introduced only with the reply without a sufficient Rule 263 justification.