Emporia UK v Seoul Viosys (CFI, 30 March 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 30 March 2026, the Paris Central Division grants Emporia UK and Ireland’s revocation action against Seoul Viosys and revokes EP 3 926 698 B1, concerning a light-emitting diode, to the extent of claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 10 and 11, for Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden. Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9 had already been revoked by the Court of Appeal in parallel proceedings. The decision matters for practice in three respects: how a final revocation in other proceedings is taken into account, added matter through intermediate generalisation, and the rejection of late auxiliary requests.

Facts and procedure

The action targeted claims 1 to 11 on the grounds of added matter beyond the parent application and lack of inventive step. The lack of novelty ground, first raised in the reply, was disregarded as late at the interim conference of 13 January 2026 (paragraphs 1, 5, 8 and 12). A preliminary objection based on Art. 33(4) UPCA had been dismissed on 1 September 2025 (paragraph 6). Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal, ruling on 2 October 2025 on the counterclaim brought against Seoul Viosys before the Düsseldorf Local Division, revoked claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9 for added matter (paragraphs 14 to 16). The proprietor then filed new auxiliary requests AR0b to AR10b with its rejoinder (paragraph 9).

The applicable law

Art. 76(1) EPC prohibits the subject-matter of a divisional application from extending beyond the content of the earlier application as filed. Rule 30 RoP governs applications to amend the patent: filed with the defence (Rule 30.1), they may be followed by subsequent amendments only with the Court’s permission (Rule 30.2).

Question

Following the final revocation of the independent claim by the Court of Appeal, are the remaining dependent claims invalid for added matter, and may the proprietor file new auxiliary requests in response to that ruling?

Decision

As the Court of Appeal’s decision is final, the revoked claims are deemed removed from the patent, which is left without an independent claim (paragraphs 14 to 18). Invalidity of claim 1 does not of itself entail that of the dependent claims, which may be recast as independent claims (paragraphs 19 to 22). Following the Court of Appeal’s construction, the division reads feature 5.2 (openings “near” the edge of the substrate) as referring to openings sufficiently close to the edge and distinct from inner openings (paragraphs 42 to 44). The application as filed, however, inextricably links those openings to the inner openings: isolating them is an unallowable intermediate generalisation, so that no challenged claim can be maintained as granted (paragraphs 50 to 54). Merely recasting the auxiliary requests required no permission (paragraphs 60 and 61), but none of AR1a to AR13a cures the defect (paragraphs 68 and 82). Requests AR0b to AR10b are inadmissible: they could have been filed with the defence, they have no logical nexus with the Court of Appeal’s ruling, and that outcome was foreseeable (paragraphs 73 to 77). No order is made on claims 12 to 14, which were outside the action (paragraph 84). Seoul Viosys bears the costs. The value of EUR 500,000 set for the costs ceiling is confirmed (paragraphs 85 and 86).

Key points for practice

• A final revocation by the Court of Appeal in other proceedings is binding: the claims concerned are treated as removed from the patent (paragraphs 14 to 18).
• Isolating a feature that the application as filed presents as linked to another is an intermediate generalisation contrary to Art. 76(1) EPC (paragraphs 50 to 54).
• A foreseeable adverse ruling in parallel proceedings does not, by itself, justify late auxiliary requests (paragraphs 73 to 76).
• Practical point: a proprietor involved in several sets of proceedings on the same patent should file, with its defence, auxiliary requests covering a possible adverse outcome elsewhere (paragraphs 74 to 76).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 33(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 30 and 50.2

European Patent Convention

Art. 76(1), Art. 82, Art. 84 and Rule 43(2)

Case law cited

10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024 (paragraph 32), Expert e-Commerce v Seoul Viosys, Court of Appeal, 2 October 2025 (paragraphs 14, 42 and 44), Microsoft v Suinno, Paris Central Division, 7 January 2026 (paragraph 59), Meril, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025 (paragraph 73), Hamburg Local Division, 30 April 2025, UPC_CFI_278/2023, Düsseldorf Local Division, 7 March 2025, UPC_CFI_459/2023, Paris Central Division, 21 January 2025, UPC_CFI_311/2023, Paris Local Division, 11 December 2024, UPC_CFI_395/2023 (paragraph 78).

Related decisions

• Seoul Viosys v Emporia UK, 1 September 2025, order dismissing the preliminary objection.

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.