expert klein v Seoul Viosys (CFI, 14 April 2025)

Date	14 April 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Application For Costs
Registry reference	ACT_66999/2024 · ORD_67138/2024
Parties	expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH v. Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 14 April 2025 (ACT_66999/2024 and ACT_67004/2024, UPC_CFI_483/2023 and counterclaim CC_3555/2024), Presiding Judge Thomas, acting as judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division, rejected as inadmissible the application by expert e-Commerce and expert klein to fix costs of EUR 111,000. The decision of 10 October 2024 had revoked Seoul Viosys’s EP 3 223 320 for Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands and dismissed the infringement action. The application, filed on 12 December 2024, was late: the one-month period under Rule 151 runs from service.

Question

Can the one-month period under Rule 151 be raised against a cost claim arising under Art. 69 UPCA, and does it run from service of a single decision that was placed in the counterclaim workflow only on 6 December 2024 (paragraphs 7 to 9)?

Decision

The single decision, covering both the action and the counterclaim, was served on 10 October 2024, its staggered upload to the CMS was irrelevant (paragraphs 11 and 12). Had the CMS failed, paper filing was available (Rule 4.2), and no ground for an extension was put forward (paragraph 13). Art. 69 leaves procedure to the Rules. A period that may be extended on reasoned application (Rule 9.3 and 9.4) causes no undue disadvantage (paragraph 14). The judge left open whether the claim may be pursued outside cost proceedings (paragraph 15).

Key points for practice

The Rule 151 period runs from service of the decision, not from its upload to each sub-file (paragraphs 11 and 12).
Faced with a CMS problem, paper filing (Rule 4.2) or a reasoned request for an extension (Rule 9.3) must be used before the period expires (paragraph 13).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 69(1)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 4.2, 9.3, 9.4, 150, 151, 152 and 221.1
Case law cited: No UPC decision is cited.

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.

Going further

Lexicon: Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

defendantSeoul Viosys Co., Ltd.28 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantexpert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH5 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Application For Costs
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La demande de fixation des frais déposée plus d'un mois après la signification de la décision au fond est irrecevable, le dépôt échelonné de la décision dans le CMS étant sans incidence.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 223 320 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 223 320`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 5 other decision(s): Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce (CoA, UPC_CoA_762/2024, 5 November 20 · Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce (CFI, 10 October 2024) · Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce (CFI, 9 April 2026) · expert klein v Seoul Viosys (CoA, 20 August 2025) · Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce (CFI, 4 December 2023)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.