Seoul Viosys v Laser Components (CFI, 14 March 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 13 March 2024 (UPC_CFI_440/2023, ACT_588685/2023, order no. 13006, App_12803/2024), the Paris Local Division (C. Lignieres, presiding and judge-rapporteur, C. Gillet and P. Tochtermann) rejected the request by Laser Components SAS, defendant in the infringement action on EP 3 404 726 brought by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd, to extend the time for its Statement of defence, and ordered it to file by 18 March 2024. The order does not allow a third-party intervention to hold up the main action.

Question

Do the forced intervention of the defendant’s supplier, its technical difficulties with the CMS and the preparation of a joint counterclaim for revocation justify extending the time for the defence under Rule 9.3(a) RoP?

Decision

The division found that the third party invited to intervene, Photon Wave Co., Ltd., had suffered no prejudice from the CMS difficulties, having received the request, the order and the file by email on 19 and 20 February 2024, its own time limit runs until 20 March 2024 (Rule 316.2). The defendant had not shown that it experienced technical difficulties itself, and its defence did not depend on the intervener’s position. The claimant should not bear the consequences of the defendant’s procedural choices. In light of the principles of diligence and efficiency in the Preamble, the intervention runs in parallel and does not justify delaying the proceedings. The three-month period under Rule 23 expires on 18 March 2024.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a defendant that invites a third party to intervene cannot rely on that intervention to extend its own time for the defence.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Preamble (points 2 and 4) and Rules 9.3(a), 23, 25, 220.2 and 316.2

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.