LASER COMPONENTS v Seoul Viosys (CFI, 12 February 2024)
| Date | 12 February 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Paris (FR) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_440/2023 |
| Registry reference | App_588685/2023 · ORD_3311/2024 · UPC_CFI_440/2023 |
| Parties | SAS LASER COMPONENTS v. Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 27 February 2024 : Seoul Viosys v Laser Components (CFI, 27 February 2024) ORD_10099/2024 · UPC_CFI_440/2023
- 14 March 2024 : Seoul Viosys v Laser Components (CFI, 14 March 2024) App_12803/2024 · ORD_13006/2024 · UPC_CFI_440/2023
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By an order of 12 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_440/2023), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division, in the infringement action on EP 3 404 726 brought by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd against Laser Components SAS concerning UV LED chips, declared admissible the application for forced intervention of its supplier, Photon Wave Co. Ltd. The order accepts that a defendant may join its supplier so that the decision binds it, with a view to a possible warranty claim that the UPC will not itself decide.
Question
May the defendant to an infringement action join its supplier as a forced intervener (Rule 316A RoP) over the patentee’s objection that this would lengthen the proceedings and serve no purpose?
Decision
The judge-rapporteur found that Laser Components has a direct interest in joining the supplier of the chips, which could be liable to indemnify it if it is held to infringe, and that the supplier should be bound by the decision even if it declines to intervene. The delay argument failed because the intervener’s time limits are strictly set by Rule 316A.2 RoP, the argument based on continued sales failed too, Seoul Viosys not having sought provisional measures. The Registry is to serve the application on Photon Wave. If it files no statement within one month, it will be bound by the decision between the original parties. The order is not open to appeal.
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a defendant contemplating a claim against its supplier can, early in the proceedings, make the UPC’s decision binding on that supplier through forced intervention under Rule 316A RoP.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 316A and 317
- United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods
- Art. 43
Related decisions
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.
Decisions in the same proceedings
Going further
Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), 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
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.
Parties
- defendantSeoul Viosys Co., Ltd.28 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantSAS LASER COMPONENTSFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 12 February 2024 LASER COMPONENTS v Seoul Viosys (CFI, 12 February 2024) Generic application · UPC_CFI_440/2023
- 27 February 2024 Seoul Viosys v Laser Components (CFI, 27 February 2024) Generic Order · UPC_CFI_440/2023
Il n'y a pas lieu de proposer aux parties le passage du français à l'anglais demandé par la défenderesse française.
- 14 March 2024 Seoul Viosys v Laser Components (CFI, 14 March 2024) Generic application · UPC_CFI_440/2023
La demande de prorogation du délai de défense est rejetée et la défenderesse doit déposer son mémoire en défense au plus tard le 18 mars 2024.
- 15 October 2024 Photon Wave v Seoul Viosys (CoA, 15 October 2024) Appeal RoP220.2 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
La cour d’appel déclare irrecevable l’appel de Photon Wave, la mention de la règle 220.2 en fin d’ordonnance ne valant pas autorisation d’appel.
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic application
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La juge rapporteure déclare recevable l'intervention forcée du fournisseur des produits litigieux, qui sera lié par la décision s'il ne dépose pas de mémoire dans le délai d'un mois.
- Appeal
- An appeal is documented in the corpus (see above).
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Patents mentioned
EP 3 404 726mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Seoul Viosys v Laser Components (CFI, 14 March 2024) cited in this record
- Seoul Viosys v Laser Components (CFI, 27 February 2024) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 404 726Ultraviolet light-emitting device recorded proprietor: Seoul Viosys Co Ltd | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 8 other decision(s): Seoul Viosys v Laser Components (CFI, 24 April 2025) · Seoul Viosys v Laser Components (CFI, 17 February 2025) · Photon Wave v Seoul Viosys (CFI, 24 January 2025) · Photon Wave v Seoul Viosys (CoA, 15 October 2024) · Seoul Viosys v Laser Components (CFI, 24 July 2024) · Seoul Viosys v Photon Wave (CFI, 6 May 2024) · Seoul Viosys v Laser Components (CFI, 14 March 2024) · Seoul Viosys v Laser Components (CFI, 27 February 2024) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.