Seoul Viosys v Emporia UK (CFI, 1 September 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 1 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_258/2025, ORD_32540/2025), the Paris Central Division dismissed Seoul Viosys’ preliminary objection to the revocation action brought by Emporia UK and Ireland against EP 3 926 698. Seoul Viosys argued that Emporia was a straw company for ex-pert klein, a distributor sued for infringement before the Düsseldorf Local Division, so that the latter had jurisdiction under Art. 33(4) UPCA. The Division accepted that the straw company concept has a basis in EU law, but found the evidence insufficient.

Question

Does a revocation action brought by a supplier fall to the local division already seised of an infringement action against its distributor, on the ground that the claimant is a straw company and therefore the « same party » within Art. 33(4) UPCA?

Decision

Not on the facts. The second sentence of Art. 33(4) is a rule of derogating jurisdiction, not a lis pendens rule (paragraphs 5 to 7). The straw company concept, akin to simulation, is grounded in the general principle prohibiting abuse of rights, which allows the acts of such a company to be attributed to the party behind it (paragraphs 13 to 20). The party relying on it must prove, under Rule 171.1, that the company has no real activity and acts as a nominee (paragraphs 21 and 22). Shared representatives, knowledge of the litigation, identical invalidity attacks and a stay request show commercially reasonable coordination between a supplier and its distributor, not a nominee (paragraphs 23 to 26). The UPC system does not prevent linked entities from attacking the same patent, even on the same grounds (paragraph 27).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a straw company objection is admissible in principle, but requires proof that the entity has no activity of its own, coordinated defences alone are not enough.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 24, 32(1)(a), (b) and (d), 33(4) and 33(7)

Rules of Procedure

Rule 171.1

Case law cited

Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Italy, Paris Central Division, 13 November 2023 (UPC_CFI_255/2023), CJEU, 10 September 2009, Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission, C-97/08 P, CJEU, 19 January 2023, Unilever Italia Mkt. Operations, C-680/20, CJEU, 21 February 2006, Halifax and Others, C-255/02, CJEU, 12 September 2006, Cadbury Schweppes, C-196/04, CJEU, 16 July 2015, Huawei Technologies, C-170/13, CJEU, 29 April 2004, IMS Health, C-418/01, ECJ, 6 April 1995, Magill, C-241/91 P

Related decisions

• Emporia UK v Seoul Viosys, 30 March 2026, a later decision in the same revocation action.

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.