Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce (CFI, 20 January 2024)

Date	20 January 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_363/2023
Registry reference	App_2249/2024 · ORD_2555/2024 · UPC_CFI_363/2023
Parties	Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v. expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

4 December 2023 : Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce (CFI, 4 December 2023) ORD_589353/2023 · UPC_CFI_363/2023

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 an order of 20 January 2024 (UPC_CFI_363/2023, ACT_579244/2023, App_2249/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division rejected the request of expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH, sued by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd for infringement of EP 3 926 698, to extend by two weeks, to 6 February 2024, the time limits for the Statement of defence and the counterclaim. The claimant opposed the request. The order confirms how strictly the division approaches extension requests.

Question

Does a general reference to the case management system (CMS) being inaccessible for a lengthy period justify an extension under Rule 9.3(a) RoP?

Decision

No. Given the strict regime of time limits, which serves the speed of proceedings, extensions are to be granted sparingly and only in justified exceptional cases. A general allegation of CMS access problems is not enough: the Statement of claim and its exhibits had been served in paper form, so the defendants had full access to them, and no technical impossibility of filing on time through the CMS was argued or apparent.

Key points for practice

Practical point: a request for an extension based on IT problems must show concretely how they prevent compliance with the time limit, service of the pleading on paper deprives that argument of weight.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rule 9.3(a)
Case law cited: Düsseldorf Local Division, order of 19 January 2024, UPC_CFI_475/2023

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

Seoul Viosys v Expert e-Commerce u. a (CFI, 2023-12-04), 4 December 2023

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

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

UPC_CFI_363/2023 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantSeoul Viosys Co., Ltd.28 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantexpert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH2 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

4 December 2023 Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce (CFI, 4 December 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_363/2023
L'action fondée sur deux brevets est disjointe en deux procédures, une par brevet, mais non par défenderesse. La valeur de chaque litige est fixée provisoirement à 500 000 euros et 7 000 euros de droits supplémentaires sont dus.
20 January 2024 Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce (CFI, 20 January 2024) Generic application · UPC_CFI_363/2023

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La demande de prorogation de deux semaines des délais du mémoire en défense et de la demande reconventionnelle est rejetée, faute de circonstances exceptionnelles.
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 3 926 698 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce (CFI, 4 December 2023) cited in this record
Prinoth v Xelom (CFI, 16 April 2026) cites this decision
TCL Europe v Corning (CFI, 8 September 2025) cites this decision
Dai Nippon Printing v Zapp (CFI, 3 September 2025) cites this decision
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals v Pfizer Europe MA EEIG (CFI, 4 March 2025) cites this decision
Truma Gerätetechnik v CAN Srl Airxcel Europe (CFI, 11 October 2024) cites this decision
NEC v TCL Deutschland (CFI, 12 August 2024) cites this decision
FUJIFILM v Kodak Graphic Communications (CFI, 2 August 2024) cites this decision
Dolby International v HP Deutschland (CFI, 27 June 2024) cites this decision
Dolby International v ASUS Computer (CFI, 24 June 2024) cites this decision
FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 4 April 2024) cites this decision
Bayerische Motoren Werke v ITCiCo Spain (CFI, 9 February 2024) cites this decision

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 3 926 698` Light emitting diode recorded proprietor: Seoul Viosys Co Ltd	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 11 other decision(s): Emporia UK v Seoul Viosys (CFI, 30 March 2026) · expert klein v Seoul Viosys (CoA, 2 October 2025) · Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce (CFI, 10 April 2026) · Seoul Viosys v Emporia UK (CFI, 1 September 2025) · Seoul Viosys v expert klein (CoA, 21 August 2025) · Seoul Viosys v expert klein (CFI, 14 April 2025) · Seoul Viosys v expert klein (CFI, 10 October 2024) · Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce (CFI, 5 August 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

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.