Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce (CFI, 4 December 2023)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By procedural order of 4 December 2023 (UPC_CFI_363/2023, ORD_589353/2023), the presiding judge of the Düsseldorf Local Division, as judge-rapporteur, separated Seoul Viosys’ infringement action against expert e-Commerce and expert klein, based on two patents (EP 3 926 698 and EP 3 223 320), into two proceedings, one per patent, but declined to split it by defendant. He provisionally set the value of each action at EUR 500,000 and ordered the claimant to pay EUR 7,000 in additional court fees. The order reflects the division’s approach: separate early what validity may drive apart, keep together what shares a single attacked product.

Question

Should an action based on two patents and brought against two defendants over the same embodiment be separated by patent, by defendant, or both (Rules 302 and 303.2 RoP)?

Decision

Separation by patent is appropriate and should take place early, since each patent may be challenged separately on validity and the proceedings may follow different courses. Separation by defendant is not warranted at this stage: the same embodiment is at issue, so claim construction and infringement offer significant synergies. The new action is deemed pending from the filing of the original statement of claim, which is deemed served on the same date. The value in dispute remains provisional, and the defendants may address it in their statement of defence.

Key points for practice

• Separation by patent costs the claimant neither its filing date nor its date of service.
• Practical point: a claimant suing on several patents should anticipate separation and the additional court fees it triggers.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 302.1, 302.2 and 303.2

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.