Opens in a new tab

Seoul Viosys v Laser Components (CFI, 27 February 2024)

Date27 February 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric Order
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_440/2023
Registry referenceORD_10099/2024 · UPC_CFI_440/2023
PartiesSeoul Viosys Co., Ltd v. Laser Components SAS

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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 27 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_440/2023, ACT_588685/2023, ORD_10099/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division (C. Lignieres), after consulting the panel, declined to propose to the parties a change from French to English, the language in which EP 3 404 726 was granted, as requested by Laser Components SAS, defendant in the infringement action brought by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The order shows that a French defendant can hardly object to the claimant’s choice of French.

Question

Can a defendant established in France have the judge-rapporteur propose to the parties a change of the language of the proceedings to the language of grant under Rule 322 RoP?

Decision

Rule 322 allows the judge-rapporteur, on its own initiative or at a party’s request and after consulting the panel, to propose to the parties a change to the language of grant. Art. 49(4) UPCA makes use of that language subject to the parties’ agreement, on grounds of convenience and fairness. Although the patent was granted in English, the claimant chose French, which respects the rights of the defendant, a French company. Neither the nationality of the representative nor that of the third party invited to intervene amounts to a serious ground of convenience or fairness. The panel having given an unfavourable opinion, there was no reason to propose the change requested.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 49(4)
Rules of Procedure
Rule 322

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
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_440/2023 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 12 February 2024 LASER COMPONENTS v Seoul Viosys (CFI, 12 February 2024) Generic application · UPC_CFI_440/2023

    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.

  2. 27 February 2024 Seoul Viosys v Laser Components (CFI, 27 February 2024) Generic Order · UPC_CFI_440/2023
  3. 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.

  4. 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 Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Il n'y a pas lieu de proposer aux parties le passage du français à l'anglais demandé par la défenderesse française.
Appeal
An appeal is documented in the corpus (see above).
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 404 726
Ultraviolet 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) · LASER COMPONENTS v Seoul Viosys (CFI, 12 February 2024)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · 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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.