Seoul Viosys v Laser Components (CFI, 24 July 2024)

Date	24 July 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Paris (FR) Local Division
Type of action	Generic Order
Registry reference	ORD_41423/2024
Parties	Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v. Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

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 order of 24 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_440/2023, ACT_588685/2023, ORD_41423/2024), the Paris Local Division (C. Lignières, presiding and rapporteur, C. Gillet, P. Tochtermann) rejected the request for a stay made by Photon Wave, intervener in support of Laser Components in Seoul Viosys’s infringement action on EP 3 404 726, pending the revocation action it had brought before the Paris Central Division (UPC_CFI_238/2024). It granted the request for a technically qualified judge. The order treats the intervener as a party for the purposes of Art. 33(4) UPCA.

Question

Can an intervener in an infringement action that later brings a revocation action before the Central Division obtain a stay of the infringement action under Rule 118(2)(b) RoP?

Decision

No. The Central Division action has been pending since its registration on 5 June 2024. An intervener admitted under Rule 315.4 RoP is regarded as a party, and identity of parties is assessed regardless of procedural position, partial identity possibly being sufficient (ECJ, The Ship Tatry). It is therefore highly likely that the Central Division will decline jurisdiction, so that validity can only be challenged before the Local Division by counterclaim. Given the principle of efficiency and the end of the written procedure, the stay is refused. Meril v Edwards Lifesciences, relied on by Seoul Viosys, is held not to be relevant. A technical judge is allocated under Rule 33 RoP.

Key points for practice

Practical point: an intervener wishing to attack validity must do so within the infringement action, a separate action before the Central Division will not secure a stay.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 33(4)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 33, 118(2), 220.2, 295 and 315.4
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012: Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012
Case law cited: Paris Central Division, 13 November 2023, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences, ECJ, 6 December 1994, The Ship Tatry, C-406/92

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.

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantSeoul Viosys Co., Ltd.28 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantPhoton Wave Co.,Ltd.7 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantLaser Components SAS6 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

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La division locale refuse de surseoir à statuer dans l'attente de l'action en nullité introduite par l'intervenante devant la division centrale, dont la compétence est fortement improbable au regard de l'article 33, paragraphe 4, et adjoint un juge technique.
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 3 404 726 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Pfizer v GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals (CFI, 3 December 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 3 404 726` 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 Photon Wave (CFI, 6 May 2024) · Seoul Viosys v Laser Components (CFI, 14 March 2024) · Seoul Viosys v Laser Components (CFI, 27 February 2024) · LASER COMPONENTS v Seoul Viosys (CFI, 12 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

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.