Seoul Viosys v Laser Components (CFI, 17 February 2025)
| Date | 17 February 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Paris (FR) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Registry reference | ACT_588685/2023 · ORD_598577/2023 |
| 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.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By an order of 17 February 2025 issued after the interim conference (UPC_CFI_440/2023), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division closed the interim procedure in Seoul Viosys’s infringement action against Laser Components over EP 3 404 726, in which Photon Wave is an intervener. The main point is the value of the dispute, set at EUR 500,000 as declared by the claimant, because the intervener’s lower figure was not backed by accounting evidence. For practitioners, the order is a reminder that a challenge to the declared value must be documented.
Question
Should the value of the action be the EUR 500,000 declared by the claimant when filing, or the figure of no more than EUR 250,000 put forward by Photon Wave?
Decision
The judge-rapporteur kept EUR 500,000 for the time being: Photon Wave’s assertions were not supported by accounting documents and, under Rule 370.6, the estimate reflects the objective interest pursued by the party bringing the action. The order also records that Laser Components, although summoned, did not attend and was told that a decision by default would be given against it, that costs and damages will be dealt with in separate proceedings, and it sets the oral hearing for 13 March 2025, from 9:00 to 13:00, with speaking time allocated between the parties.
Key points for practice
- A party disputing the declared value of the action must produce accounting evidence. Otherwise the amount stated at filing stands.
- The interim conference is also used to frame the hearing: issues in dispute, simultaneous interpretation arranged and paid for by each party (Rule 109.4), and no need for a witness to attend where only the inferences drawn from the written statement are in dispute.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 69(1)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 104, 105.5, 106, 109.4, 113, 118.5 and 370.6
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: Patent infringement action.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).
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
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
Parties
- claimantSeoul Viosys Co., Ltd.28 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantPhoton Wave Co.,Ltd.7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantLaser Components SAS6 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Infringement Action
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La valeur de l’action est maintenue à 500 000 euros, montant déclaré par la demanderesse, la contestation de l’intervenante n’étant pas étayée par des pièces comptables. La mise en état est close.
- 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 726mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Seoul Viosys v Laser Components (CFI, 24 April 2025) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 404 726Ultraviolet 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) · 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) · 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 |
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.