Opens in a new tab

Seoul Viosys v Laser Components (CFI, 17 February 2025)

Date17 February 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Registry referenceACT_588685/2023 · ORD_598577/2023
PartiesSeoul 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 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

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
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

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
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

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) · 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 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.