Seoul Viosys v Laser Components (CFI, 24 April 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision on the merits of 24 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_440/2023, ACT_588685/2023), the Paris Local Division holds that Laser Components SAS, a French distributor, infringes Seoul Viosys’ EP 3 404 726 (ultraviolet light-emitting device) by importing, offering, placing on the market and stocking three models of chips made in South Korea by the intervener Photon Wave. The injunction and corrective measures are confined to France. The claims for Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom are dismissed for want of evidence of acts there. The decision is noteworthy on three points: infringement under Art. 25 UPCA does not require the distributor to have known of the patent, the territorial reach of the order follows strictly the evidence of acts, and the Division accepts in principle, in the light of the CJEU’s BSH v Electrolux judgment, that a claim may extend to a non-EU state.

Facts and procedure

The action was brought on 5 December 2023 against the French company of the Laser Components group alone, which raised no jurisdictional objection and filed no counterclaim for revocation (paragraphs 4 to 7). Photon Wave intervened at the defendant’s request on 17 January 2024 (paragraph 6), its own revocation request was held inadmissible by order of 24 January 2025 (paragraph 10). Requests to change the language and to file further pleadings were refused (paragraphs 8 and 9). The chips had been bought on the distributor’s website and delivered in France (paragraph 43).

The applicable law

The Division applies Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol following the Court of Appeal’s approach to claim construction (paragraph 26), Art. 25 UPCA on acts of infringement, Arts 63, 64, 67, 68 and 69 UPCA on injunctions, corrective measures, information, damages and costs, and Rule 13 RoP on the burden of proof.

Question

Do the chips reproduce claim 1, in particular the notions of a “contact electrode” and an “exposed” layer, in the light of a contested private expert report, is a distributor unaware of the patent an infringer, and for which territories can relief be granted?

Decision

A “contact electrode” means an electrode in contact, without any requirement of ohmic contact, and “exposing” means that the passivation layer has been removed in places (paragraphs 31 to 40). The TESCAN private expert report is held to be probative, criticism of its method and images being rejected (paragraphs 45 to 58). The disputed features are reproduced, the etching process described being only an embodiment (paragraphs 60 to 79), as are the dependent claims, absent specific argument (paragraphs 80 to 91), and all three chip models infringe (paragraphs 92 to 94). Art. 25 UPCA requires no prior knowledge of the patent and applies as soon as the defendant, a professional distributor, imports, offers or stocks the product without consent (paragraphs 95 to 102). Only one sale in France is proven. The French company cannot answer for the acts of the whole group, and no specific facts are shown for Germany, the Netherlands or the United Kingdom, the Division not ruling out its jurisdiction over the latter in view of Case C-339/22 (paragraphs 103 to 110). The penalty is reduced to EUR 50 per product, given a unit price of EUR 2.60 to 4.70 (paragraph 114). Laser Components is declared liable, but interim damages are refused for lack of support for the amount (paragraph 123), an interim award of EUR 50,000 towards costs is granted (paragraph 128).

Key points for practice

• A professional distributor is a direct infringer under Art. 25 UPCA even without a warning letter or knowledge of the patent (paragraphs 99 to 101).
• Relief extends only to territories where specific acts are proven. Suing only the national subsidiary limits the reach of the decision (paragraphs 105 to 108).
• An interim award of damages must be supported by figures, even once liability is established (paragraph 123).
• Practical point: a claim covering a non-EU state such as the United Kingdom is not excluded in principle, but it requires proof of acts committed there by the defendant (paragraph 109).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69 and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 13, 36, 118.5, 171.1, 220.1, 322 and 354

European Patent Convention

Art. 69

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024

Related decisions

• Photon Wave v Seoul Viosys, 24 January 2025, order holding the intervener’s revocation request inadmissible.

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.