Seoul Viosys v Photon Wave (CFI, 27 July 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 27 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_101/2025), Judge Haedicke, judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division sitting alone, ordered Photon Wave to reimburse Seoul Viosys EUR 11,200 for the preliminary objection by which Seoul Viosys had obtained, on 6 January 2025, the transfer to the Paris Local Division of the revocation action against EP 2 661 892, Photon Wave being ordered at that time to bear 80% of the costs of that objection. The decision allows a stand-alone cost application for a preliminary objection and sets a valuation method: the objection is worth one quarter of the action.

Question

Is a cost application admissible following an order that closes only a preliminary objection, and how should that objection be valued?

Decision

The application is admissible: the issue is one of substance, since the order of 6 January 2025 closed the objection proceedings by declining jurisdiction and transferring the case, and dismissing the application would deprive the successful party of the reimbursement required by Article 69 UPCA. The value of the revocation action is set at EUR 500,000, in line with the Local Division, giving a ceiling of EUR 56,000. As a preliminary objection concerns legal issues only and requires no technical analysis, it is valued at one quarter of the action, i.e. EUR 14,000, of which 80% is payable. The EUR 6,720 in expert fees spent on interpreting Article 33(4) UPCA are refused, since the representatives could address that legal point themselves. Payment is due within three weeks of service.

Key points for practice

• A preliminary objection closed by a transfer order opens cost proceedings separate from those on the merits.
• Practical point: expert fees incurred on a purely procedural point of law are not recoverable, and a preliminary objection may be valued at one quarter of the action.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 33(4) and Art. 69(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 150, 151, 152, 153, 180.1 and 221

Directive 2004/48/EC

Arts 3 and 14 (cited as « 2004/28 » in the decision)

Case law cited

Fujifilm v Kodak, 9 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_186/2025), Ortovox v Mammut, Düsseldorf Local Division, 22 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_16/2024), Seoul Viosys v expert, Düsseldorf Local Division, 14 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_363/2023), MSG Maschinenbau v EJP Maschinenbau, Munich Local Division, 19 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_696/2024), CJEU, 28 April 2022, NovaText, C-531/20, CJEU, 28 April 2022, Koch Media, C-559/20, CJEU, 28 July 2016, United Video Properties, C-57/15

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.