Short Summary
This is an appeal decision concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The appellants, expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH (part of the expert retail group), appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf of October 10, 2024, which had addressed both an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal addressed the legal standard for assessing unallowable extension of subject matter (added matter), particularly in the context of a patent derived from a divisional application.
Detailed Summary
This appeal concerns European Patent EP 3 926 698, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., a Korean company based in Gyeonggi-do. The patent proprietor had brought an infringement action before the Local Division Düsseldorf against expert e-Commerce GmbH (Langenhagen, Germany) and expert klein GmbH (Burbach, Germany), both part of the expert Handelsgruppe, a retail group operating in 22 countries in consumer electronics, information technology, telecommunications, and entertainment. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Division Düsseldorf issued its decision on October 10, 2024 (file references ORD_598458/2023 in the infringement main proceedings ACT_579244/2023 / UPC_CFI_363/2023, and ORD_50675/2024 in the revocation counterclaim main proceedings CC_3580/2024 / UPC_CFI_363/2023).
The defendants (now appellants) appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal under case numbers UPC_CoA_764/2024 and UPC_CoA_774/2024. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., also based in Gyeonggi-do, Korea, intervened in support of Seoul Viosys. The proceedings were conducted in German, with the oral hearing held in hybrid format on July 11, 2025, allowing both German and English. The panel (Spruchkörper 2) consisted of Presiding Judge and Rapporteur Rian Kalden, legally qualified judges Patricia Rombach and Ingeborg Simonsson, and technically qualified judges Torsten Duhme and Max Tilmann.
The central legal issue addressed in the headnotes concerns the doctrine of unallowable extension of subject matter (added matter / unzulässige Erweiterung). The appellants challenged the validity of the patent, arguing that the granted claims extended beyond the content of the application as originally filed. Because the patent in suit was derived from a divisional application, the question arose as to which prior applications must be considered when assessing added matter.
& Analysis
The Court of Appeal articulated the legal standard for assessing unallowable extension of subject matter. It held that such an extension exists when the subject matter of the granted claim goes beyond the content of the application as originally filed. To determine this, the court must first ascertain what information a person skilled in the art would, on an objective basis and with reference to the filing date, directly and unambiguously derive from the application as filed using their general technical knowledge. Implicitly disclosed subject matter — that which is clearly and unambiguously derivable from what is expressly stated — must also be considered part of the content.
Crucially, the Court of Appeal clarified that for a patent derived from a divisional application, this requirement applies to each earlier application. Therefore, the subject matter of granted claim 1 must not extend beyond (1) the disclosure of the originally filed application of the patent in suit, and (2) the disclosure of the original PCT application that entered the regional phase and constitutes the parent application of the divisional application.
Final Order & Ruling
The decision was issued on October 2, 2025, by the Court of Appeal. The full operative order and detailed reasoning beyond the headnotes are not contained in the provided text excerpt, which ends at the beginning of the factual background section.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in expert klein GmbH and expert e-Commerce GmbH vs Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.vsRespondent
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. requested an extension of the deadline to respond to the defendants' brief dated June 13, 2025, until July 9, 2025, citing the temporary unavailability of the case management system from July 3 to July 8, 2025. The defendants consented to the extension. The presiding judge rejected the request, holding that there was no legal interest in granting it because Rule 301.2 of the Rules of Procedure already provides for an automatic extension of time in cases of temporary CMS unavailability.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.vs1.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.; 2. Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure declaring that the steps already taken to serve an application for provisional measures on Defendant 2 (Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.) constituted good service. The Court found that formal service via the Hague Convention through the Chinese Central Authority had failed despite multiple inquiries, and that further delay was incompatible with the urgent nature of provisional measure proceedings.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard CollegevsVizgen, Inc.
This is a provisional procedural order concerning a patent infringement action related to European Patent EP4108782 owned by Harvard College. The plaintiffs (10x Genomics and Harvard) requested that the content of exhibit BP 34, consisting of a license agreement and related agreements containing highly sensitive business information, be treated as strictly confidential and accessible only to the defendant's legal representatives under an 'Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only' regime. The plaintiffs argued that the information constitutes trade secrets under Article 58 and Article 24(1)(a) of the relevant agreement and EU Directive 2016/943, and noted that the same documents were subject to equivalent restrictions in parallel US proceedings before the District of Delaware.
LS9 GmbH, Garmischer Str. 9, 81373 MünchenvsBellissa HAAS GmbH, Birkenstr. 22, 88285 Bodnegg-Rotheidlen
LS9 GmbH filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2 223 589 B1 (a bed edging with a lockable sheet metal strip) owned by Bellissa HAAS GmbH. The defendant challenged the plaintiff's standing under Article 47(6) UPCA, arguing that LS9 GmbH, whose corporate purpose is organizing seminars and publications, was not sufficiently concerned by the patent. The Central Division (Milan) ruled that legal persons always have standing in revocation actions and dismissed the revocation action only insofar as the patent was maintained in the amended form of auxiliary request 1, with court costs split equally.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbHvsSTEROS GPA Innovative S.L.
This appeal concerned an application for provisional measures regarding alleged infringement of EP 4 249 647, which relates to an electrolytic medium and electropolishing process. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance order that had granted an injunction against OTEC, finding that STEROS failed to demonstrate that the attacked embodiment (electropolishing medium EF 16-11) contained a non-conductive fluid with conductivity no greater than 10 micronS/cm as required by claim 1 of the patent. The Court held that experimental data not disclosed in the patent specification are generally not relevant to claim interpretation.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.