Short Summary
This is a procedural order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European patent EP3404726. The intervening party Photon Wave sought suspension of the infringement proceedings pending a revocation action it had filed before the Central Division of Paris, and also requested allocation of a technically qualified judge. The Court rejected the suspension request, finding that the infringement proceedings were more advanced and that the Central Division was unlikely to retain jurisdiction, but granted the request for a technical judge.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order concerns an infringement action filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd (Korean patent proprietor of EP3404726) against Laser Components SAS (French defendant) before the Local Division of Paris on December 5, 2023. Photon Wave Co., Ltd., a Korean supplier of Laser Components, was admitted as an intervenor supporting the defendant.
The procedural history shows that Laser Components filed its defense on March 18, 2024, contesting infringement without filing a counterclaim for revocation. Photon Wave attempted to file an independent counterclaim for revocation, but this was rejected by the Local Division on May 6, 2024. Subsequently, on June 5, 2024, Photon Wave filed a separate revocation action against Seoul Viosys before the Central Division of Paris (case 28074/2024).
In its rejoinder of June 13, 2024, Photon Wave requested: (1) suspension of the infringement proceedings under Rule 118(2)(b) RoP pending the Central Division's decision; (2) subsidiarily, that any decision on the merits be conditional on the patent not being declared null under Rule 118(2)(a); and (3) allocation of a technically qualified judge to the panel under Rule 33.1. Seoul Viosys opposed the first two requests but agreed to the third.
On the suspension request, the Court applied Article 33.4 UPCA and Rule 118.2 RoP. It found that: (a) the Central Division action was pending since June 5, 2024; (b) the same patent was at issue in both proceedings; and (c) the 'same parties' criterion was satisfied. The Court reasoned that an intervenor whose intervention has been admitted must be considered a 'party' under Rule 315.4 RoP, and that the notion of 'same parties' should be interpreted harmoniously within the UPC to avoid multiple divisions being seized of validity questions by the same parties. The Court drew analogies with EU lis pendens jurisprudence (The Ship Tatry, C-406/92), noting that even partial identity of parties suffices. The Court further observed that Photon Wave itself had requested the Central Division to decline jurisdiction in favor of the Local Division, making it highly probable the Central Division would not retain the revocation action. Additionally, the written phase deadlines had already expired in the infringement action, while the Central Division action was only at the notification stage, supporting efficiency considerations under the RoP's guiding principle. The Court therefore rejected the suspension request without needing to assess prima facie validity.
On the technical judge request, applying Rule 33 RoP and noting the parties' agreement and the technical complexity of the case, the Court granted the request.
The operative part of the order: (1) rejected Photon Wave's suspension request; (2) granted the allocation of a technically qualified judge; (3) directed the judge-rapporteur to set dates for the case management conference and oral hearing in a future order; and (4) noted that the order is subject to appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Paris (FR) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd vs Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co., Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A. and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.vsAmgen, Inc.
This decision concerns an application by Sanofi and Regeneron to withdraw their application for rehearing filed against the Court of Appeal's 25 November 2025 decision, which had set aside the Central Division Munich's revocation of EP 3 666 797 and rejected the revocation request. Amgen consented to the withdrawal and indicated no decision on costs was necessary. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and rejected the request for reimbursement of court fees because only one fee had been paid when two were due.
Syntorr LPvsArthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed a request by the defendants (Arthrex entities) for security for costs in proceedings concerning EP 2 670 898. The court held that the claimant's litigation insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement did not constitute adequate security under Rule 158(1) RoP, and ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 2,000,000 by 30 September 2025, either by bank guarantee or deposit in the UPC's account.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLCvsTroy Chemical Company B.V. et al.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC filed infringement proceedings before the Local Division The Hague concerning European Patent EP3286270 against six defendants including Troy Chemical Company B.V. and several Azelis entities. No statement of defence or counterclaim was filed by any defendant, and the parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings. The Claimant subsequently requested withdrawal of the action with the Defendants' consent, and the Court granted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, ordered confidentiality of certain annexes, and directed reimbursement of 60% of the court fees.
Memodo GmbH, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico, PowerDeal SRL, VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Libra Energy B.V.vsMaxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Defendants 3 and 5 to 8 in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 065 184 B1 requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP against the Claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the request, ordering the Claimant to provide EUR 100,000 in security within six weeks, finding that the Claimant's financial difficulties justified the security and that the defendants' share of the amount in dispute was irrelevant when determining the cost ceiling.
Headwater Research LLCvsSamsung Electronics GmbH and Others
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 110 069 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Following a 30 July 2025 decision that dismissed the infringement action and revoked the patent to the extent of claim 1, the Defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation and the related cost application before the appeal period expired. With the Claimant's consent, the Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear their own costs regarding the counterclaim.
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.