UPC Analytics
DEEN
Übersicht · Eingereicht: 25. März 2025

UPC_CFI_258/2025

LIGHT EMITTING DIODE

NichtigkeitHauptnichtigkeitsklageParis CDRevocationOral Phase
Parteien

Kläger

  • Emporia UK and Ireland Limited
Vertreter: Olaf Isfort (Schneiders & Behrendt PartmbB); Bolko Ehlgen (Linklaters LLP); Julia Schönbohm (Linklaters LLP); Cordt-Magnus van Geuns-Rosch (Linklaters LLP)

Beklagte

  • Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
Vertreter: Bernhard Ganahl (HGF Europe LLP); Dirk Jestaedt (Krieger Mes PartG mbB)
Richter

Französische Kammer — Einzelrichter anonymisiert.

  • Panel member (anonymized)
  • Panel member (anonymized)
  • Panel member (anonymized)
Patente
  • EP3926698
CPC-Codes: H10H20/0137, H10H20/82, H10H20/034, H10H20/0363, H10H20/816, H10H20/835, H10H20/819, H10H20/825, H10H20/84, H10H20/833, H10H20/8506, H10W72/227

Technologiebereich: Semiconductors · LED Devices

Sektor: Semiconductor Devices

Ausgang
AbgewiesenAbgewiesen
Eingereicht: 25. März 2025
Erste Entscheidung: 1. Sept. 2025
Sprache: English

The Central Division Paris rejected Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.'s preliminary objection requesting dismissal of Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd.'s revocation action as inadmissible under Art. 33(4) UPCA. Seoul Viosys argued that Emporia was a 'straw company' acting as a nominee for ex-pert klein GmbH (the defendant in parallel infringement proceedings before the Court of Appeal), and therefore constituted the 'same party'. The Court held that the 'straw company' theory has a legal basis in EU law and may be relevant under Art. 33(4) UPCA, but that mere coordination of litigation strategies between a distributor and its supplier does not constitute proof that one acts as a nominee for the other.

Im UPC-Register öffnen