UPC CFI 258/2025

At the UPC: Emporia UK and Ireland Limited (2 cases)·Seoul Semiconductor Group (29 cases)

• 2026-03-30
  Revocation ActionPublic

  Summary: The Central Division (Paris seat) granted the revocation action filed by Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. and declared European patent EP 3 926 698 B1 invalid to the extent of claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 10 and 11 (claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9 having already been declared invalid by the Court of Appeal) with effect in Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden. The ground of invalidity was added subject-matter: the openings near the edge of the substrate in feature 5.2 are inextricably linked to openings in the inner region of the device, and isolating one from the other constitutes an unallowable intermediate generalization. All auxiliary requests filed by the defendant were rejected as none addressed the identified defect.

  Show the legal issues (6)

  • Added subject-matter (Art. 76(1) EPC): unallowable intermediate generalization by omitting openings between mesas while retaining openings near edge of substrate in feature 5.2
  • Effect of independent claim revocation on unchallenged dependent claims
  • Admissibility of subsequent request to amend patent under Rule 30(2) RoP
  • Interpretation of 'openings near an edge of the substrate' (feature 5.2)
  • Competence of Central Division under Art. 33(4) UPCA where parallel infringement proceedings involve related but distinct parties
  • Admissibility of late-filed ground of invalidity (lack of novelty) introduced in Reply
• 2025-09-01
  Preliminary objectionPublic

  Summary: 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.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Preliminary objection under Art.33(4) UPCA
  • Same parties requirement
  • Straw company / nominee theory in EU law
  • Coordination of litigation strategies between distributor and supplier