UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: Mar 25, 2025

UPC_CFI_258/2025

LIGHT EMITTING DIODE

RevocationMain Revocation ActionParis CDRevocationOral Phase
Parties

Claimants

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

Respondents

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

French-seated division — individual judges anonymized.

  • Panel member (anonymized)
  • Panel member (anonymized)
  • Panel member (anonymized)
Patents
  • 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

Technology area: Semiconductors · LED Devices

Sector: Semiconductor Devices

Outcome
DismissedDismissed
Filed: Mar 25, 2025
First decided: Sep 1, 2025
Language: 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.

Open on UPC Registry