UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: Mar 25, 2025

UPC_CFI_258/2025

LIGHT EMITTING DIODE

RevocationMain Revocation ActionParis CDRevocationOral Phase
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Plain-English summary

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. filed a preliminary objection seeking to have Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd.'s revocation action against EP 3 926 698 (LED device) dismissed as inadmissible, arguing Emporia was a straw company for distributor ex-pert klein GmbH already involved in parallel infringement proceedings concerning the same patent. The Paris Central Division (presiding judge Catallozzi) rejected the objection, holding that while the straw company doctrine is relevant under EU law to Art. 33(4) UPCA, coordinated litigation strategy between a supplier and distributor does not prove that one acts as the other's nominee without genuine independent business activity.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 'Straw company' theory has a basis in EU law and may be relevant to the 'same parties' element under Art. 33(4) UPCA

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 33(4) UPCA; CJEU general principle of prohibition of abuse of rights (Halifax C-255/02; Cadbury Schweppes C-196/04)

    Note: Court acknowledged the legal relevance of the straw company doctrine under EU law as a matter of principle.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. is a 'straw company' acting as nominee for ex-pert klein GmbH, making them the 'same party' for purposes of Art. 33(4) UPCA, rendering the revocation action inadmissible

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 33(4) UPCA; R. 171.1 RoP

    Reason: The evidence — shared legal counsel, overlapping validity attacks, coordination of litigation strategy, and ex-pert klein's request for stay — demonstrated coordination between a supplier (Emporia) and its distributor (ex-pert klein) but not that Emporia was created or used solely as a nominee without genuine independent business activity. Coordination of defensive strategies by a supplier and distributor is commercially rational and insufficient to establish straw company status.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
straw company doctrine under EU law applicable to 'same parties' analysis under Art. 33(4) UPCAburden of proof on party asserting straw company status (R. 171.1 RoP)coordination of litigation strategies between supplier and distributor insufficient to establish straw companyUPC framework does not preclude same patent being attacked by different entities with overlapping groundsabuse of rights principle (CJEU): requires genuine lack of independent business activity

Browse other cases on this principle.