UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 363/2023

Oct 13, 2023·EP3926698 +1 more · LIGHT EMITTING DIODE

Action number: ACT 579244/2023

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)Set aside on appeal, Oct 2, 2025
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Patents
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Semiconductors
Language
German
First decided
Dec 4, 2023
Last decision
Oct 10, 2024
Appealed
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Ronny ThomasLockedLocked
Judge Berenice ThomLockedLocked
Judge Mojca MlakarLockedLocked
Judge Alessandra SaniLockedLocked

At the UPC: Seoul Semiconductor Group (29 cases)·expert e-Commerce GmbH (14 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases

This dispute contains 16 other proceedings

UPC CoA 380/2025·UPC CFI 823/2024·UPC CFI 824/2024·UPC CFI 677/2024·UPC CoA 762/2024 and 11 more

1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 258/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2023

Decisions
  • 2024-10-10
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Local Division Düsseldorf found that expert klein GmbH and expert e-Commerce GmbH directly infringed EP 3 926 698 B1 (relating to lighting technology) owned by Seoul Viosys, dismissed the revocation counterclaim filed only by one defendant, and ordered the defendants to cease, render accounts, and pay damages, without requiring security for enforcement.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Direct patent infringement
    • Revocation counterclaim by individual defendant
    • Security for enforcement (R.118.8 RoP)
    • Joint defendants – independent proceedings
    • Financial standing of claimant as factor for security
  • 2024-07-12
    Public

    Summary: Procedural order on a request for court-provided simultaneous interpretation. The court held that where a party's representatives master one of the permitted languages of the local division, court-provided interpretation is not available merely because the claimant chose a different permitted language in which those representatives are less proficient. The party may arrange its own interpreter at its own cost.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Simultaneous interpretation (Rule 109.1 RoP)
    • Language of proceedings
    • Court-provided versus party-arranged interpretation
  • 2024-04-22
    Public

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division granted Seoul Semiconductor's application to intervene as a third party (Streithilfe) on the claimant's side as a simple licensee, finding it has a legal interest in preventing revocation of the patent-in-suit.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Third-party intervention (Streithilfe)
    • Licensee's right to intervene
    • Legal interest in validity proceedings
  • 2023-12-04
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order under Rules 302.1 and 302.2 RoP concerning possible bifurcation or severance of issues in an infringement action by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. against expert e-Commerce GmbH and others, involving EP 3 926 698 B1 and EP 3 223 320 B1.

    Show the legal issues (1)
    • Bifurcation / severance (Rules 302.1, 302.2 RoP)
Documents
Show all 213 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Cover sheet2025-10-29Not public
Application2025-10-29Not public
Exhibit2025-10-29Not public
Exhibit2025-10-29Not public
Receipt2025-10-29Not public
Communication2025-10-24Not public
Cover sheet2025-10-24Not public
Application2025-10-24Not public
Signature image2025-10-24Not public
Receipt2025-10-24Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. sued expert klein GmbH and expert e-Commerce GmbH before the Düsseldorf Local Division for direct infringement of EP 3 926 698 B1, relating to light-emitting diode technology. The court found direct infringement, ordered injunction, account of profits, and damages. Only expert e-Commerce GmbH filed a revocation counterclaim, which was dismissed; expert klein GmbH's failure to join the counterclaim formally precluded it from raising validity arguments in its own proceedings. No security for enforcement was required.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Direct infringement of EP 3 926 698 B1 by both defendants in the field of LED/lighting technology

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25(a) UPCA

    Note: Düsseldorf Local Division found both expert klein GmbH and expert e-Commerce GmbH directly infringed the patent; defendants were ordered to cease, render accounts, and pay damages.

  • No security for enforcement is required given the facts of the case

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 118.8 RoP

    Note: Court carried out a case-by-case balancing of claimant's interest in effective enforcement versus risk of unenforceable compensation if judgment is later overturned, and found no security warranted.

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

  • Revocation counterclaim filed only by expert e-Commerce GmbH (defendant 2)

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 25.1 RoP

    Reason: Dismissed; defendant 1 (expert klein GmbH) did not join the counterclaim, so validity arguments were formally excluded from its own proceedings; patent held valid in the counterclaim.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Each defendant in a multi-defendant action conducts its own proceedings independently; one defendant's procedural acts do not benefit or prejudice anotherRevocation counterclaim must be filed by each defendant individually; a defendant that declines to file a counterclaim is formally precluded from raising invalidity in its own proceedingsSecurity for enforcement is a case-by-case balancing exercise under R. 118.8 RoP — relevant factors include claimant's financial position and risk that compensation could not be enforcedIsolated revocation counterclaim by single defendant

Browse other cases on this principle.