UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 483/2023

Oct 13, 2023·EP3223320 +1 more: LIGHT EMITTING DIODE

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Infringement
Category
Main Infringement Action
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Bolko Ehlgen (Linklaters LLP); Julia Schönbohm (Linklaters LLP)
Respondents
Reps: Alessandra Sani; Rachida Boudra-Seddiki; Mojca Mlakar
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
Semiconductors · LED/Lighting · Semiconductor Devices
Language
German
Claims
At issue1
Revokedall
Notes: EP 3 223 320 B1 revoked entirely for Germany, France, Italy and Netherlands due to added matter; independent claim 1 specifically identified as the primary claim at issue; all auxiliary requests also failed.
Decisions
  • 2024-10-10
    RevokedInfringement Action

    Düsseldorf Local Division revoked EP 3 223 320 for Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands based on the counterclaim for revocation, finding the patent was invalid due to added matter (Art. 138(1)(c) EPC / Art. 123(2) EPC). The infringement action was dismissed as a result. Seoul Viosys (claimant) was ordered to bear all costs.

    Legal issues:Counterclaim for revocation – added matter (Art. 138(1)(c) / Art. 123(2) EPC)Isolieted counterclaim by individual defendantsPatent amendment deniedInfringement action dismissed due to invalidity
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.communication.general2026-01-19Not public
Receipt2026-01-19Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-19Not public
Other document Defendant2026-01-19Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-21Not public
Other document Defendant2025-11-21Not public
Receipt2025-11-21Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-21Not public
Application document Claimant2025-11-21Not public
Signature image2025-11-21Not public
Receipt2025-11-21Not public
action.communication.general2025-11-07Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-07Not public
Application document Defendant2025-11-07Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-11-07Not public
Receipt2025-11-07Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-07-18Not public
Confirmation2025-07-18Public
Erklärung2025-07-18Public
Receipt2025-07-03Not public
Schriftsatz2025-07-03Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-12-18Not public
Aufforderung zur Verwendung des vorgesehenen Workflows2024-12-18Public
Receipt2024-12-13Not public
Kostenfestsetzungsantrag2024-12-12Not public
Headnote-and-Keyword-Translated2024-10-11Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2024-10-10Not public
DecisionOutcome2024-10-10Not public
Entscheidung2024-10-10Public
594849/2023_OH_DUS-LOC_UPC202409050930AM_S042024-09-06Not public
594849-2023_OH_DUS-LOC_UPC202409050930AM_S012024-09-06Not public
594849-2023_OH_DUS-LOC_UPC202409050930AM_S012024-09-06Not public
594849/2023_OH_DUS-LOC_UPC202409050930AM_S042024-09-06Not public
594849-2023_OH_DUS-LOC_UPC202409050930AM_S022024-09-06Not public
594849/2023_OH_DUS-LOC_UPC202409050930AM_S032024-09-06Not public
594849-2023_OH_DUS-LOC_UPC202409050930AM_S022024-09-06Not public
594849/2023_OH_DUS-LOC_UPC202409050930AM_S032024-09-06Not public
Klarstellung Anträge2024-09-02Not public
Anlage LL162024-09-02Not public
Anlage LL172024-09-02Not public
Schriftsatz2024-08-30Not public
Schriftsatz2024-08-30Not public
interimProcedureClosure2024-08-26Not public
R. 104, 110 Abs. 1 VerfO – Abschluss des Zwischenverfahrens2024-08-26Public
summons2024-07-18Not public
Wiederholter Upload der Ladung vom 21.05.20242024-07-18Public
Hearing-Dates2024-07-18Not public
writtenProcedureClosure2024-07-18Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-07-12Not public
R. 109 Anordnung2024-07-12Public
Receipt2024-07-11Not public
Antrag nach R1092024-07-10Not public
Schriftsatz2024-07-09Not public
Schriftsatz2024-07-09Not public
Schriftsatz2024-07-09Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-07-04Not public
Zulassung weiterer Schriftsatz2024-07-04Public
Klarstellung R. 36 VerfO2024-07-01Public
Outcome of the Order2024-07-01Not public
Zulassung weiterer Schriftsatz2024-07-01Public
Zulassung weiterer Schriftsatz2024-07-01Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-06-28Not public
Schriftsatz zur Akte, Schließung Workflow2024-06-28Public
Receipt2024-06-28Not public
Triplik2024-06-27Not public
RoP 9 Einreichung2024-06-27Not public
Receipt2024-06-26Not public
Receipt2024-06-26Not public
Schriftsatz2024-06-26Not public
Schriftsatz2024-06-26Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-06-18Not public
Zulassung weiterer Schriftsatz zur Verletzungsklage2024-06-18Public
Receipt2024-06-14Not public
Antrag nach RoP 362024-06-14Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-05-28Not public
Schriftsatz2024-05-28Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-05-28Not public
Auflagenanordnung2024-05-28Public
Outcome of the Order2024-05-28Not public
Auflagenanordnung2024-05-28Public
Receipt2024-05-27Not public
Schriftsatz2024-05-27Not public
Receipt2024-05-27Not public
Schriftsatz2024-05-27Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-05-27Not public
Schriftsatz2024-05-27Not public
Hearing-Dates2024-05-21Not public
Ladung zur mündlichen Verhandlung, R. 108 VerfO2024-05-21Public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-03-25Not public
Schriftsatz Replik2024-03-25Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-03-25Not public
Schriftsatz Replik2024-03-25Not public
Hearing-Dates2024-02-23Not public
Bestimmung des Termins zur mündlichen Verhandlung2024-02-23Public
R. 28.1 VerfO - Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme2024-02-12Not public
Hearing-Dates2024-02-12Not public
Anordnung Vorgehen Art. 33 Abs. 3 lit. a EPGÜ2024-01-31Not public
Stellungnahme Art 332024-01-30Not public
Schriftsatz30.1.2024-01-30Not public
Schriftsatz30.1.2024-01-30Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2024-01-25Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-01-25Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2024-01-25Not public
Möglichkeit der Stellungnahme R. 37.2 VerfO2024-01-24Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-01-23Not public
Schriftsatz23.1.2024-01-23Not public
Schriftsatz23.1.2024-01-23Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-01-20Not public
Zurückweisung Fristverlängerungsantrag2024-01-20Not public
Stellungnahme zu Fristverlängerungsbitte2024-01-19Not public
Formal-checks_Request-for-correction2024-01-17Not public
Stellungnahme Fristverlängerungsantrag2024-01-16Not public
Receipt2024-01-16Not public
Fristverlängerungsbitte2024-01-16Not public
Formal-checks_Failure-to-comply-with-a-request-for-correction2024-01-16Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-01-15Not public
Fristverlängerungsbitte2024-01-15Not public
epoUploadDocumentsWorkflow2023-12-20Not public
Document from EPO2023-12-20Not public
Outcome of the Order2023-12-14Not public
Closing workflow2023-12-14Not public
Opportunity to comment2023-12-14Not public
Stellungnahme weitere Verfahren2023-12-14Not public
Opportunity to comment2023-12-14Not public
Receipt2023-12-14Not public
R. 302 RoP Order2023-12-14Not public
Schriftsatz2023-12-14Not public
Schriftsatz2023-12-14Not public
Schriftsatz 29.112023-12-14Not public
Stellungnahme Verfahrenstrennung Streitwert2023-12-14Not public
R. 302.1 RoP - Opportunity to comment2023-12-14Not public
R. 302.1 RoP - Opportunity to comment2023-12-14Not public
Schriftsatz 23.11.2023-12-14Not public
Schriftsatz 23.11.2023-12-14Not public
Acknowledgement of access to case2023-12-14Not public
Acknowledgement of access to case2023-12-14Not public
Notification of service B2_expert klein2023-12-14Not public
Notification Of Service2023-12-14Not public
Notification of service B1_expert e_commerce2023-12-14Not public
Notification Of Service2023-12-14Not public
Letter for Service2023-12-14Not public
Letter for Service2023-12-14Not public
Panel-Appointment2023-12-14Not public
EPO-Request-for-case-pending2023-12-14Not public
Receipt2023-12-14Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2023-12-14Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2023-12-14Not public
Seoul_Viosys_v_Expert_Verletzungsklage2023-12-14Not public
Anlage LL 072023-12-14Not public
Anlage LL 06a2023-12-14Not public
Anlage LL 08a2023-12-14Not public
Anlage LL 112023-12-14Not public
Anlage LL 092023-12-14Not public
Anlage LL 012023-12-14Not public
Anlage LL 052023-12-14Not public
Anlage LL 082023-12-14Not public
Zahlungsnachweis Gerichtsgebühr2023-12-14Not public
Anlage LL 102023-12-14Not public
Anlage LL 042023-12-14Not public
Anlage LL 022023-12-14Not public
Anlage LL 032023-12-14Not public
Anlage LL 062023-12-14Not public
Mitteilung der geänderten Zustellungsanschrift2023-12-14Not public
Anlage LL 122023-12-14Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Seoul Viosys brought an infringement action against expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH concerning its LED patent EP 3 223 320 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Following a counterclaim for revocation by one defendant, the court revoked the patent for Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands on the ground of added matter under Art. 123(2) EPC — specifically, the requirement of a mesa with a reflective electrode arranged thereon was not present in the application as filed and could not be cured by any auxiliary request. The infringement action was dismissed and Seoul Viosys was ordered to pay all costs.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • EP 3 223 320 is invalid for added matter (Art. 123(2) EPC): the claims include a mesa with a reflective electrode on it, which was not disclosed in the application as filed

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(c) EPC; Art. 123(2) EPC

    Note: The Düsseldorf Local Division found the requirement of a mesa with a reflective electrode arranged thereon was not disclosed in the original application; the feature was added beyond the application content.

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

  • All auxiliary requests to amend the patent to overcome the added-matter objection

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 123(2) EPC

    Reason: All auxiliary requests likewise required a mesa with the reflective electrode arranged on it, thus the added matter could not be cured by any of the proposed amendments.

  • Infringement of EP 3 223 320 by expert e-Commerce and expert klein for LED products

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(c) EPC

    Reason: Patent was revoked for invalidity (added matter); infringement action therefore lacks the necessary foundation.

  • A defendant that did not file its own revocation counterclaim can still benefit from invalidity arguments in its defence

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 25.1 RoP

    Reason: Under R. 25.1 RoP, invalidity argumentation is formally excluded for defendants who did not file a revocation counterclaim; however, as long as the court does not separate proceedings against co-defendants, this has no practical effect where other defendants did file a counterclaim.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Where multiple defendants are sued jointly, each runs its own formally independent proceeding; acts of one defendant create no advantages or disadvantages for othersA defendant who did not file a revocation counterclaim is formally barred from invalidity argumentation, but this has no practical effect as long as the proceedings against co-defendants (who did file) are not separatedSecurity for enforcement (R.118.8 RoP) requires balancing claimant's effective enforcement interest against risk of unenforceable damages award; financial position of claimant is a relevant factorAdded matter (Art. 123(2) EPC): subject-matter must be directly and unambiguously disclosed in the application as filed

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The central claim construction issue was the interpretation of 'mesa' and 'reflective electrode arranged on the mesa.' The court found that Claim 1 protects a mesa structure with a reflective electrode disposed on top of it. This was not disclosed in the application as originally filed, which did not unambiguously disclose such an arrangement, constituting added matter.