UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 483/2023

Oct 13, 2023·EP3223320 · LIGHT EMITTING DIODE

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (No infringement)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Semiconductors
Language
German
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
All proceedings on this patent

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
  • —
    revocation counterclaim

    Summary: A. Auf die Nichtigkeitswiderklage wird das europäische Patent EP 3 223 320 B1 für das Gebiet der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, der Französischen Republik, der Italienischen Republik und des Königreichs der Niederlande für nichtig erklärt. B. Die Anträge auf Änderung des Streitpatents werden zurückgewiesen. C. Die Verletzungsklage wird abgewiesen.

Documents
Show all 164 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Communication2026-01-19Not 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
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.