The dispute opposed the South Korean company Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., the patent holder, to the French distributor Laser Components SAS and its supplier, the Korean company Photon Wave.

Considering that the UVC LED chips marketed in France by Laser Components reproduced the characteristics of the claims of its patent EP 3 404 726 entitled ‘Ultraviolet light-emitting device’ issued on 4 November 2020, Seoul Viosys brought proceedings against it on 5 December 2023 (ACT_588685/2023) before the Local Division in Paris. Laser Components then sought the intervention of its manufacturer, who agreed to intervene in the proceedings and filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent, together with a separate action for the same purpose before the Central Division in Paris, which transferred the claim to the Local Division in Paris, which declared the claim inadmissible by separate order of 24 January 2025.

At the heart of the debate were the characteristics of claim 1, certain terms of which were disputed between the parties regarding the interpretation of the subject matter claimed.

To interpret these terms, the Local Division in Paris referred to the interpretation principles set out in Article 69 of the EPC and the patent interpretation standards established by the Court of Appeal of the UPC in its two orders UPC_CoA_335/2023 and UPC_CoA_1/2024, namely :
1) The patent claim is not only the starting point, but also the basis for determining the scope of protection of the European patent.
2) The interpretation of a patent claim does not depend solely on the strict and literal meaning of the terms used. On the contrary, the description and drawings must always be used to assist in the interpretation of the patent claim and not only to resolve ambiguities in the patent claim.
3) However, this does not mean that the patent claim serves only as a guideline and that its scope can extend to what the patent holder had in mind, taking into account the description and drawings.
4) The patent claim must be interpreted from the perspective of a person skilled in the art.
5) By applying these principles, the aim is to combine adequate protection for the patent holder with sufficient legal certainty for third parties.

Regarding the assessment of infringement, Seoul Viosys relied on internal analyses and private expert report carried out at its request by an independent laboratory, which was contested in defence.

The Paris Local Division noted that :

• - there was nothing in the file to cast doubt on the independence of the laboratory in question,
• - the methodology used by the laboratory was explicitly stated in the report,
• - the questions asked by the applicant appeared sufficiently objective not to have influenced the test results,
  and ruled that the private expert report, accompanied by its methodology and raw data, had sufficient probative value in accordance with Rule 170b of the Rules of Procedure.

It then carried out a technical analysis of the infringement and concluded that claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 18 had been reproduced in their entirety.

Regarding the acts of direct infringement, the Paris Local Division recalled that Article 25 UPCA does not require proof that the defendant was previously aware of the existence of the patent and the materiality of the alleged infringement.
Regarding the territoriality of the alleged acts of infringement, the Paris Local Division explained that in the absence of evidence of sales in other UPCA contracting states (in particular Germany and the Netherlands) or the United Kingdom (since, in accordance with the decision of the CJEU C6339/22 of 25 February 2025, acts of infringement committed in the territory of a non-EU Member State in which the patent in question is in force may be prosecuted before the UPC), the measures and prohibitions requested would be limited to French territory alone.

The Paris Local Division therefore ordered the following measures against Laser Components :

• - a permanent injunction subject to a penalty payment pursuant to Article 63 UPCA,
• - the recall of products from commercial channels and the destruction of stocks subject to a penalty payment and under the supervision of a judicial officer, pursuant to Article 64 UPCA,
• - the disclosure of information subject to a penalty of €1,000 per day of delay after a period of 30 days, pursuant to Article 67 UPCA.

It should be noted that these measures are particularly broad in scope, as they do not target specifically identified products (for example, by their references) but all products that include the characteristics of the claims of the opposed patent.

Finally, the Paris Local Division rejected the request for provisional payment on the basis of Article 68 UPCA, on the grounds that the applicant had not produced any evidence to justify the amount requested, but ordered provisional payment of €50,000 for procedural costs, in accordance with the provisions of Article 69 UPCA.

This 1,001^st decision of the UPC confirms :

• - the principles of patent interpretation under Article 69 EPC,
• - the probative value that a private expert report can have when its methodology is sufficiently explained and accompanied by raw data,
• - the importance for the applicant to establish the territoriality of the acts alleged for each country concerned,
• - the consideration of the principle of proportionality in the pronouncement of penalties, and in particular in the setting of periodic penalty payments in relation to the actual value of the products (in this case, a few euros per LED).

More information available on www.upc-casalonga.eu.