Seoul Viosys v Laser Components Intervener: Photon Wave (UPC_CFI_440/2023)

• Seoul commenced an infringement action before the Paris LD against Laser Components in relation to its patent concerning an ultraviolet light emitting device. Laser Components did not raise a preliminary objection, but later requested the intervention of Photon Wave in its capacity as the manufacturer of the alleged infringing products.
• After the intervention request, Laser Components filed its statement of defence without a counterclaim for revocation. On the same day, Photon Wave agreed to intervene in the case and requested a two month period to prepare a request for revocation. This was refused by the panel. Photon Wave instead filed a revocation action before the Paris CD, which transferred the application to the Paris LD. The application was declared inadmissible and therefore the revocation arguments were not considered by the Paris LD.
• The Paris LD found Laser Components liable for infringement. There was disagreement on claim construction between the parties, but the court adopted the broader interpretation maintained by Seoul.
• To support its infringement claim, Seoul relied on an analysis performed by a private laboratory. Laser Components and Photon Wave claimed this analysis was an inappropriate piece of evidence due to the biased questions put forth to the laboratory by Seoul and the interpretation of the results. The Paris LD noted that the report did constitute a private expert report but that there was nothing to cast doubt on the laboratory's independence. In general, the court found that the questions put forth by Seoul were sufficiently objective not to have influenced the results of the tests and the court found the report to have probative value.
• The Paris LD granted a permanent injunction but limited it to France. Seoul had sought coverage in Germany, the Netherlands and the UK. The court reminded the parties that under Rules 13.1(m) and 171.1 RoP the claimant has to support their claims with evidence. Seoul only made a test purchase in France and the website it was purchased from stated that it only sold in France. Furthermore, Seoul only brought the claim against the French Laser Components entity, which the court said could not "bear the actions of the entire group on its own". Seoul did not adduce any specific evidence of Laser Components' sales in Germany, the Netherlands or the UK.
• Laser Components was also ordered to withdraw its infringing products from commercial channels in France, destroy the stock and provide Seoul with information relating to the infringement that would be useful for the calculation of damages.

This analysis is based on a machine translation of a decision not available in English.