UK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Matthew Howell, Jamie Rowlands, Greg Ward and James Ward, Haseltine Lake Kempner
Seoul Viosys v Laser Components This is a decision by the Paris Local Divi - sion, handed down on 24 April 2025 (UPC_ CFI_440/2023). Seoul Viosys sued Laser Components, a French company, for infringement of European patent EP3404726, relating to an ultraviolet LED, which was validated as a national patent in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK. Seoul Viosys initially requested, among other rem - edies, an injunction restraining Laser Compo - nents from manufacturing or dealing commer - cially in products falling within the scope of its patent in France, Germany and the Netherlands. The Paris Local Division found that Laser Com - ponents had infringed the patent in France by importing, offering, placing on the market and keeping infringing articles. Later in the proceedings, Seoul Viosys asserted that Laser Components had not contested the remedies requested, and therefore it would be entitled to request measures not only in France but also in the other states in which the patent had been validated, namely Germany, the Neth - erlands and the UK. The Division rejected this argument, noting that Seoul Viosys had only provided evidence of infringing activity in France, in the form of a purchase from a Laser Components website delivered to an address in France. No specific evidence of sales of infringing products in Ger - many, the Netherlands or the UK by Laser Com - ponents was provided by Seoul Viosys, and the website cited in its evidence clearly showed a segmentation of sales according to distributers within the Laser Components Group.
As regards the allegations of infringement in the UK, the Division referred to the CJEU deci - sion, and stated that a claim relating to acts of infringement committed in a state outside the EU in which the patent in question is in force may be recognised as admissible before the UPC, effectively confirming the UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction. However, the Division noted that it is still necessary to have specific evidence on the existence of such acts of infringement, which was not the case here. Practical implications for litigants It is clear from the cases discussed above that the UPC views its jurisdiction as extending beyond the borders of the contracting member states to the UPCA, and is willing to exercise that jurisdiction to rule on the infringement and validity of national validations of European pat - ents in states outside the UPC contracting mem - ber states if the defendant (or a defendant, in cases with multiple defendants) is domiciled in a UPC contracting member state. However, as is clear from Seoul Viosys v Laser Components, the UPC will only exercise this long-arm jurisdiction when it is justified by the available evidence. Given the primacy of EU law in the UPC and the CJEU’s decision in BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB, it seems that the long-arm juris - diction of the UPC is here to stay, and may even be extended to defendants who are not domi - ciled in an EU member state in some cases. This makes the UPC even more attractive to holders of European patents, by creating a true “one-stop shop” for enforcement of European patents.
146 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook