UPC’s CD Paris hears LED patent revocation claim against Seoul Viosys

Context:

• Today, we attended a hearing in the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Paris seat of the Central Division (CD). The claimant, Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd., filed a revocation action against Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. over EP3926698 (“Light emitting diode”) in the CD Paris in April 2025 (UPC_CFI_258/2025), seeking to fully revoke a patent that has already partly been revoked in a separate but parallel case by the UPC’s Court of Appeal (CoA). Seoul Viosys had lodged a preliminary objection request in June, asserting that the CD Paris did not have jurisdiction given the CoA’s parallel proceedings, but that request was rejected in September. The two grounds for revocation are: added subject matter and lack of inventive step. Meanwhile, the defendant is seeking to amend the patent-in-suit.
• In the parallel case concerning the ‘698 patent (Seoul Viosys v. expert), the UPC’s CoA reversed an injunction on the defendant (a reseller of Emporia smartphones) after deeming claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9 of the patent invalid due to added subject matter (October 3, 2025 ip fray article).

What’s new: During the hearing today, the parties argued about auxiliary requests that Seoul Viosys submitted to help its case, which counsel for Emporia claimed were filed too late in the proceedings. Seoul Viosys attempted to convince the CD Paris that CoA’s argument regarding added matter in its October decision was incorrect to achieve the maintenance of the patent at least to the extent confirmed by the CoA. Although the panel could not set a specific date for a decision, Presiding Judge Paolo Catallozzi noted it will be handed down within the mandatory six-week period. He emphasized that if the parties decide to enter into settlement discussions, this should be communicated as soon as possible (to which the claimants clarified that this has not happened yet).

Direct impact: The three-judge panel did not indicate an inclination at today’s hearing. However, Presiding Judge Catallozzi noted at the beginning of the hearing that without the claims revoked in the CoA’s decision, it is difficult to give the remaining dependent claims, or the patent, a new life. “Because you cannot amend something that does not exist anymore,” he said. While he said the panel was open to hearing all arguments, he added: “We are inclined to think that once the other claims no longer exist, you cannot amend it.”

Wider ramifications: Emporia is one of the smallest mobile phone makers in the world, specializing in senior-friendly devices, and is not frequently targeted in patent infringement disputes. Meanwhile, Seoul Viosys, a semiconductor manufacturer specializing in LED technology, has a strong record of enforcing its patents. It has sued Amazon, Laser Components, Photon Wave, Feit Electric, and Namsung America, for example, with the Amazon case ending in a settlement within a matter of months in the UPC (August 2024 LinkedIn post by ip fray). While a decision in Emporia’s favour would not be a huge loss to Seoul Viosys, given its expansive patent portfolio, the South Korean company is likely keen to maintain its enforcement track record.