UPC allows intervention by Licensee

​
Darren Smyth
​
May 22, 2024
#
UPC
#
Basic
#
Infringement
#
Intervention
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v. expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH (UPC_CFI_363/2023)

Order of 22 April 2024 (ORD_5343/2024)[1]

Seoul Viosys sued expert klein GmbH and expert e-Commerce GmbH for infringement of EP3926698 at the Düsseldorf Local Division, and expert klein GmbH counterclaimed for invalidity of the patent. The local division decided to hear the infringement action and invalidity counterclaim together.

Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. is a (non-exclusive) licensee under the patent, and filed a request to intervene in the proceedings. This request was supported by the claimant and opposed by the defendants.

The Court noted that Rule 313.1 RoP requires the intervener to have a legal interest in the result of the action before the UPC. It considered that a licensee necessarily has a direct and present interest in the outcome of the invalidity counterclaim, because if the counterclaim is successful, the patent in dispute will be declared invalid retroactively, so the licensee would lose their preferential position compared to non-licensees.

Moreover, the Court considered that the intervention should not be permitted only in respect of the counterclaim. Once the Court has decided to hear the infringement action and invalidity counterclaim together, both will be decided based on a uniform interpretation of the patent. The infringement action and the invalidity counterclaim are therefore closely linked in terms of content. Any change in the claim interpretation directly influences not only the question of infringement, but also the assessment of the validity of the patent. Accordingly, the intervener can only effectively pursue its interest in preventing the invalidity of the patent in dispute if joins the legal dispute as a whole.

The Court therefore declined to decide the legal issue of whether a (non-exclusive) licensee would be entitled to intervene in an infringement action in isolation.

Accordingly the Court allowed the intervention and set a deadline for the intervener to submit a statement in intervention (Rule 315 RoP).

[1] https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/709

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

R.262A applications required to maintain confidentiality in UPC Proceedings
03 March 2026
The Court of Appeal clarified the necessity of formal applications to maintain confidentiality in Unified Patent Court (UPC) proceedings when disclosing ordered information. This ruling arose from a dispute involving patent infringement and confidentiality claims between EOFlow and Insulet.
​
Long arm not available for amended patent
02 March 2026
IMC Créations is a French company specialising in anti-theft systems for vehicles, particularly commercial vehicles. Among other things, it sells locks for the side and rear doors of commercial vehicles. Mul-T-Lock belongs to the Assa Abloy group and specialises in high security locking and access control systems, in particular pick-resistant keys and locks. IMC alleged that Mul-T-Lock’s MPV 1000 padlock infringes its unitary patent EP4153830 and the corresponding Swiss national validation.
​
Re-establishment of rights following failure to apply for a cost decision in time
02 March 2026
The dispute arises out of earlier proceedings between Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG (claimant) and Vibrantz GmbH (defendant), relating to European Patent No. 3215288. The Munich Local Division issued a substantive decision on 10 October 2025 addressing infringement and a counterclaim for revocation. Among other findings, the court partially revoked the patent in three Contracting Member States and dismissed the infringement action. In its cost decision, the court apportioned 40% of the costs to the defendant and 60% to the claimant.
​