REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - BEYOND THE HYPE: AI IN PATENT PROSECUTION
​

UPC allows intervention by Licensee

​
Darren Smyth
​
May 22, 2024
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
UPC
Basic
Infringement
Intervention
Table of contents
Chevron icon
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

Invalidity of juicer patent upheld on appeal
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Hurom’s juicer patent for lack of inventive step, while clarifying the admissibility requirements for patent amendments and the use of the unamended description when construing amended claims. It also confirmed the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement in Poland despite Poland not being a UPCA Contracting Member State, but found that Hurom had failed to establish infringement under Polish law.
​
Evidence preservation doesn’t stretch to interrogation
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence-preservation orders may be granted ex parte where there is a demonstrable risk that evidence could be destroyed or become unavailable, and that such orders may extend to relevant commercial and promotional documents. However, Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant’s personnel on substantive technical matters, which must instead be handled under the Court’s control.
​
UPC Court of Appeal clarifies claim construction, the role of party experts, and provisional measures in direct-competition cases
03 November 2026
The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.
​