2025-04-24 - LD Paris - Seoul Viosys v. Laser Components et al. - UPC_CFI_440/2023

1- On the evidential value of a tests report produced by the claimant: none of the defendants' criticisms of the probative value of the test report produced by the claimant is relevant to show that this report is inappropriate. The Court considers that the report has the evidential value appropriate to a report as described by rule 170(b) of the RoP, and that there is nothing in the file to cast doubt on the fact that the tests were carried out by an independent laboratory; moreover, the method used is sufficiently detailed and the questions asked by the claimant appear sufficiently objective not to have influenced the result of the tests. 2- On the distributor's liability for acts of direct infringement (art. 25 UPCA): the defendant is a professional distributor belonging to a European distribution group. It is therefore ineffective for the defendant to argue the default of prior knowledge of the existence of the patent and the alleged acts of infringement that are asserted against him to contest its liability for the acts of direct infringement of which it is accused. 3- On the territoriality of the acts of infringement: the claimant asserts that the defendants have not contested the measures requested and that it would therefore be entitled to request measures not only on French territory, but also in Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. While it is true that the defence has not contested any of the measures requested, unless the request for payment of provisional damages, it is nonetheless up to the claimant to put forward precise and demonstrable facts in support of its claims on the basis of the UPC Rules of Procedure in rule R. 13(m) RoP (‘the claimant has the burden of proof of the alleged acts of infringement’) and rule R. 171.1 RoP (‘evidence of facts likely to be contested’). In this case, even though it is a European group, the claimant has chosen to introduce an action only against the French entity of the group, and the latter cannot bear alone the acts of the whole group. The claimant has not provided any specific evidence of sales by the group of distributors in Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, while extracts from the website that were produced clearly indicate a sectorisation of sales by distributor within the group. Nevertheless, the claimant has not provided any evidence that the defendant is selling the infringing products in other Contracting Member States of the UPCA where the patent in question is in force, such as Germany or the Netherlands. With regard to the United Kingdom, while a claim concerning acts of infringement committed on the territory of a non-EU State in which the patent at issue is in force may be recognised as admissible before the UPC (CJEU, C-339/22, 25 February 2025, BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB), the claimant still has to provide precise facts concerning the existence of such acts of infringement committed by the defendant, which is not the case here.

In this decision from the Paris Local Division (which is only available in French), the Court found for infringement and issued an injunction for France. Insofar as the Claimant had requested court measures for other territories, the Court held that no acts of infringement outside of France had been proven.