2025-09-01 - CD Paris - Emporia UK and Ireland v. Seoul Viosys - UPC_CFI_258/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_258/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd. v. Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd.
Kernaussage: ENGLISH:
2025-09-01 - CD Paris - Emporia UK and Ireland
v.
Seoul Viosys - UPC_CFI_258/2025
ENGLISH:
1. The "straw company" theory has a legal basis in European Union law and may be relevant for the purpose of assessing the "same parties" element under Article 33 (4) ‘UPCA’.
2. The fact that two companies have concerted a common procedural strategy to defend against an infringement action is not sufficient to establish that the company involved in the second proceeding acted as a “straw company” for the company involved in the first.
notable
JR Catallozzi (Paris CD Seat) rejected a preliminary objection under Art. 33(4) UPCA arguing that the revocation claimant (Emporia, a supplier) was a 'straw company' for the defendant in parallel infringement proceedings (ex-pert klein, a distributor). The court confirmed that the 'straw company' theory has a legal basis in EU law via the prohibition of abuse of rights principle (CJEU Halifax, Cadbury Schweppes). A straw company is characterized by lacking real operational activity, existing solely as a front. However, coordinated litigation strategies between a supplier and distributor — sharing lawyers, overlapping invalidity arguments, exchanging information — are normal business behavior and insufficient to establish straw company status. Different legal entities may separately challenge the same patent with overlapping grounds. The burden of proof lies with the alleging party.
Stichwörter
ENGLISH:
Preliminary objection ; “Same parties”