2024-07-24 - LD Paris - Seoul Viosys v. Laser Components et al. - UPC_CFI_440/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_440/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v. Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.
Kernaussage: 1.
2024-07-24 - LD Paris - Seoul Viosys
v.
Laser Components et al. - UPC_CFI_440/2023
1. In accordance with Article 33 (4) UPCA, parties must be the same in the two proceedings, regardless of their respective procedural positions in each action. The claimant can be the defendant in the second proceedings and vice-versa, in order to avoid that that multiple divisions be seized by the same parties for a validity issue pertaining to the same patent, thus ensuring efficiency, economy of means and avoiding the risk of irreconcilable decisions within the UPC.
2. The Court also notes that both Article 33 (4) UPCA and Rule 118.2 RoP are special and autonomous rules specific to the internal competence within UPC’s divisions. It is however relevant, in order to interpret the notion of « same parties », to reason by analogy with the rules amongst the different jurisdictions of the EU as regards « lis pendens » matters (Brussels I Regulation).
3. More broadly, when ruling on a request for a stay of proceedings (Rule 295 (g) and (m) RoP), the Court has an obligation to take into account, in light of the guiding principle of efficiency of the Rules of Procedure of the UPC (preamble point 7), the respective stages of the procedure for the two divisions involved in order to decide whether it is appropriate to await the decision made by the Paris Central division on the matter of competence.
notable
The Paris LD panel ruled on two procedural applications by the intervener Photon Wave in an infringement action concerning EP 3 404 726. First, it refused to stay the infringement action pending Photon Wave's parallel revocation action before the Paris Central Division. Although an intervener whose intervention has been admitted is treated as a party under R. 315.4 RoP, and despite only partial identity of parties, the court relied on the Brussels I 'lis pendens' analogy (CJEU C-406/92 The Ship Tatry) to confirm that partial identity can in principle satisfy the 'same parties' criterion in Art. 33.4 UPCA and R. 118.2 RoP. On the facts, however, it was highly probable that the CD would decline jurisdiction once seised given that the LD was first seised in the infringement action, so a stay was not warranted — especially as the written procedure before the LD was already complete while the CD proceedings were at the notification stage. Efficiency of the RoP (Preamble point 7) and R. 295(g)/(m) RoP were cited. Second, the panel granted the R. 33.1 RoP request for a technically qualified judge in light of the parties' consent and the technical complexity.
Stichwörter
Internal competence within the UPC, Intervention, R. 118.2 RoP
Inoffiziell
Inoffizielle KI-Übersetzung
Dies ist eine automatische, von KI erstellte Übersetzung, die Fehler enthalten kann. Rechtsverbindlich ist allein das Originaldokument in der Verfahrenssprache (French).