UPC CFI 440/2023 – Seoul Viosys Co, Ltd v Laser Components SAS

Court: Local Division Paris
Date: 2025-04-24
Outcome: Infringement found, permanent injunction granted, corrective measures ordered, information disclosure ordered, costs awarded to claimant.
Sector: Electronics/SEP
Decision Type: DECISION ON THE MERITS

Expert Commentary

Full Decision Text

1 Paris local division UPC CFI 440/2023 DECISION ON THE MERITS of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Jurisdiction, handed down on 24/04/2025 APPLICANT Seoul Viosys Co, Ltd Represented by 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beon-gil, Pauline Debré Danwon-gu - 15429 - Ansan-si, Laetitia Nicolazzi Gyeonggi-do - Republic of Korea DEFENDER Laser Components SAS Represented by 45B Route des Gardes Helge von Hirschhausen 92190 Meudon, France INTERVENING PARTY Photon Wave Co.,Ltd. Represented by 52, Jugyang 1763 beon-gil, Dorothea Hofer, Wonsam-myeon, Cheoin-gu, Andreas Oser Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, 17166 Peter Klein Republic of Korea LITIGATION PATENT Patent number Owner EP3404726 Seoul Viosys Co, Ltd LANGUAGE OF PROCEDURE: French 2 COMPOSITION OF THE CHAMBER - CHAMBER IN PLENARY SESSION Chairman and Judge-Rapporteur Camille Lignières Legally qualified judge Peter Tochtermann Legally qualified judge Technically qualified judge Carine Gillet Anthony Soledade DECISION THE PARTIES INVOLVED 1. Seoul Viosys Co, Ltd (hereinafter "SEOUL VIOSYS"), plaintiff in the main proceedings, is a Korean company specializing in the manufacture and marketing of LED chips, i.e. light-emitting diodes, either on their own or integrated into electronic devices, marketed under the "VIOLEDS" brand name. The company is part of the Seoul Semi Conductor Group (hereinafter "SSC"), which it describes as the world's second-largest LED manufacturer by 2023, with several manufacturing and development facilities in Korea. SEOUL VIOSYS holds European patent EP 3 404 726 (hereinafter "EP'726"). 2. Laser Components SAS (hereinafter referred to as "LASER COMPONENTS"), the defendant in the main action, is a company specializing in the sale of optical, electronic and IT equipment for professional use. It markets UVC LED chips in France. 3. Photon Wave (hereinafter "PHOTON WAVE"), a company under Korean law, intervened in the case at the request of the defendant in the main proceedings, in its capacity as manufacturer and supplier of UVC LED chips marketed by LASER COMPONENTS. FACTS AND PROCEDURE 4. On December 5, 2023, SEOUL VIOSYS initiated an action for infringement of patent EP'726 against LASER COMPONENTS before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Jurisdiction (hereinafter "JUB"). This case is registered under number ACT 588685/2023. 5. No preliminary objections have been raised by the defendant, notably concerning the jurisdiction of Unified Jurisdiction and the internal jurisdiction of the Paris Local Division. 6. On January 17, 2024, the defendant requested the intervention of PHOTON WAVE in its capacity as manufacturer of the allegedly infringing products. 7. On March 18, 2024, LASER COMPONENTS filed its statement of defense without a conventional request for revocation of the patent in question. On the same date, PHOTON WAVE agreed intervene in the case and asked for two months to prepare a request for revocation of the patent in question, which was refused by the panel. It finally filed its brief on June 13, 2024, following SEOUL VIOSYS' reply to the defense brief of May 16, 2023. 3 8. Requests to change the language of proceedings based on rule 322 of the Rules of Procedure have not been accepted in the absence of agreement between the parties. 9. Lastly, the intervener's request for additional written submissions on the basis of rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure was also rejected. 10. A request for revocation of the patent in question was initiated by PHOTON WAVE before the Paris Central Division, which transferred the request to the present Division which, by order dated January 24, 2025, declared the request inadmissible. The parties' requests 11. SEOUL VIOSYS, in its Statement of , seeks the following relief from the Court: I. On the basis of Article 63 AJUB, A) Order a permanent injunction against the defendant, prohibiting it directly or indirectly through any natural or legal person interposed, on French, German and Dutch territory, to manufacture, offer, marketuse, import or hold for the aforementioned purposes the LED chips marketed under references PKB-H02-F35, PKC-H02-F35 and PKD-H02-F35, as well as any other product, whatever its reference, reproducing characteristics 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 18 of European patent no. EP 3 404 726 held by Seoul Viosys. B) Order the defendant pay a penalty of 1,000 euros for each infringement of the injunction ordered in I.A (the infringement being constituted for each product bearing each reference referred to in IA). II. On basis of Article 64 AJUB, A) Declare patent EP 3 404 726 infringed by LED chips PKB-H02-F35, PKC-H02-F35 and PKD- H02-F35, offered, marketed, imported and owned by the defendant, B) order, under penalty, the recall from commercial channels of all infringing products referred to in point I A) in its possession or already distributed in France, Germany and the Netherlands C) order segregation or destruction, under penalty, of the infringing products referred to in point I A) D) order the defendant to provide proof of compliance with the order concerning points II) B and C. III. On the basis of Article 67 AJUB and Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 (Brussels I recast) A) order the defendant to communicate to Seoul Viosys, under penalty of 5,000 euros per day of delay, within one (1) month of service of the decision, all information concerning : - The origin and distribution channels of the LED chips identified by the references PKB-H02- F35, PKC-H02-F35 and PKD-H02-F35, as well as all other counterfeit products referred to in point I.A above; - The quantities offered, placed on the market, imported and held by the defendant, as well as the turnover and margin achieved by Laser Components due to the sale of the LED chips identified by the references PKB-H02-F35, PKC-H02-F35 and PKD-. 4 H02-F35, as well as all the other counterfeit products referred to in point I.A above on the French, German, Dutch and British territories, - The names and addresses of manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and other previous holders of the LED chips identified by the references PKB-H02-F35, PKC-H02-F35 and PKD- H02-F35, as well as any other counterfeit products referred to in point I.A above. IV. On the basis of Article 68 AJUB and Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 (Brussels I recast) A) declare the defendant liable for all damages resulting from the patent infringement described in point II.A. B) Order the defendant to pay Seoul Viosys 150,000 euros as provisional compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the acts of infringement. C) Order the defendant to pay Seoul Viosys 50,000 euros as provisional compensation for non-material damage resulting from the acts of infringement. V. On basis of Article 69 AJUB, A) Order the defendant to pay the legal costs and other expenses incurred by Seoul Viosys. B) Order the defendant to pay an advance on these costs in the amount of 50,000 euros. VI. On basis of Article 82 AJUB, A) Order that the decision enforced immediately, notwithstanding appeal and without the provision of security. 12. LASER COMPONENTS, defendant in the main action, filed its statement of defence on March 18, 2024, contesting the materiality of the infringement of the patent invoked and opposing the integra- lity of the claims made by SEOUL VIOSYS in this respect. The representative of the defendant in the main action was present at the oral hearing and referred to his written submissions. 13. The intervener, PHOTON WAVE, in its rejoinder of June 13, 2024, also contests the materiality of the infringement, arguing essentially that the TESCAN report was inappropriate as evidence, that the allegedly infringing products do not reproduce feature 1.5, feature 1.14 (and consequently feature 1.16). Presentation of the patent in question EP'726 patent presentation 14. Patent EP'726 (SEOUL VIOSYS Exhibit 14) owned by SEOUL VIOSYS, stemming from an application filed on January 11, 2017 in the English language, was granted on November 4, 2020. It is entitled "ultraviolet ". 15. This patent is in force at the time of SEOUL VIOSYS' infringement claim in following contracting member states: France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (SEOUL exhibits 15 to 19). 5 16. EP'726 relates to an ultraviolet (UV) light emission device adapted to improve light extraction efficiency ([0001] of the Patent). 17. With regard to the technical field, the descriptive part of the Patent explains that in recent years, there has been growing interest in a flipped-chip type light-emitting device improve luminous efficiency while solving problems linked to thermal dis- sipation ([0002] of the Patent). 18. However, the LED chips of prior art had the following disadvantages: -Much lower electrical conductivity than metals due to current crowding that can occur when an electric current passes through the n-type semiconductor layer, an active layer and a p- type semiconductor layer, thus weakening luminous efficiency and reliability ([0004] and [0005] of the Patent). 19. Patent EP'726 proposes to overcome these difficulties by disclosing a light-emitting device, in particular, a UV light-emitting , which can prevent current crowding inside semiconductor layers improving current distribution. 20. The patent at issue comprises 18 claims, including the main claim and 17 dependent claims. 21. Claim 1 in English reads as follows: 1. A UV light emitting device (300, 300a, 400, 500) comprising: a substrate (310, 410, 510); a first conductivity-type semiconductor layer (321, 421, 521) disposed on the substrate (310, 410, 510); a mesa disposed on the first conductivity-type semiconductor layer (321, 421, 521), and comprising a second conductivity-type semiconductor layer (323) and an active layer (322) interposed between the first conductivity-type semiconductor layer (321, 421, 521) and the second conductivity-type semiconductor layer (323); a first contact electrode (341, 441, 541) contacting the first conductivity-type semiconduc- tor layer (321, 421, 521) exposed around the mesa; a second contact electrode (342, 442, 542) dis- posed on the mesa and contacting the second conductivity-type semiconductor layer (323); a passivation layer (360, 460, 560) covering the first contact electrode (341, 441, 541), the mesa and the second contact electrode (342, 442, 542), and comprising openings disposed on the first contact electrode (341, 441, 541) and the second contact electrode (342, 442), 542); and a first bump electrode (351, 451, 551) and a second bump electrode (352, 452, 552) electrically connected to the first contact electrode (341, 441, 541) and the second contact electrode (342, 442, 542) through the openings of the passivation layer (360, 460, 560), respectively, wherein the mesa has a plurality of indentations in plan view and each of the first bump electrode (351, 451, 551) and the second bump electrode (352, 452, 552) covers the openings of the passivation layer (360, 460, 560), and wherein each of the first bump electrode (351, 451, 551) and the second bump electrode (352, 452, 552) covers a portion of the passivation layer (360, 460, 560), the UV light emit- ting device (300, 300a, 400, 500) further comprising: 6 a first pad electrode (331, 431, 531) dis- posed on the first contact electrode (341, 441, 541), a second pad electrode (332, 432, 532) disposed on the second contact electrode (342, 442, 542), and wherein the openings of the passivation layer (360, 460, 560) expose the first pad electrode (331, 431, 531) and the second pad elec- trode (332, 432, 532), and the first bump electrode (351, 451, 551) and the second bump electrode (352, 452, 552) are connected to the first pad electrode (331, 431, 531) and the second pad electrode (332, 432, 532) through the openings, respec- tively, and characterized in that the openings of the passivation layer (360, 460, 560) exposing the first pad electrode (331, 431, 531) comprise openings disposed in the indentations. 22. Claim 1 in French reads, according to breakdown of features proposed by the plaintiff and not contested by the defendants, as follows: "Claim 1 describes the structure envisaged by the invention and reads as follows (feature numbering added): 1. "An ultraviolet light emitting device (300, 300a, 400, 500) comprising: 2. a substrate (310, 410, 510) 3. a semiconductor layer of a first conductivity type (321, 421, 521) dis- placed on the substrate (310, 410, 510); 4. a mesa arranged on the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type (321, 421, 521), and comprising a semiconductor layer of a second conductivity type (323) and an active layer (322) interposed between the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type (321, 421, 521) and the semiconductor layer of the second conductivity type (323); 5. a first contact electrode (341, 441, 541) in contact with the semi-conductive layer of the first conductivity type (321, 421, 521) exposed around the mesa ; 6. a second contact electrode (342, 442, 542) arranged on the mesa and in contact with the semiconductor layer of the second conductivity type (323); 7. a passivation layer (360, 460, 560) covering the first contact electrode (341, 441, 541), the mesa and the second contact electrode (342, 442, 542), and comprising apertures arranged on the first contact electrode (341, 441, 541) and the second contact electrode (342, 442, 542); and 8. a first bump electrode (351, 451, 551) and a second bump electrode (352, 452, 552) electrically connected to the first contact electrode (341), 441, 541) and to the second contact electrode (342, 442, 542) through the openings in the passivation layer (360, 460, 560), respectively, 9. in which the mesa has a plurality indentations in plan view 10. and each of the first bump electrode (351, 451, 551) and the second bump electrode (352, 452, 552) covers the openings in the passivation layer (360, 460, 560), 7 11. and in which each of the first bump electrode (351, 451, 551) and the second bump electrode (352, 452, 552) covers part of the pasivation layer (360, 460, 560), 12. the ultraviolet light emission device (300, 300a, 400, 500) further comprising: a first pad electrode (331, 431, 531) arranged on the first contact electrode (341, 441, 541), 13. a second pad electrode (332, 432, 532) arranged on the second contact electrode (342, 442, 542), 14. and in which the openings in the passivation layer (360, 460, 560) expose the first pad electrode (331, 431, 531) and the second pad electrode (332, 432, 532) 15. and the first bump electrode (351, 451, 551) and the second bump electrode (352, 452, 552) are connected to the first pad electrode (331, 431, 531) and the second pad electrode (332, 432, 532) through the apertures, respectively, and characterized in that 16. the openings in the passivation layer (360, 460, 560) exposing the first pad electrode (331, 431, 531) comprise openings arranged in the "indentations". 23. Figure 14 is described in [0033] of the Patent and represents an exemplary embodiment of the invention with a cross-sectional view shown in Figure 15a) as follows: 24. As explained by SEOUL VIOSYS (§49 to 51 of the statement of claim), the invention lies in the presence of indentations in the mesa, but also in the fact of locating the openings of the passivation layer there. The patent in does attribute a precise shape to the indentations in the mesa. The description simply states that "[0017] The indentations may have an elongated shape in the same direction". 25. This is illustrated by figure 22 of the patent (one of the embodiments of the patent) which shows that the openings made in the passivation layer exposing the first electrode of the 8 These openings allow contact between the first pad electrode and the first bump electrode. The interpretation of disputed claim terms The principles interpretation 26. In accordance Article 69 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) and the Protocol on its interpretation, this Court adopts the standard of patent interpretation established by the JUB Court of Appeal in two orders (UPC CoA 335/2023 and UPC CoA 1/2024). 1) The patent claim is not only the starting point, but also the basis for determining the scope of European patent protection. 2) The interpretation a patent claim does not depend solely on the strict, literal meaning of the terms used. On the contrary, the description and drawings must always be used to help interpret the patent claim, and not just to resolve ambiguities in the patent claim. 3) However, this does not mean that the claim serves only as a guideline and that its subject matter can extend to , taking into account the description and drawings, the patent owner had envisaged. 4) The patent claim must be interpreted from the point of view of the person skilled in the art. 5) In applying these principles, the aim is combine adequate protection for the patent owner with sufficient legal certainty for third parties. 27. With regard to claim 1, certain terms are disputed between the parties as to the interpretation of the claimed subject matter. 28. The first disputed term is "contact electrode" (mentioned in particular in feature 1.5 of claim 1). 9 29. Thus PHOTON WAVE asserts that "a contact electrode (pages 6 and 7 of the June 13, 2024 brief) is a particular type of electrode characterized by features in addition to the property of allowing current flow. PHOTON WAVE adds that "the patent requires, by means feature 1.5 and as interpreted by the description, that there be an ohmic connection between an electrode metal and the n-type semiconductor material." (see col. 8, l. 57 to col. 9, l. 1 of patent EP 3404 726 B1). PHOTON WAVE deduces that the contact electrode in the context of the patent at issue is "contact electrode de- died to provide an ohmic connection to the n-type semiconductor material". PHOTON WAVE relies on the testimony of according to which a contact electrode is a particular type of electrode whose material must be chosen according to its working function in relation to that of the semiconductor (see PHOTON WAVE exhibits I3 and I3a). 30. SEOUL VIOSYS maintains, on the contrary, that the EP'726 patent defines the first con- tact electrode as a component "in contact" with the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type (the n layer) in §27 of its supplementary submission of July 12, 2024. 31. The Court notes, as did PHOTON WAVE in its pleadings, that the patent at issue in its descriptive part [0057] of the Patent states: "the light-emitting device may also include the first contact electrode 141 and a second contact electrode 142 between the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type 121 and the pad layer 133 and between the semiconductor layer of the second conductivity type 123 and the second pad electrode 132 in order to improve the ohmic contact characteristics (...)". 32. However, this only one of the embodiments mentioned in the Patent. Moreover, the following [0058] states "Here, the first contact electrode 141 is an electrode intended to form ohmic contact features with the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type". The term "here" clearly suggests that this property is specific to the embodiment in question (referenced 100 in the EP'726 patent). The general definition of the invention in EP'726 is silent on this point. This is also the case for the other embodiments (references 300, 400, 500 and 600) described in EP'726. 33. Last but not least, claim 1 of the patent is silent on the requirement for an ohmic contact. Even if ohmic electrodes are the simplest, ohmic contact is not the only one that can be chosen, since an LED chip could also operate with a Schottky-type current. Furthermore, the term "contact electrode" as used in the French language is merely a translation of the original English version "contact elec- trode", which could also have been translated as "contact electrode", and does not mean that this electrode is dedicated to a specific contact such as ohmic contact. 34. The Court will therefore adopt the broad interpretation of the term as proposed by SEOUL VIOSYS, i.e. an "electrode in contact" (with the semiconductor layer) and not necessarily "ohmic contact". 35. Concerning the terms "bump electrode" and "pad electrode", PHOTON WAVE and LA- SER COMPONENTS (in their respective briefs in defense and intervention) criticize SEOUL VIOSYS for having arbitrarily chosen a certain definition in its questions to the test laboratory, even though these terms do not correspond to a known or generally accepted definition, but the Court notes that the defendants do not propose any other defi- nition for these terms. 10 36. The Court adopts the proposal given by SEOUL VIOSYS to define these terms, which corresponds to what is taught by the patent in question: - The "bump electrode" (page 21 of the patent application) enables the chip to be attached to the circuit, thus establishing the electrical current between the external circuit and the contact electrodes. This is supported by the description in [0009], [0011] and [0072], as well as by the figures in the patent where they are shown, in particular numbers 351 and 352 (see figure 15a above), which show the two bump electrodes. - The "pad electrodes" establish electrical contact between the bump electrodes and the contact electrodes (page 21 of the statement of claim), which is supported by the description in [0112] of the embodiment shown in figure 15a (see above §23) mentioning the pad electrodes as numbers 331 and 332. 37. Furthermore, the term "expose" is discussed between the parties in the context of feature 1.14 of claim 1: "the openings of the passivation layer (360,460,560) expose the first pad electrode and the second pad electrode". 38. PHOTON WAVE and LASER COMPONENTS (in their respective briefs in defense and in- tervention) deduce from this that EP'726 states that the passivation layer was deposited on the electrodes and then etched to expose the electrodes. In their rejoinder of June 14, 2024, the defendants add that the claim wording requires that it is the openings in the passivation layer that enable the contact electrodes to be connected to the bump electrodes. 39. In its reply of May 16, 2024, SEOUL VIOSYS maintains that claim 1 of the EP 726 patent relates to a device and not to a process, and that the term "expose" does not indicate a particular manufacturing process, but only that the openings in the passivation layer enable the contact electrodes to be connected to the bump electrodes. The plaintiff concludes that the etching process option should not limit the scope of the patent. 40. According to the Court, it should be noted that the patent at issue discloses openings in passivation layer no. 360 a) and 360 b), as explained in [0130] of the Patent: "Re- ferring to FIG. 19A and FIG. 19B, a passivation layer 360 having openings 360a, 360b formed to expose the surfaces of the first and second pad electrodes331, 332 is formed. The opening 360a exposes the first pad electrode 331 around the mesa M and the opening 360b exposes the second pad electrode 332 on the mesa M.". This shows that the term "expose" in the patent con- text means that the passivation layer has been removed in certain places. Infringement alleged by SEOUL VIOSYS 41. SEOUL VIOSYS maintains that the PKB-H02-F35, PKC-H02-F35 and PKD-H02-F35 chips infringe its EP'726 patent. 42. To demonstrate the alleged infringement, SEOUL VIOSYS relies internal analyses carried out by SSC showing optical microscope images of the PKC and PKD chips (SEOUL VIOSYS exhibit 10) and on a report drawn up at its request by the TESCAN laboratory following tests carried out on the PKB chip. 11 43. It is undisputed that the allegedly counterfeit chips were manufactured by PHOTON WAVE, originated from an online purchase on the Lasercomponents.com website, and were delivered to France by the distributor LASER COMPONENTS. 44. LASER COMPONENTS and PHOTON WAVE, on the other hand, contest the materiality of the alleged infringement, arguing that : - On probative value of SEOUL VIOSYS' Exhibit 11, the TESCAN report is an inappropriate piece of evidence, - On the merits, the disputed chips do not infringe the claims of the SEOUL VIOSYS patent, in view of the written attestations of the PHOTON WAVE engineer involved in the design of the disputed chips, explaining how these chips were designed (PHOTON WAVE exhibits I3 and I3a). On the probative value of the TESCAN report 45. The Court notes that the TESCAN tests produced by SEOUL VIOSYS in Exhibit 12 constitute a private expert opinion drawn up at the request of the representatives of the plaintiff in the infringement action as provided for in rule 170 b) RoP, and that nothing in the file casts doubt on the fact that TESCAN is an independent laboratory. 46. The methodology used by the laboratory is sufficiently explained on page 2 of the report as follows: 47. First of all, the Court noted that the defendants challenge to the tests did not relate to the raw results, but to the interpretation of these results. 48. The defendants criticize the TESCAN report in that the tests answer questions put by SEOUL VIOSYS that are allegedly biased. 12 49. The questionnaire submitted by SEOUL VIOSYS was as follows (Appendix 2-Instructions of the TESCAN report, page 34 of Exhibit 12bis): 50. The questions most criticized by the defendants are those concerning the alleged existence of a "mesa" and the identification of "contact electrodes", "pad electrodes" and "bump electrodes", in that these concepts do not correspond to any standardized definition (see in particular the supplementary briefs from LASER COMPONENTS and PHOTON WAVE). 51. However, it is not disputed that the concept of "mesa" is well known in the technical field of LED chips, and indeed the defendants do not dispute its definition. Question 3) 13 on the existence or otherwise of a mesa in the disputed chips could not lead to an erroneous interpretation of the tests. 52. Furthermore, the Court indicated supra (§36 in the section on interpretation of the terms discussed between the parties) that the concepts of "pad electrode" or "bump electrode" could be easily understood in the context of SEOUL VIOSYS' patent, and that the concept of "pad electrode" could be easily understood in the context of SEOUL VIOSYS' patent, and that the concept of "bump electrode" could be easily understood in the context of SEOUL VIOSYS' patent. The term "contact electrode" was to be understood in its broadest sense in the patent text, i.e. "electrode in contact". There is nothing in the report to show that the identification these different types of electrode, set out in the tests, did not correspond to the definition adopted by the Court and led to errors interpretation. 53. Finally, PHOTON WAVE asserts that the SEOUL VIOSYS questions presuppose the existence of openings, however, the wording of question 6) includes a first part "does the passivation layer contain openings?" to which the test operators could have answered in the negative. 54. In general, the questions asked by SEOUL VIOSYS appear sufficiently objective not to have influenced the test results. 55. Furthermore, the defendants accuse the test operators of having added the chemical nature of the elements in the various layers to the ESD images (defense, pp. 5-7). It is clear that the chemical symbols were added manually by the authors of the TESCAN report. However, unless it can be shown that this was a falsification of the reality observed, these references, added on the initiative of the laboratory test operators, are simply part of the and help to make the images easier to understand. The Court also notes that the additional measurements carried out by described in the written testimonies produced by PHOTON WAVE in no way deny the presence of these materials in the disputed chips, but on the contrary confirm presence (page 11 of PHOTON WAVE's rejoinder, and PHOTON WAVE exhibits no. I3 and its translation no. I3a). 56. In addition, the defendants criticize the addition of arrows and captions to the images appearing in the report, but the Court considers that any reader of the report is well aware that these captions are aids to understanding and that this does not call into question the pro- bant value of the TESCAN report. 57. Finally, LASER COMPONENTS argues that certain images in the report have been "manipulated": "The upper part of image 5 has beeń copied into image 4, so that image 4 is not a real image obtained by SEM. Similarly, the upper part of image 8 has beeń copied into image 7, so that image 7 is not a real image obtained by SEM" (page 3 of the statement of defence). This allegation is denied by SEOUL VIOSYS in its reply brief, which makes available the original files that are the subject of the contes- tion. These allegations of bad-faith "manipulation" of the images by rap- port's authors are in no way justified. 58. Consequently, none of the criticisms of the probative value of the TESCAN report produced by SEOUL VIOSYS is relevant to show that it is inappropriate. The Court considers that the said report is endowed with the probative force appropriate to a private expertise as described in rule 170 RoP. 14 The challenge to the reproduction of features 1.4, 1.5 and 1.14 of claim 1 of the SEOUL VIOSYS Patent by the PKB chip 59. LASER COMPONENTS and PHOTON WAVE, in order to contest the materiality of the infringement alleged by SEOUL VIOSYS concerning the PKB chip, maintain that claim 1 is not reproduced in features 1.4, 1.5 and 1.14. On the reproduction of feature 1.4: 60. Feature 1.4 reads as follows: "a mesa disposed on the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type, and comprising a semiconductor layer of a second conductivity type and an active layer interposed between the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type and the semiconductor layer of the second conductivity type". 61. In their initial submissions (defense and intervention), LASER COMPONENTS and PHOTON WAVE argued that the TESCAN tests did not enable them to conclude where the images identifying the mesa were located in relation to the images identifying the active layer. 62. In its reply, (submission May 16, 2024) SEOUL VIOSYS explained that the report states that the D- SIMS curves (showing the chemical composition of the active layer) were made in the mesa region and that the STEM and SEM images (images 3, 4 and 5 of the TESCAN report) show the active layer in the mesa (pages 6-10). 63. In their rejoinder, the defendants did not take up this point of contention but argued that PKB chips reproduced the technology of the US'747 patent, which clearly shows, in figure 1 explained by lines 14 to 22 of column 6, a mesa arranged on a semiconductor layer of a first conductivity type (reference 120), and comprising a semiconductor layer of the second conductivity type (reference 140) and an active layer (reference 130) interposed between the semiconductor layer of the first con- ductivity type and the semiconductor layer of the second conductivity type. 64. The reproduction of characteristic 1.4 by the PKB chip has therefore been sufficiently demonstrated by SEOUL VIOSYS, and the defendants' claims are unfounded. On reproduction of feature 1.5 65. Feature 1.5 reads: "a first contact electrode in contact with the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type exposed around the mesa". 66. It was explained above that the term "contact electrode" should be interpreted in the context of the Patent as "electrode in contact" and not an electrode necessarily making ohmic contact with a semiconductor. 15 67. SEOUL VIOSYS uses the STEM images on pages 19 and 22 of the TESCAN report to show that characteristic 1.5 is reproduced by the PKB chip: 68. LASER COMPONENTS claims in its statement of defense that a first contact electrode is missing in the PKB product and that, consequently, characteristic 1.5 is missing (page 8 of its statement of defense). PHOTON WAVE takes up the defense argument, contesting the identification of the electrodes as proposed in the TES-CAN report on the grounds that the first pad electrode and the second pad electrode could not be made of different materials, and they propose a different reading of the TESCAN report and a different identification of the layers making up the electrodes, relying on images 9a and 9e on page 20 of the report as follows: 16 69. PHOTON WAVE reads and interprets these images as follows on the left-hand side of the following diagram, in contrast to plaintiff's interpretation on the right-hand side (page 7 of LASER COMPONENTS' supplementary brief): 70. The Court considers that the interpretation of the STEM images proposed by PHOTON WAVE, which assumes the existence of an intermediate layer instead of the first pad electrode and thus excludes the existence a first contact in layer n, is not convincing for two reasons: - The first reason is that the EP'726 patent is silent on the need for symmetry between the two pad electrodes, - The second reason is that the US'747 patent, invoked by PHOTON WAVE to say that PKB has implemented the said patent, of which is the inventor, clearly indicates that the in- termediate layer 160 is a semi-conductor of type n, (PHOTON WAVE's Rejoinder, page 9, lines 1 and 2), and is therefore part of the multilayer block forming the LED's layer n. 17 (Figure 1 of the US'747 patent, p. 8 of PHOTON WAVE's Rejoinder, extracted from PHOTON WAVE's Exhibit I3bis, page 3) 71. As a result, PHOTON WAVE's argument relating to the presence an intermediate layer to rule out the presence a first contact electrode layer n as provided for in feature 1.5 of the patent in suit is unfounded, and will not be accepted. 72. SEOUL VIOSYS has therefore sufficiently demonstrated that the PKB chip reproduces characteristic 1.5. On the reproduction of feature 1.14 73. Feature 1.14 reads: "the openings in the passivation layer expose the first pad electrode and the second pad electrode". 74. To demonstrate that in the PKB chip, the passivation layer is interrupted, allowing direct contact, SEOUL VIOSYS relies on the zoom image 8 and image 10c (concerning the n side (on pages 19 and 22 of the report) and on the zoom image 5 and image 9c concerning the p side (on pages 16 and 20 of the TESCAN report) which are as follows: 18 19 75. According to the defendants, this characteristic is not reproduced by the PKB chip, since there is a lateral gap between the passivation layer and the stack of Ti/Ni/Au layers, and the term "exposent" means that the passivation layer has been removed by an etching process after the pad electrodes have been created. According to the defendants, however, analysis of the 20 The contentious chip makes it possible to conclude that the pad electrodes were formed after the openings had been created. 76. It has already been stated above (§39 of the present decision) that the etching process mentioned the description of patent EP'726 is only one embodiment of the invention and that it is sufficient to demonstrate that only part of the layers is exposed for feature 1.14 to be reproduced. 77. As stated for feature 1.5 and admitted by PHOTON WAVE. 78. The pad electrodes are formed not only by the stacking of the upper Ni/Au layers, but also by stacking of the underlying Au/Ni/Ti layers, which are clearly below the passivation layer. It is then sufficiently demonstrated, and particularly visible in images 9c and 10c on pages 20 and 22 of the TESCAN report, that the passivation layer interrupts above these layers and thus "exposes" the first pad electrode and the second pad electrode. In addition, further measurements by confirm that these layers extend below the passivation layer and over the entire surface of the aperture. It is therefore justified to say that the openings in the passivation layer expose the low Au-Ni-Ti layers that are part of the electrode. acknowledges this on page 3 of its attestation in PHOTON WAVE Exhibit 14a: "The measurement site is located under the SiO2 passivation layer. At this point, there no Ti/Ni/Au layer stack, but only the layer stack that I interpreted as 'pad electrode'" (or "It is therefore irrelevant that the upper Ni/Au layers were produced after the openings in the passivation layer.) It is therefore irrelevant that the upper Ni/Au layers were produced after the openings in the passivation layer. The Court also notes that these lower layers are in contact with the bump electrode layers at the aperture. 79. As a result, SEOUL VIOSYS has sufficiently demonstrated that the PKB chip reproduces feature 1.14 of patent EP 726. Dependent claims (nos. 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 to 13 and 18) 80. Claim 2 reads: "The UV light emitting device (300, 300a, 400, 500) of claim 1, wherein the first contact electrode (341, 441, 541) contacts the first conductivity-type semi conductor layer (321, 421, 521) at least in the indentations of the mesa". The French translation is as follows: "Dispositif d'émission de lumière ultravio- lette (300, 300a, 400, 500) selon la revendication 1, dans lequel la première électrode de con- tact (341, 441, 541) est en contact avec la couche semi-conductrice du premier type de conduc- tivité (321, 421, 521) au moins dans les indentations de la mesa" protects a UV LED chip in which the first contact electrode is in contact with the n layer at least in the indentations of the mesa. SEOUL VIOSYS relies STEM image 10b page 22 of the TESCAN report to show that claim 2 is reproduced by PKB (SEOUL VIO- SYS Exhibit 12). 81. Claim 6 reads: "The UV light emitting device (300, 300a, 400, 500) of claim 1, wherein the openings of the passivation layer (360, 460, 560) exposing the first contact electrode (341, 441, 541) are separated from the mesa and the open- ings of the passivation layer (360, 460, 560) exposing the second contact electrode (342, 442, 542) are disposed within an upper region of the mesa". The French translation is as follows 21 : "Ultraviolet light emission device (300, 300a, 400, 500) according claim 1, wherein the openings of the passivation layer (360, 460, 560) exposing the first contact electrode (341, 441, 541) are separated from the mesa and the openings of the passivation layer (360, 460, 560) exposing the second contact electrode (342, 442, 542) are dis- posed in an upper region of the mesa "covering the separation of the openings exposing the first contact electrode and the mesa. The applicant relies on optical images p. 8, 15-16 of the TESCAN report (Exhibit 12) and on the 3D image of its Exhibit 22 to show that this claim is reproduced by PKB. 82. Claim 7 reads: "The UV light emitting device (300, 300a, 400, 500) of claim 1, wherein the first contact electrode (321, 421, 521) surrounds the mesa". The French translation is as follows: "Dispositif d'émission de lumière ultravio- lette (300, 300a, 400, 500) selon la revendication 1, dans lequel la première électrode de con- tact (321, 421, 521) entoure la mesa" protects the fact that the first contact electrode surrounds the mesa. The applicant relies on the optical images on p. 8 of the TESCAN report and the 3D image of its part 22 to show that this claim is reproduced by PKB. 83. Claim 9 reads: "The UV light emitting device (300, 300a, 400, 500) of claim 1, wherein the substrate (310, 410, 510) is one of a silicon (Si) substrate, a zinc oxide (ZnO) substrate, a gallium nitride (GaN) substrate, a silicon carbide (SiC) substrate, an aluminum nitride (A1N) substrate, and a sapphire substrate". The French translation is as follows: "Ultraviolet light emission device (300, 300a, 400, 500) according to claim 1, wherein the substrate (310, 410, 510) is one of a silicon (Si) substrate, a zinc oxide (ZnO) substrate, a gallium nitride (GaN) substrate, silicon carbide (SiC) substrate, an aluminum nitride (A1N) substrate, and a sapphire substrate. SEOUL VYOSIS claims that "protects the substrate material, which according to the TESCAN report is most likely sapphire (see page 27 of the TESCAN report). SEOUL VYOSIS maintains that this shows that this claim is reproduced by the PKB chip. 84. Claim 10 reads: "The UV light emitting device (300, 300a, 400, 500) of claim 1, wherein the mesa has a mirror symmetry structure". The French translation reads: "The UV light emitting device (300, 300a, 400, 500) of claim 1, wherein the mesa has a mirror symmetry structure". "It protects the mesa's symmetrical structure. The claimant maintains that the optical images p. 8 and 14 of the TESCAN report show that this claim is reproduced by the PKB chip. 85. Claim 11 reads: "The UV light emitting device (300, 300a, 400, 500) of claim 1, wherein the mesa has a main branch and a plurality of sub-branches extending from the main branch". The UV light emitting device (300, 300a, 400, 500) of claim 1, the mesa has a main branch and a plurality of sub-branches extending from the main branch" protects the shape of the mesa, which has a main branch and a plurality of sub-branches extending from the main branch. The applicant relies on the tests explained on page 8 of the TESCAN report to demonstrate that this claim is reproduced by the PKB chip. 86. Claim 12 reads in English, in the language of the patent: "The UV light emitting device (300, 300a, 400, 500) of claim 1, wherein a portion of the first bump elec- trode (351, 451, 551) 22 is disposed on the mesa to overlap the mesa, the first bump electrode (351, 451, 551) being spaced apart from the mesa by the passivation layer (360, 460, 560)". The French translation is as follows: "An ultraviolet light-emitting device (300, 300a, 400, 500) according to claim 1, wherein a portion of the first bump electrode (351, 451, 551) is disposed on the mesa to overlap the mesa, the first bump electrode (351, 451, 551) being spaced apart from the mesa by the passivation layer (360, 460, 560)". This claim covers the overlap of the mesa by part of the first bump electrode. The applicant relies on image 2 page 14 of the TESCAN report and the fact that this first bump electrode is separated from the mesa by the passivation layer (cf. image 8 page 19 and image 14 page 25 of the TESCAN report) to demonstrate that this claim is reproduced by the PKB chip. 87. Claim 13 reads: "The UV light emitting device (300, 300a, 400, 500) of claim 1, wherein the openings of the passivation layer (360, 460, 560) disposed on the first contact electrode (341, 441, 541) are partially placed in the indenta- tions". The French translation is as follows: "Dispositif d'émission de lumière ultraviolette (300, 300a, 400, 500) selon la revendication 1, dans lequel les ouvertures de la couche de pas- sivation (360, 460, 560) disposées sur la première électrode de contact (341, 441, 541) sont partiellement placées dans les indentations". This claim requires the chip apertures to be "partially" placed in the indentations. The applicant relies on image 2 page 14, images 11a and 11b page 24 and images 13 to 16 pages 25 and 26 of the TESCAN report to demonstrate that this claim is reproduced by the PKB chip. 88. Claim 18 reads: "The UV light emitting device (300, 300a, 400, 500) of claim 1, emitting deep UV light having a wave- length of 360 nm or less". The French translation is as follows: "Dispositif d'émission de lumière ultraviolette (300, 300a, 400, 500) selon la revendication 1, émettant une lumière ultraviolette profonde ayant une longueur d'onde de 360 nm ou moins". SEOUL VIOSYS points out that the product data sheet available on the LASER COMPONENTS website specifies that the PKB-H02-F35 chip emits ultraviolet light with a maximum wavelength of between 250 and 260nm (SEOUL VIOSYS Exhibit 6), and maintains that these elements demonstrate the infringement of this claim by the PKB chip. 89. SEOUL VIOSYS has specifically set out on pages 60 to 70 of its statement of claim how the TESCAN tests demonstrate the reproduction of the opposing dependent claims. 90. To contest the reproduction of these dependent claims, LASER COMPONENTS argues on page 13 of its statement of defence that: "Because all the dependent claims refer to claim 1, and because the product does not have several features of claim 1, which are mentioned above, it cannot have all the features of any of the dependent claims and therefore does not fall within the scope of protection of any of the dependent claims". 91. As these challenges to claim 1 have not been accepted by the Court, and as the defendants have not presented any other specific argument to contest the reproduction of the dependent claims, the Court considers that the demonstrations made by the defendants have been accepted by the Court. 23 SEOUL VIOSYS are sufficient to characterize said alleged infringement for the dependent opposed claims. For PKC and PKD chips 92. SEOUL VIOSYS relies on internal analyses carried out by SSC showing optical microscope images of PKC and PKD chips (SEOUL VIOSYS exhibit 10) and maintains that the de- monstration produced for PKB also applies to the other two types of allegedly infringing PKC and PKD chips. LASER COMPONENTS replies (page 13 of its statement of defense) that SEOUL VIOSYS's allegation is unfounded and that in any case it disputes the reproduction of features 1.4, 1.5 and 1.14. 93. The Court notes that the optical images produced in the application and derived from its internal analyses show that these chips have the same appearance as the PKB chips, in particular the opening for the passage of the electrode, which is located in an indentation in the mesa. However, neither LASER COMPONENTS, the defendant, nor even PHOTON WAVE, which is the manufacturer and which has had its designer testify , provide sufficiently precise arguments to support the claim that these PKC and PKD chips have characteristics that distinguish them from PKB chips. However, the arguments put forward in defense of PKB's claim of infringement have all proved ineffective. 94. Consequently, SEOUL VIOSYS has sufficiently demonstrated the infringing nature of the PKC and PKD chips. The role of LASER COMPONENTS in acts of infringement 95. Article 25 AJUB states that: "A patent confers on its owner the right to prevent, in absence of his consent, any third party : a) to manufacture, offer, place on the market́ or use a product which is the subject of the patent, or to import or possess this product for these purposes; b) to use the process which is the subject of the patent or, where the third party knows or should have known that the use of the process is prohibited without the consent of the patent owner, to offer its use in the territory of the contracting Member States in which the patent has effect; c) offer, place on the market, use or import or hold for these purposes a product obtained directly by a process which is the subject of the patent". 96. SEOUL VIOSYS accuses LASER COMPONENTS of direct infringement in that it imports, offers, markets and possesses infringing chips (page 72 of the statement of claim). Even though its request prohibition also relates to manufacturing (page 3 of the statement of claim), the plaintiff does not put forward any evidence in its grounds to support this. LASER COMPONENTS will therefore not be held liable for any act of manufacturing. 24 97. With regard to the importation of chips sold in France, it is undisputed that the chips covered by the online purchase report are manufactured by PHOTON WAVE, a company located in South Korea for import into France (exhibits 6 and 7 from SEOUL VIOSYS). 98. SEOUL VIOSYS points out that the website is accessible in French and offers product delivery in several countries, including France and Germany (§168 of the statement of claim). 99. LASER COMPONENTS argues that it was not made aware of the Patent and that, due to the complexity of the technique, it was not supposed to evaluate the intrinsic structure of the chips. He claims that, as a retailer and wholesaler of various optical and laser products, he cannot be expected to know the structure of these chips, and he has received no warning letter from the owner of the patent in question. 100. However, the claim alleges acts of direct infringement as defined Article 25 AJUB, which does not require the plaintiff to prove that the defendant had prior knowledge of the existence of the patent and the materiality of the alleged infringement. It is therefore sufficient for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant is an economic operator who manufactures, markets or uses products protected by a patent, or imports or stores them for one of these purposes, without the authorization of the patent holder, in order to be qualified as an infringer. 101. LASER COMPONENTS is a professional distributor belonging a Europe-wide distribution group. For LASER COMPONENTS, it is therefore inoperative to contest its responsibility for the acts of direct infringement for which it has been accused, on the grounds that it has not been made aware of the patent in question. 102. Consequently, LASER COMPONENTS has been found to have committed acts of counterfeiting by importing, offering, marketing and possessing PKB, PKC and PKD chips. On the territoriality of the acts of infringement alleged against LASER COMPONENTS 103. SEOUL VIOSYS 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. 104. While it is true that the defense has not discussed any of the measures requested, with the exception of the claim for provisional damages, it nevertheless up to SEOUL VIOSYS as plaintiff to argue precise and demonstrable facts in support of its claims on the basis of the JUB rules of procedure in rule R. 13m RdP ("the plaintiff has the burden of proof of the alleged acts of infringement") and rule R. 171.1 RdP ("proof of the facts likely to be contested"). 105. In the case in point, SEOUL VIOSYS relies on the court commissioner's reports of purchases made via the Lasercomponents.com website, through which it is allegedly possible to order counterfeit chips from all over Europe. 106. However, SEOUL VIOSYS only made one purchase delivered to France, and the Court notes from the extracts of the website produced by the plaintiff that the site indicates a sectorization of sales areas and notes that the purchase delivered to France is made via the address 25 "https://www.lasercomponents.com/fr/", which shows that LASER COMPONENTS only sells in France. 107. Even though LASER COMPONENTS is a European group, SEOUL VIOSYS has chosen to act only against the French entity LASER COMPONENTS, which cannot be held responsible for the actions of the entire group. The plaintiff has not provided any specific evidence of LASER COMPONENTS sales in Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, whereas extracts from the product website clearly indicate a segmentation of sales by distributor within the LASER COMPONENTS group. Extract from the LASER COMPONENTS website produced by the applicant in exhibit 6 (pages 15 to 18 and 24): 14:39:49 - I've reached https://www.lasercomponents.com/fr/ 26 108. SEOUL VIOSYS provides no evidence that the defendant sells the con- tractable chips in other AJUB contracting states where the patent at issue is in force, such as Germany or the Netherlands. 109. 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 in question is in force may be re-known admissible before the JUB (CJEU, Aff C-339/22, February 25, 2025, BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB), it is still necessary for the plaintiff to report precise facts concerning the existence of such acts of infringement committed by the defendant, which is not the case here. 27 110. In view of these factors, the ban and other corrective measures requested in this case will be limited to French territory only. On the prohibition and remedies requested under articles 63 and 64 AJUB The permanent injunction 111. Article 68 AJUB provides that: "1. Where a decision is rendered finding a patent be infringed, the court may issue an injunction against the infringer to prohibit further infringement. The Court may also issue such an injunction against an intermediary whose services are used by a third party to infringe a patent. 2. Where applicable, failure to comply with the injunction referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to a fine payable to the Court. 112. SEOUL VIOSYS is seeking permanent ban on the territory of France, Germany and the Netherlands, subject to a fine of 1,000 euros per infringement (pages 3 to 5 of its statement of claim). 113. For the reasons explained above (§93 to 100 of this decision), the measures will be limited to French territory. 114. The Court deems justified the request for an injunction Article 63 AJUB, which will be ordered in the terms specified in the operative part of this decision. This permanent injunction, for reasons effectiveness, will be accompanied a penalty to be paid to the Court as provided for Article 63.2 AJUB, however the sum will be limited in compliance with the principle proportionality in view of the price of the chips in (whose unit selling price is 2.60 to 4.70 euros in view of the invoices in exhibit 7 from SEOUL VIOSYS) and the penalty set at 50 euros/infringing product. Other corrective measures 115. Article 64 AJUB provides that: "1. Without prejudice any damages due tò the injured party as a result of the infringement, and without compensation of any kind, the Jurisdiction may order, at the request of the applicant, that appropriate measures be taken in respect of products found́ to infringe a patent and, in appropriate cases, in respect of materials and implements used primarily iǹ the creation or manufacture of such products. 2. These measures include : a) a declaration of infringement ; b) recall of products from commercial channels; c) eliminating the litigious nature of products; 28 d) definitive withdrawal of products from commercial channels; or e) destruction of the products and/or materials and instruments concerned. 3. The Court orders that these measures be carried out at the infringer's expense, unless specific reasons to the contrary are given. 4. In considering a request for remedies under this Article, the Court shall take into account the need for proportionality between the seriousness of the infringement and the remedies to be ordered, the willingness of the infringer to restore the materials to a non-contentious condition, and the interests of third parties. 116. Requests for measures such as recall from commercial channels, removal from the market and/or destruction of counterfeit products, as defined in the operative part of this decision, will also be granted. These measures must be carried out in the presence a court-appointed official ("Baillif" on French territory). 117. LASER COMPONENTS shall carry out these measures under a penalty of 50 euros per infringing product, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the operative part of this decision. Communication information Article 67 AJUB 118. Article 67 AJUB provides that: "1. the Court may, in response to a justified and proportionate request from the applicant and in accordance with the rules of procedure, order an infringer to inform the applicant with regard to : a) origin and distribution channels of the disputed products or processes; b) the quantities produced, manufactured, delivered, received or ordered, as well as the price obtained for the disputed products; and c) the identity of any third party involved in the production or distribution of the disputed products or in the use of the disputed process. 2. The Court may also, in accordance with the Rules of , order any third party to : a) who has been found to be in possession of contentious products on a commercial scale or to be using a contentious process on a commercial scale; b) which has been found to provide services used purposes of litigious activities on a commercial scale; or c) designated by the person referred to in a) or b) as having participated in production, manufacture or distribution of the disputed products or processes or in the provision of the services; 29 to provide the applicant with the information referred to in paragraph 1". 119. With respect to infringing products and for the period subsequent to the date on which SEOUL VIOSYS brought the case before the present court and the prior period not covered by the pres- cription), requests for communication of information relating to: - The origin and distribution channels of the LED chips identified by references PKB-H02-F35, PKC-H02-F35 and PKD-H02-F35, as well as all other infringing products covered by the permanent injunction; - The quantities offered, placed on the market, imported and held by the defendant, as well as the turnover and margin achieved by Laser Components due to the sale of the LED chips identified by the references PKB-H02-F35, PKC-H02-F35 and PKD-H02-F35, as well as all other infringing products covered by the perma- nent injunction, on French territory, - The names and addresses of the manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and other previous owners of the LED chips identified by the references PKB-H02-F35, PKC-H02-F35 and PKD- H02-F35, as well as all other infringing products covered by the permanent injunction. 120. This information must be supplied by LASER COMPONENTS to SEOUL VIOSYS within one month of notification of this decision, subject to a penalty of 1,000 euros per day's delay. On claims for provisions (damages and costs) Damages, pursuant Article 68 AJUB 121. Article 68 AJUB provides that: "1. the Court, at the request of the injured party, shall order the infringer who has infringed a patent knowingly or with reasonable grounds to know it, to pay the injured party damages corresponding to the loss actually suffered by that party as a result of the infringement. 2. The injured party is, as far as possible, placed in the situation he would have been in no infringement had taken place. The infringer cannot benefit from the infringement. However, damages are not punitive. 3. When the Court fixes damages : a) it takes into account all appropriate aspects such as the negative economic consequences, in particular loss of earnings, suffered by the injured party, any unfair profits made by the infringer and, in appropriate cases, elements other than economic factors, such as the moral prejudice caused to the injured party as a result of the infringement; or 30 b) instead of the solution provided for in point a), it may decide, in appropriate cases, to fix a lump-sum amount of damages on the basis elements such , at least, the amount of royalties or fees which would have been due if the infringer had requested́ authorization to use the patent in question. 4. Where the infringer has not engaged in infringing activity knowingly or with reasonable grounds for knowing it, the Court may order recovery of profits or the payment of compensation". 122. SEOUL VIOSYS asks the Court to declare LASER COMPONENTS liable for all damages resulting from patent infringement and to order Laser Components to pay the sum of 150,000 euros as advance damages, as well as 50,000 euros for moral prejudice. The defendants contested these amounts during the discussion on the value of the action at the status conference (cf Ord n°ORD 598577/2023 of February 17, 2025), pointing out in particular the minimal price of the chips concerned and the fact that LASER COMPONENTS had stopped these sales, but without justifying them. 123. The Court declares LASER COMPONENTS liable for the acts of infringement described in the present decision (§62 and §70). However, as the plaintiff has not submitted any evidence to justify the amount of the provisions requested, the Court will not grant the requests for provisions in this respect. Costs Article 69 AJUB 124. Article 69 AJUB provides that: "1. reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred by the successful party shall, as a general rule, be borne by the unsuccessful party, unless equity dictates otherwise, up to a ceiling set in accordance with the rules of procedure. 2. Where a party is only partially successful or in exceptional circumstances, the Court may order that costs be apportioned equitably or that the parties bear their own costs. 3. Each party should bear any unnecessary costs incurred by the Court or the other party. 4. At the request of the defendant, the Court may order the claimant to provide appropriate security for legal costs and other expenses incurred by the defendant which may fall to the claimant, in particular in the cases referred to in articles 59 to 62". 125. SEOUL VIOSYS is seeking provisional payment of its legal costs, which it estimates at 100,000 euros (statement of claim page 78). 126. With regard to the determination costs, as indicated in status conference order, both parties have requested separate proceedings. 31 127. In accordance rule 118.5 RdP, the Court decides in principle that, as LASER COMPONENTS is unsuccessful on the infringement claim, it will be required to bear all the costs of the proceedings under article 69 AJUB. 128. In view of the receipt for the documents justifying payment of the costs of the proceedings, the invoice from the TESCAN laboratory and accounting certificate from Linklaters (supplementary memorandum dated July 12, 2024, exhibits 23 to 25), LASER COMPONENTS is justified paying a provision of 50,000 euros at this stage of the proceedings. 129. The Court points out that the present decision is in principle immediately enforceable (R. 354 RdP). BY THESE REASONS, The Court orders : I) Infringement and permanent prohibition 1) Holds that LASER COMPONENTS has committed acts of infringement of the claims of patent EP 3 404 726 n°1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 to 13 and 18, that it imports, offers, places on market and holds the LED chips PKB-H02-F35, PKC-H02-F35 and PKD-H02-F35 on French territory, and rejects the claims concerning the territories of Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, 2) Prohibits LASER COMPONENTS from offering, placing on market, importing and holding for the purpose of placing on the market in the territory of France, the LED chips comprising the characteristics described as follows: "Ultraviolet light-emitting device (300, 300a, 400, 500) comprising: a substrate (310, 410, 510) a semiconductor layer of a first conductivity type (321, 421, 521) arranged on the substrate (310, 410, 510); a mesa arranged on the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type (321, 421, 521), and comprising a semiconductor layer of a second conductivity type (323) and an active layer (322) interposed between the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type (321, 421, 521) and the semiconductor layer of the second con- ductivity type (323); a first contact electrode (341, 441, 541) in contact with the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type (321, 421, 521) exposed around the mesa ; a second contact electrode (342, 442, 542) arranged on the mesa and in contact with the semiconductor layer of the second conductivity type (323); a passivation layer (360, 460, 560) covering the first contact electrode (341, 441, 541), the mesa and the second contact electrode (342, 442, 542), and comprising 32 openings arranged on the first contact electrode (341, 441, 541) and the second contact electrode (342, 442, 542); and a first bump electrode (351, 451, 551) and a second bump electrode (352, 452, 552) electrically connected to the first contact electrode (341, 441, 541) and the second contact electrode (342, 442, 542) through passivation layer apertures (360, 460, 560), respectively, in which the mesa has a plurality indentations in plan view and each of the first bump electrode (351, 451, 551) and the second bump electrode (352, 452, 552) covers the openings in the passivation layer (360, 460, 560), and in which each of the first bump electrode (351, 451, 551) and the second bump electrode (352, 452, 552) covers part of the passivation layer (360, 460, 560), the ultraviolet light emission device (300, 300a, 400, 500) further comprising a first pad electrode (331, 431, 531) arranged on the first con- tact electrode (341, 441, 541), a second pad electrode (332, 432, 532) arranged on the second contact electrode (342, 442, 542), and in which the openings in the passivation layer (360, 460, 560) expose the first pad electrode (331, 431, 531) and the second pad electrode (332, 432, 532). and the first bump electrode (351, 451, 551) and the second bump electrode (352, 452, 552) are connected to the first pad electrode (331, 431, 531) and the second pad electrode (332, 432, 532) through the apertures, respectively, and characterized in that the openings in the passivation layer (360, 460, 560) exposing the first pad electrode (331, 431, 531) comprise openings arranged in the "indentations". II) Corrective measures (Article 64 AJUB) 1) Enjoins LASER COMPONENTS to withdraw from commercial channels the counterfeit products it has placed on market on French territory, as designated in I.2) of the present order, 2) Enjoins LASER COMPONENTS to proceed with seizure or destruction of the stock held by it of the infringing products designated in I.2) above, under the supervision of a court commissioner, 3) Imposes a fine of up to 50 euros per product on the above-mentioned corrective measures, starting 60 days after notification of this decision, 33 III) information communication measures Orders LASER COMPONENTS to communicate to SEOUL VIOSYS, within 30 days of the notification of the present decision, the information useful for the calculation of the damages for the prejudice suffered by SEOUL VIOSYS as a result of the acts committed by LASER COMPONENTS described in I.1), as follows: 1) The origin and distribution channels of counterfeit LED chips as defined in I.2) of the operative part of this decision, 2) The quantities offered, placed on the market, imported and held by LASER COMPO- NENTS, as well as its turnover from sales, over the period not covered by the statute of limitations (5, relating to the types of counterfeit LED chips as defined in I.2) of the operative part of the present decision, 3) The names and addresses of manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and other previous holders of the infringing LED chips as defined in I.2) of the operative part of this decision, IV) On costs and claims for payment of provisions 1) LASER COMPONENTS shall bear all costs of the present action, as shall be fixed by separate proceedings at the request of the parties, 2) Declares LASER COMPONENTS responsible for acts of infringement as described in the I.1) but rejects at this stage of the proceedings the requests for provisions for damages under Article 68 AJUB, 3) Orders LASER COMPONENTS to pay SEOUL VIOSYS an advance of 50,000 euros on costs as provided for in Article 69.1 AJUB, Declares that this decision may appealed in accordance with rule 220.1 (a) RdP. Rendered in Paris on April 24, 2025. Camille Lignières, Chairman and Judge-Rapporteur Date: 2025.04.24 09:43:16 +02'00' Carine Gillet, legally qualified judge 2025.04.23 20:10:51 +02'00' 34 Peter Tochtermann, legally qualified judge Dr. Peter Michael Tochtermann Digital unterschrieben von Peter Michael Dr. Tochtermann Datum: 2025.04.23 20:03:50 +02'00' Anthony Soledade, technically qualified judge Signature Anthony digital by Anthony Soledade Soledade Date: 2025.04.23 18:17:27 +02'00' Charlotte Ferhat, Clerk CHARLOTTE CAMILLE CLAIRE FERHAT Digital signature of CHARLOTTE CAMILLE CLAIRE FERHAT Date: 2025.04.24 09:28:01 +02'00' ORDER DETAILS Order nº ORD 598601/2023 ACTION Nº: ACT 588685/2023 UPC nº :UPC CFI 440/2023 Type action: Infringement action

Key Holdings

Laser Components SAS was found to infringe claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11-13, and 18 of patent EP 3 404 726 by importing, offering, marketing, and holding specific LED chips (PKB-H02-F35, PKC-H02-F35, PKD-H02-F35) on French territory.
A permanent injunction was issued against Laser Components SAS, prohibiting further infringement on French territory, accompanied by a penalty of 50 euros per infringing product.
Corrective measures, including recall from commercial channels and destruction of infringing stock, were ordered against Laser Components SAS, with a penalty of 50 euros per infringing product.
Laser Components SAS was ordered to disclose information regarding the origin, distribution, quantities, turnover, and involved parties of the infringing products for damages calculation.
The TESCAN report, a private expert opinion, was accepted as admissible evidence with appropriate probative force, and the Court clarified the interpretation of disputed claim terms like 'contact electrode' and 'expose'.

UPC CFI 440/2023 – Seoul Viosys Co, Ltd v Laser Components SAS

Expert Commentary

Full Decision Text

Key Holdings

Tags

Related Rules

Related Cases