UPC CFI, LD Paris, 24 April 2025: Evidence required for infringing acts in different countries and for damages

Patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA) does not require the claimant to prove that the defendant was previously aware of the existence of the patent and the materiality of the alleged infringement. 

Territoriality of the acts infringement (Article 34 UPCA, R. 13.1(m) RoP, R. 171.1 RoP); only in France - no evidence of sales in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. 

No damages awarded (Article 68 UPCA). As the claimant has not submitted any evidence to justify the amount of the payments sought, the Court will not grant the claim. 

Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC) The term ‘contact electrode’ is not limited to an ‘ohmic contact’. Most importantly, claim 1 of the patent is silent on the requirement for ohmic contact. Even if ohmic electrodes are the simplest, ohmic contact is not the only option, since an LED chip could also work with a Schottky-type current. Furthermore, the term ‘contact electrode’ as mentioned in the French language is merely a translation of the original English version ‘contact electrode’, which could also have been translated as ‘electrode in contact’ and does not mean that this electrode is dedicated to a specific contact such as ohmic contact. 

Report has the probative value appropriate for a private expert opinion (R. 170.1(b) RoP). None of the criticisms of the probative value of the TESCAN report produced by SEOUL VIOSYS are relevant to demonstrate that it is inappropriate.

IPPT20250424, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Seoul Viosys v Laser Components