ACT 549536/2023

—·EP2137782: DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONVERTING LIGHT ENERGY INTO ELECTRICAL ENERGY

Verfahrensdetails: Status
—
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien: Kläger
Plant-e Knowledge B.V.
Plant-e B.V.
Vertreter: Oscar Lamme (Simmons & Simmons); R.d. Verweij (Simmons & Simmons)
Beklagte
Arkyne Technologies S.L.
Division: The Hague LD
Richter: —
Technology: Energy · Bioelectrochemical · Electrical Components
Sprache: —
Erste Entscheidung: 22. Nov. 2024

Ansprüche

Streitig11

Verletzt11

Hinweise: Hague LD found infringement of method claim 11 of EP2137782 B1 by equivalence; injunction and recall ordered for Benelux, France, Germany, and Italy.

Entscheidungen

2024-11-22
VerletztUnterlassung angeordnetVerletzung (Hauptsache)Infringement Action
The Hague Local Division found Arkyne Technologies (Bioo) infringed Plant-e's EP 2 137 782 B1 by equivalence (bioelectrical energy from plant photosynthesis), granted an injunction, ordered recall and destruction of infringing products, and required a customer notice.
Rechtsfragen:Infringement by equivalenceTechnical equivalence testInjunctionRecall and destructionCustomer notice Art. 64 UPCA

Dokumente

24FDA62A30C8A8D7838D5739CE610873_en.pdf2024-11-22EN

Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.

Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Plant-e sued Arkyne Technologies (Bioo) for infringement of EP 2 137 782 (plant-based bioelectrochemical energy conversion). The Hague Local Division found no literal infringement but found infringement by equivalence, applying a four-question equivalence test, and upheld the patent's validity against Bioo's counterclaim for revocation. The court issued a comprehensive injunction covering the Benelux, France, Germany, and Italy, and ordered recall including a specific verbatim letter to professional customers and mandatory website publication.

Angenommene Argumente

Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

Infringement by equivalence established under the four-question equivalence test
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC; Protocol on Art. 69 EPC
Hinweis: The Hague Local Division applied a four-part equivalence test (same problem/function, proportionate protection, skilled person understands broader scope, alleged infringement novel and inventive over prior art) and found all four questions answered in the affirmative for Bioo's products.
Patent EP 2 137 782 is valid
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC
Hinweis: The court upheld the patent's validity, rejecting Bioo's counterclaim for revocation.
Court may order specific wording for customer recall letters and website publication
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 64 UPCA; EU law
Hinweis: The court ordered Bioo to send a specific, verbatim recall letter to professional purchasers and to publish a specific notice on its website homepage for one month.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente

Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

Counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 137 782 should succeed
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCA
Begründung: The court upheld the patent as valid, dismissing the counterclaim for revocation.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze

In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.

doctrine of equivalents (four-question test under Art. 69 EPC Protocol)two-step infringement analysis: literal then equivalence validity and infringement by equivalence assessed together court-ordered recall letter and website publication under Art. 64 UPCA

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The Hague Local Division analysed Plant-e's patent EP 2 137 782 (bioelectrochemical method converting light energy into electrical energy via living plant photosynthesis and anodophilic micro-organisms). After finding no literal infringement of claim 11 by Bioo's products (Bioo Panel, Bioo Bench, Bioo Ed), the court applied the four-question equivalence test derived from national jurisprudence proposed by both parties, ultimately finding Bioo's variation solved essentially the same problem, and the scope of the claimed invention was understandable to the skilled person as broader than the literal wording.