UPC CFI 195/2024
3. Mai 2024·EP1993350 · BROWN MUSHROOMS FOR COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase ClosedVerfahrensartEinstweilige VerfügungKategorieEinstweilige Maßnahmen
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Amycel LLCUnternehmen
Beklagte- Name withheld (GDPR)
Vertreter- Michal Przyluski-JD&P Patent Attorneys
- Joanna Dargiewicz-JD&P Patent Attorneys
- Division
- The Hague LD
- Technologie
- ChemistryFood chemistry
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 21. Juni 2024
- EPA-Einspruch
- Limgroup B.V.Zulässig2017-03-28
- SOMYCELZulässig2017-03-28
| Einstweilige Verfügung erlassen | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| The Hague LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Edger Brinkman | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Margot Kokke | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Rute Lopes | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Steen Wadskov-Hansen | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Amycel LLC (6 Verfahren)
3 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: The Hague LD·2024
- 2024-07-31Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Hague Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against the defendant prohibiting direct infringement of EP 1 993 350 B2 (relating to a hybrid Agaricus bisporus mushroom strain) in the Netherlands, Germany, France and Italy. The court held that the mushroom strain was not excluded from patentability under Art. 53(b) EPC and found a prima facie case of infringement. The defendant was ordered to deliver up infringing Cayene mushroom strains, provide customer information, pay an interim award of EUR 11,000 in costs, and penalties of up to EUR 50,000 per day for non-compliance. The injunction was made conditional on Amycel providing security of EUR 200,000.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Patentability exclusion for plant varieties under Art. 53(b) EPC
- Infringement of mushroom strain patent
- Provisional measures in provisional proceedings
- Security for provisional measures under Rule 211.5 RoP
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2024-12-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit VB42 | 2024-12-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit VB43 | 2024-12-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit VB43 | 2024-12-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Amycel Appeal costs application | 2024-12-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit VB41 | 2024-12-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit VB42 | 2024-12-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2024-12-13 | Nicht öffentlich |
| this order is issued for technical reasons only | 2024-12-13 | Öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2024-12-13 | Nicht öffentlich |
Amycel LLC obtained a preliminary injunction from The Hague Local Division against a defendant (GDPR-redacted) prohibiting direct infringement of EP 1 993 350 B2, a patent covering a hybrid Agaricus bisporus (brown mushroom) strain, across the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Italy. The court held the mushroom strain was not excluded from patentability under Art. 53(b) EPC and found a prima facie case of infringement by the defendant's Cayene mushroom strain. The defendant was ordered to deliver up infringing strains, disclose customer information, pay EUR 11,000 in interim costs, and provide EUR 200,000 security to Amycel.
Mushroom strain (Agaricus bisporus hybrid BR06/Cayene) is not excluded from patentability under Art. 53(b) EPC
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 53(b) EPCHinweis: The court found a prima facie case that the mushroom strain patent does not fall within the biological-exclusion exception, supporting patentability.
Prima facie case of direct infringement of EP 1 993 350 B2 by the Cayene mushroom strain
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25(a) UPCA; Art. 63(1) UPCAHinweis: The court accepted Amycel's showing that defendant's commercialisation of Cayene in NL, DE, FR, IT fell within the patent claims.
Security of EUR 200,000 required as condition for enforcing provisional measures
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.5 RoPHinweis: Defendant's request for security was granted because Amycel did not object, and the court used it to set the case value.
Requested case value of EUR 500,000 for determining recoverable-costs ceiling
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.5 RoPBegründung: Court found the EUR 500,000 figure insufficiently substantiated and instead used the EUR 200,000 security amount as a proxy for case value.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.