UPC CFI 239/2023
12. Juli 2023·EP2137782 · DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONVERTING LIGHT ENERGY INTO ELECTRICAL ENERGY
Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 549536/2023
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent verletzt)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Plant-e Knowledge B.V.Unternehmen
- Plant-e B.V.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Oscar Lamme-Simmons & Simmons
- R.d. Verweij-Simmons & Simmons
- D.m. Termeulen-Simmons & Simmons
- P. Meyer-Simmons & Simmons
- J. Renes-Simmons & Simmons
- X. Huang-Simmons & Simmons
- A. van Stralen-Simmons & Simmons
Beklagte- Arkyne Technologies S.L.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Bernd Allekotte-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
- A.p. Meijboom-Kennedy Van der Laan
- J.r. Spauwen-Kennedy Van der Laan
- M. Rondhuisen-Kennedy Van der Laan
- X. Fábrega-Rousaud Costas Duran S.L.P.
- M.l. Rondhuis-Kennedy Van der Laan
- Patrick Busch-De Vries & Metman
- Wouter Mooij-De Vries & Metman
- Division
- The Hague LD
- Technologie
- Electrical engineeringElectrical machinery, apparatus, energy
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 3. Aug. 2023
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 22. Nov. 2024
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| The Hague LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Edger Brinkman | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Margot Kokke | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Samuel Granata | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Simon Walker | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Plant-e Knowledge B.V. (9 Verfahren)·Arkyne Technologies S.L. (9 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 7 weitere Verfahren
UPC CoA 46/2025·UPC CoA 48/2025·UPC CFI 832/2024·UPC CFI 833/2024·CC 588768/2023 und 2 weitere
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: The Hague LD·2023
- 2024-11-22Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: 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 anzeigen (5)
- Infringement by equivalence
- Technical equivalence test
- Injunction
- Recall and destruction
- Customer notice Art. 64 UPCA
- 2024-03-04Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Hague Local Division granted Plant-e's application for a confidentiality order under R.262A RoP protecting financial information submitted with their reply to a R.158 application, with access limited to counsel only with the consent of the parties.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- confidentiality order R.262A RoP
- access limited to counsel
- 2024-02-15
Zusammenfassung: The Hague Local Division decided to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA), as both parties agreed and joint hearing was considered expedient for uniform interpretation.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- Art. 33(3) UPCA – joint hearing of infringement and counterclaim for revocation
- Bifurcation decision
- 2024-01-17Procedural OrderÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Hague Local Division issued a procedural order clarifying the deadline for Plant-e to file its defence to the counterclaim for revocation and setting provisional dates for the interim conference and oral hearing, while also inviting parties to comment on the application of Art. 33(3) UPCA regarding bifurcation.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Time limit for defence to counterclaim for revocation under Rules 29(a), 331, 334(a) and 9.3(a) RoP
- Extension of deadline ex officio
- Setting of interim conference and oral hearing dates
- Art. 33(3) UPCA: bifurcation
- 2023-10-18Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The President of the Court of First Instance issued an order pursuant to Rule 323 RoP on the language of proceedings, in an infringement action by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. against Arkyne Technologies S.L., concerning EP 2 137 782 relating to a device for converting light energy into electrical energy.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- Language of proceedings (Rule 322-323 RoP)
- Change of language
- 2023-08-03Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Hague Local Division granted Plant-e's request under R. 13(q) / R. 7.1 RoP that English-language exhibits need not be translated into Dutch, as the defendant had no apparent interest in requiring Dutch translations.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- Language of proceedings
- Translation of exhibits R. 7 RoP
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2025-01-22 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2025-01-22 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application-RoP293-Receipt | 2025-01-21 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome | 2025-01-21 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application-RoP293-Receipt | 2025-01-21 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome | 2025-01-21 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application-RoP293 | 2025-01-21 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Power of Attorney | 2025-01-21 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application to change a representative re. RoP 293 | 2025-01-21 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application-RoP293 | 2025-01-21 | Nicht öffentlich |
Plant-e brought infringement proceedings against Arkyne Technologies (Bioo) for the Bioo Panel, Bioo Bench, and Bioo Ed products alleged to infringe EP 2137782 covering a bio-electrochemical method using living plants and micro-organisms to convert light energy into electricity. The Hague Local Division, after rejecting Bioo's revocation counterclaim, found infringement by equivalence using a four-question test drawn from national case law. The court ordered an immediate injunction across Benelux, France, Germany, and Italy, product recall with specific customer communication text, damages, and a website publication.
Infringement of EP 2137782 by equivalence through supply of Bioo Panels, Bioo Benches and Bioo Ed products
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC and Protocol on Interpretation; Art. 64 UPCAHinweis: Court applied a four-question equivalence test derived from national jurisdictions and found all four questions answered in the affirmative.
Patent EP 2137782 is valid; counterclaim for revocation should be rejected
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCAHinweis: Court upheld validity and dismissed the revocation counterclaim in full.
Court has power to order specific wording of customer recall letter and website publication
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 64 UPCA; Union lawHinweis: Court ordered specific texts for recall letter to professional customers and a homepage notice for one month.
Infringement by equivalence established under the four-question equivalence test
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC; Protocol on Art. 69 EPCHinweis: 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 EPCHinweis: 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 lawHinweis: 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.
Bioo products do not literally infringe claim 11 of EP 2137782
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC and ProtocolBegründung: While literal infringement was not found, the court found infringement by equivalence under the four-part test; the variation performed the same function solving the same problem.
Counterclaim for revocation of EP 2137782
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65(2) UPCABegründung: Revocation counterclaim rejected in its entirety; patent found valid.
Bioo Ed and other products are not essential components for the patented method
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 64 UPCA (indirect infringement)Begründung: Court ruled that the Infringing Products each constitute an essential component for application of method claim 11.
Counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 137 782 should succeed
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCABegründung: The court upheld the patent as valid, dismissing the counterclaim for revocation.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
The court conducted a two-step analysis: first assessed literal compliance of Bioo products with claim 11 of EP 2137782 (a method for converting light energy into electrical energy using a bio-electrochemical device incorporating living plants), finding no literal infringement; then applied the four-part equivalence test concluding infringement by equivalence.