UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 499/2024

30. Aug. 2024·EP1993350 · BROWN MUSHROOMS FOR COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent verletzt)
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
  • Name withheld (GDPR)
Vertreter
Division
The Hague LD
Richter
Technologie
  • Chemistry
    Food chemistry
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
18. Dez. 2024
Letzte Entscheidung
9. Dez. 2025
EPA-Einspruch
  • Limgroup B.V.Zulässig2017-03-28
  • SOMYCELZulässig2017-03-28
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Verletzung festgestelltMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC53% (62/117)124
The Hague LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Edger BrinkmanGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Margot KokkeGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Rute LopesGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Amycel LLC (6 Verfahren)

14 Tage kostenlos testenBereits Nutzer? Anmelden
Verwandte Verfahren
Alle Verfahren zu diesem Patent

3 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent

UPC CoA 935/2025·UPC CoA 490/2024·UPC CFI 195/2024

Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.

Weitere Verfahren: The Hague LD·2024

Entscheidungen
  • 2025-12-09
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Hague Local Division issued a procedural order addressing the defendant's attempt to set aside the default judgment, ruling that the defendant had been sufficiently warned of the default consequence and that the prior R. 275 and R. 320 orders preclude a fresh challenge under R. 356 RoP.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Setting aside default judgment (R. 356 RoP)
    • Consequences of prior R. 320 order
    • Defendant warned of default in R. 275 order
  • 2025-10-21
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Hague Local Division issued a default judgment against the absent defendant finding infringement of Amycel's mushroom strain patent EP 1 993 350 (brown Agaricus bisporus), confirming the preliminary injunction, granting a permanent injunction, information orders, and an interim award of damages of EUR 50,000.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
    • Default judgment (R. 355 RoP)
    • Mushroom strain patentability (Art. 53(b) EPC)
    • Permanent injunction confirming PI
    • Interim damages
  • 2025-04-01
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Hague Local Division rejected the defendant's application for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP after missing the deadline for filing a statement of defence, finding the representative had not exercised due care given the specific circumstances of the case.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Re-establishment of rights (R. 320 RoP)
    • Due care standard
    • Missed deadline for statement of defence
  • 2024-12-18
    Procedural OrderÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Hague Local Division (Judge-Rapporteur) ordered that Amycel's attempts to serve the Statement of Claim on the anonymous defendant (located in Poland, an EU country that is not a UPC Contracting Member State) constituted good service, that the Statement of Claim was deemed served on 18 November 2024, and set the time period for the defendant to lodge a Statement of Defence ending 18 February 2025.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
    • Service of statement of claim (R. 275 RoP)
    • Alternative service methods
    • Non-Contracting Member State defendant
    • Default procedure
Dokumente
Alle 369 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Receipt2026-05-01Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-01Nicht öffentlich
Mitteilung2026-04-10Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2026-04-10Nicht öffentlich
Mitteilung2026-03-25Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-03-04Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-04Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-04Nicht öffentlich
Application document Claimant2026-03-04Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2025-12-09Nicht öffentlich
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Amycel LLC brought an infringement action at The Hague Local Division against a Polish individual defendant for infringement of EP 1 993 350 B2 (hybrid brown Agaricus bisporus mushroom strain 'Cayene'). The defendant's representative missed the SoD deadline claiming illness; the court rejected re-establishment of rights under R. 320 finding insufficient due care, and issued a default judgment confirming the earlier provisional injunction, granting a permanent injunction, information orders, and an interim award of EUR 50,000. A subsequent R. 356 set-aside application was dismissed because the R. 320-Order had already put the defendant on notice that a default decision would be final.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Mushroom strain EP 1 993 350 B2 is not excluded from patentability under Art. 53(b) EPC

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 53(b) EPC

    Hinweis: Court confirmed in the default decision that the hybrid Agaricus bisporus strain is not an essentially biological process and is not excluded from patent protection.

  • Defendant's representative failed to exercise all due care to avoid missing the SoD filing deadline despite having seven weeks' access and prior familiarity with the case

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 320 RoP; Art. 122 EPC (by analogy)

    Hinweis: Court found representative should have used the CMS team function to ensure another representative could submit on his behalf in case of illness; failure to do so was not due care.

  • Defendant had been warned a decision by default would be taken and a R.356 set-aside application is barred where the default was already the subject of a prior R.320 assessment

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 356.3 RoP

    Hinweis: Court held the R.320-Order constituted sufficient notice that a further decision by default would be final, barring the R.356 set-aside application.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Representative's illness prevented timely filing of SoD and re-establishment of rights under R. 320 should be granted

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 320 RoP

    Begründung: Representative had seven weeks of access to the file, familiarity from PM and revocation proceedings, and submitted a brief to the EPO on the very day he claimed illness prevented SoD filing; he also failed to use the CMS team function to ensure backup coverage.

  • Default decision should be set aside under R. 356 RoP

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 356.3 RoP

    Begründung: R. 320-Order had put defendant on notice that a default decision would follow; the same grounds for default were already assessed and rejected in the R. 320 proceedings; no new reasons were offered in the R. 356 application.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Re-establishment of rights (R. 320) requires all due care; failure to use CMS team function is lack of due care where illness risk is foreseeableHybrid mushroom strains are not excluded from patentability under Art. 53(b) EPCR. 356 set-aside is not available where a prior R. 320 order already put defendant on notice that default decision would be finalDecision by default can confirm provisional measures and grant permanent injunctionR. 356.3: where defendant has been warned that further default decision shall be final, set-aside is barred

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.