UPC Analytics
DEEN
Übersicht · Eingereicht: 30. Aug. 2024

UPC_CFI_499/2024

BROWN MUSHROOMS FOR COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION

VerletzungHauptverletzungsklageThe Hague LDInfringementCase Closed
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.