UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: —

ACT_549536/2023

DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONVERTING LIGHT ENERGY INTO ELECTRICAL ENERGY

InfringementMain Infringement ActionThe Hague LDInfringement Action—
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Infringement by equivalence established under the four-question equivalence test

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC; Protocol on Art. 69 EPC

    Note: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Note: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 64 UPCA; EU law

    Note: 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.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 137 782 should succeed

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA

    Reason: The court upheld the patent as valid, dismissing the counterclaim for revocation.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
doctrine of equivalents (four-question test under Art. 69 EPC Protocol)two-step infringement analysis: literal then equivalencevalidity and infringement by equivalence assessed togethercourt-ordered recall letter and website publication under Art. 64 UPCA

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

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.