UPC CFI 195/2024
May 3, 2024·EP1993350 · BROWN MUSHROOMS FOR COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionProvisional measuresCategoryProvisional measures
- Parties
- Claimants
- Amycel LLCOperating co.
Respondents- Name withheld (GDPR)
Representatives- Michal Przyluski-JD&P Patent Attorneys
- Joanna Dargiewicz-JD&P Patent Attorneys
- Division
- The Hague LD
- Technology
- ChemistryFood chemistry
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Jun 21, 2024
- EPO Opposition
- Limgroup B.V.Admissible2017-03-28
- SOMYCELAdmissible2017-03-28
| Preliminary injunction granted | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| The Hague LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Edger Brinkman | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Margot Kokke | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Rute Lopes | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Steen Wadskov-Hansen | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Amycel LLC (6 cases)
3 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: The Hague LD·2024
- 2024-07-31Application for provisional measuresPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (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
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2024-12-31 | Not public |
| Exhibit VB42 | 2024-12-31 | Not public |
| Exhibit VB43 | 2024-12-31 | Not public |
| Exhibit VB43 | 2024-12-31 | Not public |
| Amycel Appeal costs application | 2024-12-31 | Not public |
| Exhibit VB41 | 2024-12-31 | Not public |
| Exhibit VB42 | 2024-12-31 | Not public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2024-12-13 | Not public |
| this order is issued for technical reasons only | 2024-12-13 | Public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2024-12-13 | Not public |
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
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 53(b) EPCNote: 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
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25(a) UPCA; Art. 63(1) UPCANote: 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
RespondentLegal basis: R. 211.5 RoPNote: 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
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211.5 RoPReason: Court found the EUR 500,000 figure insufficiently substantiated and instead used the EUR 200,000 security amount as a proxy for case value.
Browse other cases on this principle.