UPC CFI 216/2024
May 8, 2024·EP3993602 Unitary patent +1 more · DEVICE AND METHOD FOR HARVESTING TEXTILE HEMP
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Settled)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Cretes NVOperating co.
Representatives- Pieter Callens
- Fay Reynaert
- Hans Verstrepen
- Ellen Crabbé-Brantsandpatents
Respondents- Hyler BVOperating co.
Representatives- Kristof Leonard Charlotte Roox-Crowell & Moring LLP
- Eline van Bogget
- Margaux Dejonghe-Crowell & Moring LLP
- Paul Hylarides
- Anson van Rooij
- Division
- Brussels LD
- Technology
- Mechanical engineeringOther special machines
- Language
- Dutch
- First decided
- Oct 7, 2025
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Brussels LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Samuel Granata | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Daniel Voss | Locked | Locked |
| Judge András Kupecz | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Bernard Ledeboer | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Cretes NV (3 cases)·Hyler BV (3 cases)
This dispute contains 2 other proceedings
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Brussels LD·2024
- 2025-10-07Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: The Brussels Local Division confirmed the settlement (dadingsovereenkomst) between Cretes NV and Hyler BV in the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation proceedings, and ordered partial reimbursement of court fees under R. 370(9)(c) and (e) RoP.
Show the legal issues (2)
- Settlement confirmation (R. 365(1) RoP)
- Court fee reimbursement (R. 370(9)(c)(e) RoP)
- 2024-10-25
Summary: Brussels Local Division procedural order (full panel: Granata, Kupecz, Voss) in infringement proceedings by Cretes NV against Hyler BV concerning EP 3 993 602 and EP 4 284 152, deciding under R. 37(2) RoP to handle both the infringement action (ACT_25743/2024) and the revocation counterclaim (CC_53420/2024) jointly for reasons of efficiency, consistent with the parties' wishes. The joint treatment ensures uniform patent interpretation by the same panel.
Show the legal issues (2)
- Joint handling of infringement and revocation counterclaim (Art. 33(3) UPCA / R. 37(2) RoP)
- Efficiency and uniform patent interpretation
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Case closed | 2025-11-26 | Not public |
| Publication of decision | 2025-10-08 | Not public |
| Decision | 2025-10-07 | Not public |
| Decision | 2025-10-07 | Public |
| Cover sheet | 2025-10-06 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2025-10-06 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2025-10-06 | Not public |
| Other document | 2025-10-06 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2025-10-06 | Not public |
| Interim procedure opened | 2025-10-01 | Not public |
Cretes NV (Belgium) brought an infringement action against Hyler BV (Belgium) concerning EP 3 993 602 and EP 4 284 152, patents for a device and method for harvesting textile hemp; Hyler filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Brussels Local Division confirmed the parties' settlement agreement under R. 365(1) RoP and addressed the reimbursement of court fees, applying a pragmatic set-off between fees already paid and outstanding fees owed, with the court invoking both R. 370(9)(c) and R. 370(9)(e) RoP to reach a fair outcome.
Parties are entitled to reimbursement of court fees after settlement under R. 370(9)(c) RoP, accounting for outstanding unpaid fees
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 370(9)(c) RoP; R. 365(1) RoPNote: Court confirmed settlement and ordered partial reimbursement of court fees already paid, applying a pragmatic approach to set-off outstanding fees against reimbursement.
Court has discretion under R. 370(9)(e) RoP to adjust reimbursement in exceptional cases based on stage of proceedings and procedural conduct
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 370(9)(e) RoPNote: Court held that the pragmatic R. 105(5) RoP approach to fees during mediation constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying adjustment of the reimbursement.
No rejected arguments captured.
Browse other cases on this principle.