UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 239/2023

Jul 12, 2023·EP2137782 · DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONVERTING LIGHT ENERGY INTO ELECTRICAL ENERGY

Action number: ACT 549536/2023

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
The Hague LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
Language
English
First decided
Aug 3, 2023
Last decision
Nov 22, 2024
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
The Hague LDLockedLocked
Judge Edger BrinkmanLockedLocked
Judge Margot KokkeLockedLocked
Judge Samuel GranataLockedLocked
Judge Simon WalkerLockedLocked

At the UPC: Plant-e Knowledge B.V. (9 cases)·Arkyne Technologies S.L. (9 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 7 other proceedings

UPC CoA 46/2025·UPC CoA 48/2025·UPC CFI 832/2024·UPC CFI 833/2024·CC 588768/2023 and 2 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: The Hague LD·2023

Decisions
  • 2024-11-22
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Hague Local Division found Arkyne Technologies (Bioo) infringed Plant-e's EP 2 137 782 B1 by equivalence (bioelectrical energy from plant photosynthesis), granted an injunction, ordered recall and destruction of infringing products, and required a customer notice.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Infringement by equivalence
    • Technical equivalence test
    • Injunction
    • Recall and destruction
    • Customer notice Art. 64 UPCA
  • 2024-03-04
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Hague Local Division granted Plant-e's application for a confidentiality order under R.262A RoP protecting financial information submitted with their reply to a R.158 application, with access limited to counsel only with the consent of the parties.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • confidentiality order R.262A RoP
    • access limited to counsel
  • 2024-02-15
    Public

    Summary: The Hague Local Division decided to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA), as both parties agreed and joint hearing was considered expedient for uniform interpretation.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Art. 33(3) UPCA – joint hearing of infringement and counterclaim for revocation
    • Bifurcation decision
  • 2024-01-17
    Procedural OrderPublic

    Summary: The Hague Local Division issued a procedural order clarifying the deadline for Plant-e to file its defence to the counterclaim for revocation and setting provisional dates for the interim conference and oral hearing, while also inviting parties to comment on the application of Art. 33(3) UPCA regarding bifurcation.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Time limit for defence to counterclaim for revocation under Rules 29(a), 331, 334(a) and 9.3(a) RoP
    • Extension of deadline ex officio
    • Setting of interim conference and oral hearing dates
    • Art. 33(3) UPCA: bifurcation
  • 2023-10-18
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The President of the Court of First Instance issued an order pursuant to Rule 323 RoP on the language of proceedings, in an infringement action by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. against Arkyne Technologies S.L., concerning EP 2 137 782 relating to a device for converting light energy into electrical energy.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Language of proceedings (Rule 322-323 RoP)
    • Change of language
  • 2023-08-03
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Hague Local Division granted Plant-e's request under R. 13(q) / R. 7.1 RoP that English-language exhibits need not be translated into Dutch, as the defendant had no apparent interest in requiring Dutch translations.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Language of proceedings
    • Translation of exhibits R. 7 RoP
Documents
Show all 415 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative2025-01-22Not public
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative2025-01-22Not public
Application-RoP293-Receipt2025-01-21Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-01-21Not public
Application-RoP293-Receipt2025-01-21Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-01-21Not public
Application-RoP2932025-01-21Not public
Power of Attorney2025-01-21Not public
Application to change a representative re. RoP 2932025-01-21Not public
Application-RoP2932025-01-21Not public
Plain-English summary

Plant-e brought infringement proceedings against Arkyne Technologies (Bioo) for the Bioo Panel, Bioo Bench, and Bioo Ed products alleged to infringe EP 2137782 covering a bio-electrochemical method using living plants and micro-organisms to convert light energy into electricity. The Hague Local Division, after rejecting Bioo's revocation counterclaim, found infringement by equivalence using a four-question test drawn from national case law. The court ordered an immediate injunction across Benelux, France, Germany, and Italy, product recall with specific customer communication text, damages, and a website publication.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Infringement of EP 2137782 by equivalence through supply of Bioo Panels, Bioo Benches and Bioo Ed products

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC and Protocol on Interpretation; Art. 64 UPCA

    Note: Court applied a four-question equivalence test derived from national jurisdictions and found all four questions answered in the affirmative.

  • Patent EP 2137782 is valid; counterclaim for revocation should be rejected

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA

    Note: Court upheld validity and dismissed the revocation counterclaim in full.

  • Court has power to order specific wording of customer recall letter and website publication

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 64 UPCA; Union law

    Note: Court ordered specific texts for recall letter to professional customers and a homepage notice for one month.

  • 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.

  • Bioo products do not literally infringe claim 11 of EP 2137782

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC and Protocol

    Reason: While literal infringement was not found, the court found infringement by equivalence under the four-part test; the variation performed the same function solving the same problem.

  • Counterclaim for revocation of EP 2137782

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65(2) UPCA

    Reason: Revocation counterclaim rejected in its entirety; patent found valid.

  • Bioo Ed and other products are not essential components for the patented method

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 64 UPCA (indirect infringement)

    Reason: Court ruled that the Infringing Products each constitute an essential component for application of method claim 11.

  • 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.
Two-step infringement analysis: first literal infringement under Art. 69 EPC, then equivalence if literal infringement not foundEquivalence test (four questions): (1) technical equivalence solving same problem; (2) fair protection for patentee; (3) reasonable legal certainty for third parties; (4) alleged infringing product must be novel and inventive over prior artCourt may order specific text of customer recall letters and website publications under Art. 64 UPCA and Union lawIndirect infringement through supply of essential components under Art. 64 UPCAdoctrine 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 court conducted a two-step analysis: first assessed literal compliance of Bioo products with claim 11 of EP 2137782 (a method for converting light energy into electrical energy using a bio-electrochemical device incorporating living plants), finding no literal infringement; then applied the four-part equivalence test concluding infringement by equivalence.