UPC CFI 499/2024
Aug 30, 2024·EP1993350 · BROWN MUSHROOMS FOR COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent infringed)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Amycel LLCOperating co.
Representatives- Hendrik Lambers-Vossius & Brinkhof UPC Litigators
- Daan F. de Lange
- Jasmijn de Groot-Brinkhof
- Division
- The Hague LD
- Technology
- ChemistryFood chemistry
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Dec 18, 2024
- Last decision
- Dec 9, 2025
- EPO Opposition
- Limgroup B.V.Admissible2017-03-28
- SOMYCELAdmissible2017-03-28
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| The Hague LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Edger Brinkman | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Margot Kokke | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Rute Lopes | 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
- 2025-12-09Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: The Hague Local Division issued a procedural order addressing the defendant's attempt to set aside the default judgment, ruling that the defendant had been sufficiently warned of the default consequence and that the prior R. 275 and R. 320 orders preclude a fresh challenge under R. 356 RoP.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Setting aside default judgment (R. 356 RoP)
- Consequences of prior R. 320 order
- Defendant warned of default in R. 275 order
- 2025-10-21Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: The Hague Local Division issued a default judgment against the absent defendant finding infringement of Amycel's mushroom strain patent EP 1 993 350 (brown Agaricus bisporus), confirming the preliminary injunction, granting a permanent injunction, information orders, and an interim award of damages of EUR 50,000.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Default judgment (R. 355 RoP)
- Mushroom strain patentability (Art. 53(b) EPC)
- Permanent injunction confirming PI
- Interim damages
- 2025-04-01Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: The Hague Local Division rejected the defendant's application for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP after missing the deadline for filing a statement of defence, finding the representative had not exercised due care given the specific circumstances of the case.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Re-establishment of rights (R. 320 RoP)
- Due care standard
- Missed deadline for statement of defence
- 2024-12-18Procedural OrderPublic
Summary: The Hague Local Division (Judge-Rapporteur) ordered that Amycel's attempts to serve the Statement of Claim on the anonymous defendant (located in Poland, an EU country that is not a UPC Contracting Member State) constituted good service, that the Statement of Claim was deemed served on 18 November 2024, and set the time period for the defendant to lodge a Statement of Defence ending 18 February 2025.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Service of statement of claim (R. 275 RoP)
- Alternative service methods
- Non-Contracting Member State defendant
- Default procedure
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2026-05-01 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-05-01 | Not public |
| Communication | 2026-04-10 | Not public |
| Other Documents | 2026-04-10 | Not public |
| Communication | 2026-03-25 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-03-04 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-03-04 | Not public |
| Exhibit Claimant | 2026-03-04 | Not public |
| Application document Claimant | 2026-03-04 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2025-12-09 | Not public |
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.
Mushroom strain EP 1 993 350 B2 is not excluded from patentability under Art. 53(b) EPC
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 53(b) EPCNote: 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
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 320 RoP; Art. 122 EPC (by analogy)Note: 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
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 356.3 RoPNote: 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.
Representative's illness prevented timely filing of SoD and re-establishment of rights under R. 320 should be granted
RespondentLegal basis: R. 320 RoPReason: 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
RespondentLegal basis: R. 356.3 RoPReason: 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.
Browse other cases on this principle.