UPClytics
English
Sign inSign up
Overview · Filed: May 3, 2024

UPC_CFI_195/2024

BROWN MUSHROOMS FOR COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION

Provisional measuresProvisional MeasuresThe Hague LDProvisional measuresCase Closed
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Mushroom strain (Agaricus bisporus hybrid BR06/Cayene) is not excluded from patentability under Art. 53(b) EPC

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 53(b) EPC

    Note: 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) UPCA

    Note: 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 RoP

    Note: Defendant's request for security was granted because Amycel did not object, and the court used it to set the case value.

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

  • Requested case value of EUR 500,000 for determining recoverable-costs ceiling

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211.5 RoP

    Reason: Court found the EUR 500,000 figure insufficiently substantiated and instead used the EUR 200,000 security amount as a proxy for case value.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Mushroom strain patent not excluded from patentability under Art. 53(b) EPCProvisional measures require prima facie infringementSecurity may be ordered as condition for enforcement (R. 211.5 RoP)Case value may be inferred from the security amount requested by the defendantInterim award of costs limited to court fees where merits proceedings are to follow

Browse other cases on this principle.