Agriculture — European UPC Patent Cases
16 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 16 total
Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of an application for rehearing related to EP 2 152 073. Both parties, Sumi Agro and Syngenta, jointly requested the withdrawal, leading the court to permit it under R. 265.1 RoP. While the core dispute was dropped, the Court provided clear guidance on procedural matters, specifically confirming that joint requests for withdrawal waive the need for a cost decision but do not automatically allow for fee waivers.
Amycel LLC v.PL
In a default judgment case concerning mushroom strains, the UPC confirmed infringement of EP 1 993 350 B2 held by Amycel LLC. The court specifically addressed patentability issues, ruling that the subject matter (a specific mushroom strain) is not excluded from protection under Art. 53(b) EPC. This decision reinforces the enforceability of plant-related patents within the UPC territory and confirms significant remedies, including permanent injunctions and interim damages.
Data Detection Technologies Ltd. v.Esde Makine Otomasyon Tarım Teknolojileri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.
Data Detection Technologies Ltd. successfully obtained an ex parte order from the UPC Local Division in The Hague to preserve evidence against Esde Makine Otomasyon Tarım Teknolojileri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. This urgent measure was sought during a trade fair, targeting the alleged infringing seed counting machine (SD-14010). The court ruled that the applicant met all necessary criteria under UPC rules for interim measures, allowing for the seizure and detailed examination of the device to confirm patent infringement. This decision is significant as it demonstrates the UPC's willingness to grant swift provisional relief when evidence preservation is critical before a main action commences.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited; Sumi Agro Europe Limited
Syngenta Limited initiated infringement proceedings against Sumi Agro Limited and its European subsidiary concerning EP patent n° 2 152 073. In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich granted a stay of all proceedings at the request of both parties. This decision effectively pauses the litigation, allowing time for strategic reassessment by the involved companies.
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v.Spiridonakis Bros GP
In a significant decision by default, the UPC granted Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. an infringement declaration against Spiridonakis Bros GP regarding its reversible agricultural tool patent (EP 1998604). The court upheld the permanent injunction and established recurring penalties for continued infringement across several member states. This case highlights the strict evidentiary requirements placed on claimants pursuing default judgments in UPC proceedings, while also clarifying the scope of territoriality under Art. 26 UPCA.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited; Sumi Agro Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarified a critical procedural point regarding the timing of court fee payments. The case involved an appeal by Sumi Agro challenging the revocation of provisional measures granted to Syngenta, which hinged on whether Sumi Agro had failed to start infringement proceedings within the stipulated timeframe. The Court ruled that the date fees are ordered to be transferred is decisive for timely payment, not necessarily the date they are received by the Court's bank account. This ruling provides significant clarity for practitioners navigating UPC procedural deadlines, especially in international contexts where transfer times can vary.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 2 152 073, the UPC Local Division Munich granted Syngenta Limited's request to amend its claim to include territories outside the core UPC jurisdiction (Poland, Czech Republic, and UK). This decision addresses the legal uncertainty created by recent ECJ rulings regarding infringement in non-UPC states. The court determined that Syngenta was not required to make this amendment earlier due to the evolving legal landscape, allowing the main infringement and revocation proceedings to proceed across these expanded territories.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This UPC decision addressed a critical procedural dispute regarding the timing of starting infringement proceedings. The Respondent (Sumi Agro) sought to revoke provisional measures because they argued that the court fees had not been 'received' by the Court before the deadline, thus missing the statutory window. The Court firmly rejected this interpretation, clarifying that 'paid' is sufficient under Rule 15(2) RoP, and starting proceedings simply means filing in the CMS. While the re-establishment application was dismissed, the decision granted leave to appeal due to fundamental questions of procedural law.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited
In a significant ruling on provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal affirmed the validity and infringement likelihood of EP 2 152 073 concerning herbicide compositions. The court confirmed that the balance of interests favored granting an injunction against Sumi Agro. Furthermore, it clarified procedural aspects, specifically rejecting the requirement for Syngenta to provide security for enforcement, which is a key relief for patent holders seeking immediate protection.
Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural matter concerning the translation requirement for evidence in appeal proceedings. Syngenta requested that a specific document, Exhibit FF25, not be translated into English. The court reviewed the relevant Rules of Procedure (RoP) and ultimately granted the request. The ruling clarifies the discretionary power of the Court of Appeal regarding language requirements when parties submit documents during appellate stages.
Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural issues arising from an appeal challenging provisional measures against Sumi Agro Limited. The core dispute involved the alleged infringement by Syngenta using different versions of a product named 'Kagura' (2023 vs 2024). The court ultimately allowed Syngenta to introduce new evidence detailing the characteristics and purchase of the 2024 product, finding that the late submission was justified. This ruling highlights the UPC's flexibility in allowing relevant factual developments during appeal proceedings.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This UPC CFI decision addressed an application to revoke provisional measures based on alleged procedural deadlines. The Applicant argued that because court fees were not received by the Court before a specific deadline, the proceedings had not properly started. However, the Court rejected this argument, clarifying the precise wording of the Rules of Procedure (RoP). The ruling emphasizes that 'paid' is sufficient under Rule 15(2) RoP for lodging, and merely filing in the CMS satisfies the requirement to 'start' proceedings.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited
This UPC decision addresses critical procedural aspects within an application for provisional measures concerning a herbicide composition patent. The court clarified the burden of proof for product claims, stating that applicants do not need to prove why the composition has all features, only that it does or will. It also set strict limits on validity challenges in summary proceedings, requiring respondents to narrow their arguments to three key points. These rulings provide important guidance for practitioners navigating urgent infringement actions at the UPC.
Amycel LLC v.Defendant (unnamed)
Amycel LLC successfully obtained provisional measures from the UPC CFI regarding its patent on a hybrid mushroom strain (BR06). The court granted an interim injunction against the unnamed defendant to prevent infringement in key territories, provided Amycel deposited EUR 200,000.00 as security. This decision reinforces the enforceability of plant/microorganism patents within the UPC framework and provides immediate relief for biotech innovators.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited
This UPC decision addresses a procedural request for confidentiality rather than patent infringement itself. The Court of First Instance granted the defendants' motion to classify specific exhibits (SA-1 and SA-9) as strictly confidential under Rule 262A. This ruling is significant for practitioners, reinforcing the court's commitment to protecting sensitive commercial information during litigation proceedings.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This UPC decision is procedural, concerning a preliminary measures application related to EP2152073. The defendants requested a postponement of the oral hearing due to scheduling conflicts for their counsel. After considering both parties' availability and the Court's proposed dates, the court granted the request, rescheduling the hearing.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.