Short Summary
Amycel LLC filed an application for provisional measures alleging that the Defendant infringed its European Patent EP 1 993 350 B2 by selling a brown mushroom strain under the name 'Cayene'. The Defendant raised invalidity arguments, contending that the mushroom strain was excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC. The Court of First Instance, Local Division The Hague, rejected the exclusion argument, found infringement, and granted the provisional measures sought.
Detailed Summary
Amycel LLC, a company based in Watsonville, California, is the proprietor of European Patent EP 1 993 350 B2 and the Applicant in these proceedings. The Defendant, whose name is redacted in the public order, is alleged to have been selling a brown hybrid Agaricus bisporus mushroom strain marketed under the name 'Cayene'. On 14 May 2024, Amycel filed an application for provisional measures (UPC_CFI_195/2024, ACT_23163/2024) before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division The Hague, seeking injunctive relief, delivery up of infringing products, disclosure of customer information, costs, and penalty payments in relation to alleged infringement in the territories of the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Italy. The Defendant did not file a protective letter but submitted a written Objection on 26 June 2024, including invalidity arguments.
Amycel argued that the Defendant's marketing and sale of the Cayene mushroom strain infringed EP 1 993 350 B2, which relates to a hybrid Agaricus bisporus mushroom strain (BR06, with a representative culture available from ATCC under Accession No. PTA-6876). Amycel sought a pan-European injunction, delivery up of infringing products, an order requiring the Defendant to disclose customer details, an interim award of costs, and penalty payments for non-compliance. The Defendant contested the application, primarily relying on an invalidity defense asserting that the mushroom strain claimed in the patent was excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC (which excludes essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals). The Defendant further requested, in the alternative, that Amycel be ordered to provide security if measures were granted.
& Analysis: The panel, composed of Presiding Judge Edger Brinkman, Legally Qualified Judge Rute Lopes, Technically Qualified Judge Steen Wadskov-Hansen, and Judge-Rapporteur Margot Kokke, considered the application and the Defendant's objections. The central legal issue was whether the mushroom strain claimed in EP 1 993 350 B2 fell within the exclusion from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC. The Court concluded that the mushroom strain was not excluded from patentability, thereby rejecting the Defendant's primary invalidity argument. Having found that the requirements for provisional measures were satisfied, including a prima facie case of infringement and the validity of the patent, the Court determined that the measures sought by Amycel were justified.
Final Order & Ruling: The Court granted the provisional measures sought by Amycel. The order was issued on 31 July 2024, with the language of proceedings being English. The headnote of the order confirms that the mushroom strain is not considered to be excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC, that infringement was established, and that the measures were granted. The keywords identified by the Court are 'provisional measures, patentability of mushroom strain; infringement.'
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before The Hague (NL) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Amycel LLC vs *** is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KGvsHimson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement dispute between Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG and Himson Engineering Private Limited regarding European Patent EP2145848. The proceedings originated from an ex parte evidence preservation order obtained by Oerlikon in June 2023 in connection with the ITMA trade fair held in Rho, Milan. Himson filed a counterclaim for revocation challenging the patent's validity on grounds of added matter, novelty, and inventive step, while Oerlikon introduced seven auxiliary requests. The order addresses procedural matters discussed at the interim conference, including settlement prospects, translation corrections, and the scope of the validity attack.
SCHNELL S.P.A., A.W.M. S.R.LvsProgress Maschinen & Automation AG
This order concerns an application for a cost decision filed by AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a. regarding the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation in UPC CFI no. 178/2024 and no. 432/2024. The respondent Progress Maschinen & Automation AG argued that its appeal against the first instance decision, filed on 11.12.2025, had automatic suspensive effect under Article 74(2) UPCA, rendering the cost application untimely. The applicants countered that R. 150 RoP does not require finality and that the suspensive effect should be limited to the revocation portion of the decision. The Court rejected the applicants' restrictive interpretation, holding that the automatic suspensive effect applies to the decision in its entirety.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, products incorporating AX201, from Q2 2019 and AX211, from QvsASUSTEK COMPUTER INC, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS:
The Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in Lisbon dismissed AsusTek's application for a confidentiality order regarding information it was required to provide to Ericsson following a 6 May 2026 decision upholding Ericsson's infringement claim. The Court held that the request was filed too late, as AsusTek had not raised confidentiality concerns during the main proceedings and provided no justification for the delay. Additionally, the Court found that part of the request—seeking to limit the purposes for which Ericsson could use the information—fell outside the scope of the confidentiality regime and concerned substantive law.
Dolby International ABvsCPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague concerning an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and several Acer entities regarding European Patent EP3079153. The order summarizes a case management hearing held on 23 February 2026, which was conducted online behind closed doors due to the confidential nature of the discussions, including matters related to the patent pool administrator Vectis. Key issues discussed included ongoing pool negotiations, a Rule 190 request by Acer, the applicability of a prior FRAND-related decision, and Acer's consideration of filing a counterclaim for rate setting against both Dolby and Vectis.
CARDO SYSTEMS, LTD., s.r.l., via Porlezza n. 12, 20123 - Milan, Italy;vs1) SHENZHEN ZIWU CHUANGXIN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before Milan Local Division (decision issued on 2025-12-08) under reference UPC_F79CEE4A6A, CARDO SYSTEMS, LTD., s.r.l., via Porlezza n. 12, 20123 - Milan, Italy; appeared in dispute with 1) SHENZHEN ZIWU CHUANGXIN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.