Short Summary
This is a decision by default issued by the Local Division The Hague in an infringement action brought by Amycel LLC, proprietor of EP 1 993 350 B2 relating to 'Brown mushrooms for commercial production,' against a defendant referred to as 'PL.' The defendant failed to file its Statement of Defence in time after a Rule 275 order, resulting in a default judgment. The court confirmed the orders previously given in the related provisional measures proceedings, held that the mushroom strain at issue is not excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC, found infringement, and granted measures insofar as they were deemed lawful, reasonable, and sufficiently founded.
Detailed Summary
The Claimant, Amycel LLC, a company based in Watsonville, California, United States, is the proprietor of European Patent EP 1 993 350 B2, titled 'Brown mushrooms for commercial production.' The grant of the B1 version of the patent was published on 29 June 2016. The Defendant, referred to in the proceedings as 'PL,' was represented by Michal Przyluski. The Claimant was represented by Hendrik W.J. Lambers, Daan F. de Lange, and Jasmijn de Groot. The proceedings were conducted in English before the full panel of the Local Division The Hague, presided by Edger Brinkman, with legally qualified judge Rute Lopes and judge-rapporteur Margot Kokke.
On 30 August 2024, the Claimant uploaded a statement of claim in the case management system, initiating the present infringement action (UPC_CFI_499/2024, ACT_48877/2024). This Action followed provisional measures proceedings initiated by the Claimant on 14 May 2024 against the same Defendant before the same Local Division (case UPC_CFI_195/2024, ACT_23163/2024).
In the Action, the Claimant sought, by way of permanent injunction with immediate effect, an order restraining the Defendant from infringing EP 1 993 350 B2 in the territories of the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Italy. Alternatively, the Claimant requested a more specific injunction targeting the making, offering, placing on the market, using, importing, or storing of a hybrid Agaricus bisporus mushroom strain BR06 (with a representative culture available from ATCC under Accession No. PTA-6876), particularly the Cayene mushroom strain, and any other strains falling within the scope of the patent. The Claimant further requested delivery-up of infringing mushroom strains, a written account of all parties to whom the Defendant had sold or traded infringing strains, and various other remedial measures including the recall or removal of infringing products from the channels of commerce.
& Analysis: The decision was issued as a decision by default. The Defendant filed its Statement of Defence late, after a Rule 275 order had been issued. The court addressed the patentability of the mushroom strain at issue, holding that it is not excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC. The court confirmed the orders previously given in the provisional measures proceedings. Infringement was established, and the court assessed the measures requested by the Claimant, granting them insofar as they were deemed lawful, reasonable, and sufficiently founded.
Final Order & Ruling: The court issued a decision by default on 21 October 2025, confirming the provisional measures orders previously granted, finding infringement of EP 1 993 350 B2, and granting the requested measures to the extent they were considered lawful, reasonable, and sufficiently founded. The decision was issued by the full panel of the Local Division The Hague.
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 XXX is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.