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
Astronergy Europe GmbH, Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V., Chint Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy Solarmodule GmbHvsRespondent
This procedural order concerns a panel review of a cost order under Rule 333 RoP. The Defendants sought review of the judge-rapporteur's order dated 2 April 2025, which had dismissed their application to require the Claimant to provide adequate security for costs. The Defendants argued that the Local Division Munich reached the opposite conclusion in a parallel proceeding between the same parties, and that UPC decisions, like German court decisions, cannot be enforced in China, justifying a security for costs order. The Claimant defended the original order, contending the Court applied the correct legal standard.
Gilead Sciences, Inc.vsAcademy of Military Medical Sciences
This Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance (Milan Central Division) addressed a cost decision following revocation proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP3854403, owned by the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS). Gilead Sciences, Inc., as the successful party in the revocation proceedings, sought EUR 800,000 in recoverable legal costs, which AMMS did not dispute in amount but requested be stayed pending appeal. The Court rejected AMMS's requests for a stay and for payment by instalments, ordering AMMS to pay the full amount within four weeks of service.
1. MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED 2. MERIL GMBH 3. SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ 4. SORMEDICA, UAB 5. INTERLUX, UAB 6. VAB-LOGISTIK, UABvsEDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION
In this legal proceeding before Stockholm (SE) - Seat of the Regional Division (decision issued on 2026-05-12) under reference UPC_BA5D0405D2, 1. MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED 2. MERIL GMBH 3. SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ 4. SORMEDICA, UAB 5. INTERLUX, UAB 6. VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB appeared in dispute with EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
SharkNinja Operating LLCvsGroupe SEB France et al.
Procedural order of the UPC Local Division Paris in proceedings concerning EP 3 689 198, addressing confidentiality and translation exemption requests in connection with Seb's application for costs following the dismissal of SharkNinja's provisional measures application. The judge-rapporteur classified certain redacted information as confidential, restricted access to a limited confidentiality circle, and granted Seb an exemption from translating specified French-language exhibits and case law i
Bostic, Inc.vsHenkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel technologies France, Henkel AG & Co KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V, Henkel Italia S.r.l
This case concerns a patent infringement dispute between Bostik, Inc. and several Henkel entities regarding European Patent EP 1 725 627 B1. Bostik alleges that certain Henkel products in the Liofol® range infringe its patent, while Henkel has filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. The Court of First Instance held an interim conference on 1 June 2026, during which the parties discussed the main legal issues including claim interpretation, patent validity, alleged infringement acts, and corrective measures.
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.