Appellant v. Amycel LLC

This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) against an order of provisional measures issued by the Local Division The Hague on 31 July 2024 (ORD_44133/2024) in proceedings involving European Patent EP 1 993 350. The Respondent is Amycel LLC, a company based in Watsonville, California, United States of America. The Appellant's name was redacted in the public order.

The Appellant initially paid a reduced court fee of €6,600 (60% of the regular fee of €11,000), declaring that he fulfilled the criteria of a micro-enterprise under Title I of the Annex to EC Recommendation 2003/361 of 6 May 2003. On 21 October 2024, the Court of Appeal raised doubts about whether the Appellant was a small or micro-enterprise and ordered him to provide detailed information and documentation regarding his number of employees and annual turnover. The Appellant responded with a Statement on 28 October 2024, in which he no longer claimed to be a micro-enterprise but rather a small enterprise, without providing specific figures or evidence.

On 7 November 2024, the Court of Appeal found the Appellant's affirmation to be incorrect and ordered him to pay the remainder of the regular fee (€4,400) plus an additional 50% penalty fee (€5,500), totaling €9,900, within seven days. The Court warned that failure to pay would result in a decision by default pursuant to R.355 RoP. The Appellant did not pay within the time limit.

The Appellant then filed a Statement on 14 November 2024 requesting waiver of the additional €5,500 fee, with an auxiliary request for legal aid. The Appellant argued that the initial micro-enterprise declaration was made accidentally, that the distinction between micro and small enterprises does not affect fee reduction under the UPCA or Rules of Procedure, and that as a farmer he could not bear the court fees without financial hardship. The Respondent opposed these requests, arguing that the Appellant had provided no factual or legal basis for waiver, had not complied with the Court's order to provide documentation, and that the legal aid application was inadmissible for lack of substantiation.

The Court of Appeal rejected the Appellant's requests. It held that under R.370.8(d)(ii) RoP, the additional 50% fee was properly imposed because the Appellant's affirmation was found to be wholly or partially incorrect. The Court noted that the Appellant had failed to comply with the case management order and had not provided evidence to substantiate his status as a small enterprise. The legal aid application was held inadmissible under R.378A RoP because the Appellant had not provided the required statement regarding his economic and financial situation or the supporting documents listed in R.378A.1(a) to (d) RoP.

As the Appellant had neither paid the remainder of the court fee nor the additional fee within the time limit, the Court issued a decision by default against the Appellant pursuant to R.357.3, R.355.1(a) RoP, and R.370.8(e) RoP. The appeal was closed by default, the Appellant was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and the scheduled hearing date of 5 December 2024 was cancelled. The Court declined to grant an interim award of costs beyond the court fees, noting that the Respondent had not presented arguments justifying such an award.