Short Summary
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) found European Patent EP 2 137 782, owned by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and relating to a device and method for converting light energy into electrical energy using living plants in microbial fuel cells, to be valid and infringed by equivalence by Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as Bioo). The court applied a four-question test for assessing infringement by equivalence and ordered Bioo to cease infringement, recall infringing products, provide information, publish a corrective notice on its website, pay provisional damages of EUR 35,000, and pay penalties for non-compliance.
Detailed Summary
This case before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division The Hague (case number UPC_CFI_239/2023), concerned European Patent EP 2 137 782 ('EP 782'), entitled 'Device and Method for Converting Light Energy into Electrical Energy.' The patent was granted on 15 November 2024 (actually 15 November 2017) upon an international application filed on 17 April 2008, claiming priority from a Dutch national application of 17 April 2007. No opposition was filed, and the patent was in force in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, France, and Italy.
Claimant 1, Plant-e Knowledge B.V., is the proprietor of the patent, and Claimant 2, Plant-e B.V., is its licensee. Plant-e is a Dutch start-up founded in 2009 as a spin-off from Wageningen University that develops and sells products converting light energy into electricity using living plants. The Defendant, Arkyne Technologies S.L. (referred to as 'Bioo'), is a Spanish start-up established in Barcelona in 2015 that researches, manufactures, and markets products extracting energy from nature using microorganisms in soil. Bioo offered for sale products including the Bioo Ed (educational biofuel cell), Bioo Sensor, Bioo Panel (large biofuel cell with lighting for gardens/parks), and Bioo Bench.
The patent's independent device claim 1 covers a device for converting light energy into electrical energy and/or hydrogen comprising a reactor with an anode compartment containing an anodophilic micro-organism and a living plant, where the root zone of the plant is essentially placed in the anodic material. Independent method claims 11-16 cover corresponding methods.
Plant-e became aware of Bioo's allegedly infringing activities in 2017 when Bioo set up crowdfunding for the Bioo Ed. The parties entered into a non-exclusive licence for the Bioo Ed on 3 August 2018, which was terminated effective 29 March 2019. Plant-e subsequently brought infringement proceedings, and Bioo filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent.
The court assessed the scope of protection in two steps: first evaluating literal infringement, and then assessing equivalence if literal infringement was not found. The court applied a four-question test for equivalence based on case law from various national jurisdictions as proposed by both parties: (1) Technical equivalence: does the variation solve essentially the same problem and perform essentially the same function? (2) Fair protection for patentee: is extending protection proportionate? (3) Reasonable legal certainty for third parties: does the skilled person understand the scope is broader than literal claims? (4) Is the allegedly infringing product novel and inventive over the prior art?
The court found that the patent was valid and that Bioo's products (Bioo Panel, Bioo Ed, and Bioo Bench) infringed the patent by equivalence. The court rejected Bioo's arguments regarding added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step, finding the patent valid as granted.
The court ordered Bioo to: (I) cease and confirm cessation of infringing activities in the Benelux, France, Germany, and Italy; (II) recall infringing products from the market; (III) provide information regarding infringing products and third parties involved; (IV) place a specific corrective notice on its website's homepage for one month; (V) pay penalties of up to EUR 2,000 per infringing product or per day of non-compliance, up to a maximum of EUR 200,000; (VI) compensate Plant-e for damages (to be determined in separate proceedings); (VII) pay provisional damages of EUR 35,000 within three weeks of service; and (VIII) pay the costs of proceedings. The decision was declared immediately and directly enforceable in the Benelux, France, Germany, and Italy without requiring a security payment.
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 Arkyne Technologies S.L. vs Plant-e Knowledge B.V. 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.