Short Summary
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_499/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/04/2025 regarding R.320 – re-establishment APPLICANT - – PL (Defendant in the main action, hereinafter: “Defendant”) Represented by Michal
Detailed Summary
1
The Hague - Local Division
UPC_CFI_499/2024
Order
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
delivered on 01/04/2025
regarding R.320 – re-establishment
APPLICANT
– PL
(Defendant in the main action, hereinafter:
“Defendant”)
Represented by Michal
Przyluski
RELEVANT PROCEEDING PARTIES
Amycel LLC
260 Westgate Drive - 95076 - Watsonville, California – US
(Claimant in the main proceedings, hereinafter: “ Claimant”)
Represented by H.W.J. Lambers,
PATENT AT ISSUE
Patent no.
Proprietor/s
EP1993350
Amycel LLC
Deciding judges
The full panel of the court of first instance local division The Hague.
LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English
REQUEST, PROCEDURAL DETAILS AND BACKGROUND
1. On 13 December 2024 Claimant filed an application (App_65966/2024, the “R.275-
Application”) for alternative service of the Statement of Claim (“SoC”) on Defendant pursuant
to R. 275 RoP in an infringement action that it started before this Local Division on 30 August
2024 (ACT_48877/2024 UPC_CFI_499/2024). The infringement action follows provisional
2
measures proceedings that Claimant initiated against Defendant before this Local Division
(case UPC_CFI_195/2024, ACT_23163/2024, the “PI proceedings”). The infringement action
was started by Claimant within the time period set by the Local Division in the order of 31
July 2024 granting provisional measures.
2. The SoC in the infringement action was uploaded on 30 August 2024. On 13 December 2024
official service had not succeeded. Service by electronic means was not an option because
the representative of Defendant in the provisional measures proceedings had not been
appointed by the Defendant for this action. Attempts to serve the SoC on the Defendant – a
Polish national - in person were not effective because the SoC was not accepted by him. By
order of 19 December 2024 (the “R.275-Order”) the judge-rapporteur, considering the steps
already taken by Amycel to bring the SoC to the defendant's attention to be an alternative
method that is in accordance with the UPC principles of efficiency and fairness and that
respects the rights of the Defendant, ordered the following:
I.
The date on which the Statement of Claim is deemed to be served on Defendant is 25
November 2024;
II.
Amycel is ordered to send a copy of this order to Defendant’s former representative with the
requests set out in 11 above.
Paragraph 11 of the order referred to at II, reads as follows:
11. Amycel used the same representative in the provisional measure proceedings (at the local
division and in appeal APL_47391/2024, UPC_CoA_490/2024) and in the revocation action
(PR_ACT_40493/2024 UPC_CFI_403/2024). Although this representative indicated that he has not
been engaged by Defendant for these proceedings, the court assumes that he is in touch with the
Defendant. Amycel is therefore ordered to send a copy of this order by email to the former
representative, requesting him (i) to forward the order to the Defendant or otherwise bring it to
his attention and (ii) to inform the Defendant that a decision by default shall be issued in case he
does not appear in these proceedings by filing a statement of defense within three months from
25 November 2024.
This date of service of the SoC has not been disputed in a timely manner by the Defendant.
3. Pursuant to the above, R 23 and R 300 (c) RoP, the deadline to file the Statement of Defence
(“SoD”) was Wednesday 25 February 2025.
4. On 4 March 2025 Defendant’s representative – the same representative that represented
Defendant in the application for provisional measures in both instances and in the revocation
action concerning the patent - submitted the SoD. On the same day he filed an application
pursuant to Rule 320 RoP for the re-establishment of rights in respect of the deadline to file
the Statement of Defence as App_10764/2025, hereinafter: the “R.320-Application”). The
request
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 Szymon Spyra vs Respondent 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.