Szymon Spyra v. Respondent

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