Amycel v *** (CFI, 18 December 2024)

Date	18 December 2024
Court	CFI
Division	The Hague (NL) Local Division
Type of action	Procedural Order
Registry reference	ORD_66938/2024 · ACT_48877/2024
Parties	Amycel LLC v. ***

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 19 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_499/2024, ACT_48877/2024), the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division held that Amycel LLC’s statement of claim (EP 1993350) had been validly served on a defendant based in Poland, whose name is redacted, by alternative means after registered post had failed, and set the date of service at 25 November 2024. A defendant who refuses or leaves unopened the documents cannot stall the proceedings.

Question

Did the alternative steps taken by the claimant, after service by the Court had failed, amount to good service under Rule 275.2, and on what date?

Decision

Electronic service was impossible, since the defendant’s former representative in the provisional measures proceedings had not been instructed for the merits, and registered post (Rule 274.1(a)(i)) came back twice (paragraphs 3 and 4). Through a Dutch bailiff, the documents were sent via the Polish receiving agency and delivered by courier against acknowledgement of receipt. The defendant refused the parcel and the other envelope came back unopened (paragraphs 5 to 8). As the documents reached its address, its rights were respected and service was good, in line with the principles of efficiency and fairness in the Preamble (paragraph 9). The three-month period for the statement of defence (Rule 23) runs from 25 November 2024, and Amycel must forward the order to the former representative with a warning of a possible decision by default (paragraphs 10 and 11).

Key points for practice

Refusing to accept or open documents does not prevent the Court from finding good service by other means.
Practical point: documenting each attempt at service makes it possible to obtain a fixed date from which the time for the defence runs.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Preamble (points 4 and 5), Rules 23, 274.1(a)(i) and 275.2
EU Service Regulation: Art. 12(3)

Related decisions

Amycel v ***, 31 July 2024, provisional measures order preceding the action on the merits.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantAmycel LLC8 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Procedural Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La juge rapporteure juge régulière la signification du mémoire en demande par des voies alternatives et la fixe au 25 novembre 2024, date de départ du délai de défense.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 1 993 350 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Amycel v *** (CFI, 31 July 2024) cited in this record

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 1 993 350` Brown mushrooms for commercial production recorded proprietor: Amycel LLC	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 11 other decision(s): Name not displayed for GDPR reasons. Represented by Michal PRZYLUSKI v · * v AMYCEL (CoA, 2 July 2026) · Applicant * v Amycel (CoA, 24 March 2026) · Applicant * v Amycel (CoA, 16 January 2026) · Amycell v * (CFI, 9 December 2025) · Amycel v XXX (CFI, 21 October 2025) · Amycel v * (CFI, 1 April 2025) · * v Amycel (CoA, 28 November 2024)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.