Amycel v XXX (CFI, 21 October 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By a decision by default of 21 October 2025 (UPC_CFI_499/2024), The Hague Local Division, sitting as a full panel, upheld Amycel’s infringement action based on EP 1 993 350 B2 concerning brown mushrooms for commercial production, against a defendant established in Poland whose name is not published. It prohibited the hybrid Agaricus bisporus strain Cayene, under any name, in the Netherlands, Germany, France and Italy, and awarded EUR 50,000 in interim damages. The decision shows the review carried out under Rule 355.2 RoP where the Statement of Defence is deemed not to have been filed.

Facts and procedure

The Statement of Claim was filed on 30 August 2024, following a provisional measures order of 31 July 2024. By order of 19 December 2024 (Rule 275 RoP), service was deemed effected on 25 November 2024. The Statement of Defence, due on 25 February 2025, was uploaded only on 4 March 2025, by order of 1 April 2025 the application for re-establishment of rights (Rule 320 RoP) was rejected, the defence deemed not filed and a default decision announced (paragraphs 16 to 21). The defendant then filed several applications without leave (paragraphs 22 to 24). The first paragraph of the decision gives the number EP 1 933 350 B2, the rest of the decision EP 1 993 350 B2.

The applicable law

Rule 355 RoP allows a decision by default where a party fails to take a step within the time limit. Under Rule 355.2 the court checks that the facts put forward justify the remedy sought. Remedies fall under Art. 25, 63, 64 and 68 UPCA, jurisdiction under Art. 31, 32 and 33(1)(a) UPCA and Art. 7(2), 71a and 71b of Regulation 1215/2012.

Question

Are the conditions for a decision by default met, and do the facts alleged by Amycel justify the injunction, corrective measures and damages sought?

Decision

Yes. Service is established by the Rule 275 order, the Rule 320 order and the registration of the defendant’s representative on 6 January 2025 (paragraph 26), jurisdiction was checked of the court’s own motion for the four States (paragraph 27). The defendant’s later applications were not admitted (paragraph 30). The division checked that the facts were substantiated and the measures not prima facie unlawful or unfounded: as the facts were essentially those of the provisional measures proceedings and no relevant defence had been raised, validity and infringement were found (paragraphs 31 to 33). The injunction covers the Cayene strain only, including under other names (paragraph 34). Having regard to proportionality (Art. 64(4) UPCA), delivery up was held superfluous given destruction (paragraph 35), the website notice was justified by the defendant’s earlier announcement (paragraph 36). Knowledge was dated from grant (paragraph 40) and EUR 50,000 was awarded on an interim basis (paragraph 41). Penalties may reach EUR 50,000 per day for the injunction, capped at EUR 1 million, the value was set at EUR 500,000 and the defendant bears the costs, to be assessed later.

Key points for practice

• Review under Rule 355.2 RoP is limited to substantiated facts and measures not manifestly unfounded, so the court may rely on its assessment in provisional measures.
• Late filing of the Statement of Defence, without re-establishment, exposes the defendant to a merits decision with an injunction, corrective measures and interim damages.
• Proportionality allows a redundant corrective measure, such as delivery up where destruction is ordered, to be refused.
• Practical point: defendants must keep strict watch on the three-month time limit for the Statement of Defence, since Rule 320 RoP requires proof that all due care was taken.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 25, 31, 32(1)(a), 33(1)(a), 34, 47, 63, 64, 68, 69 and 82(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 23, 118, 119, 275, 277, 320, 354 and 355 to 356

European Patent Convention

Art. 53(b)

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 7(2), 71a and 71b

Case law cited

Amycel, provisional measures order of 31 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_195/2024) and appeal UPC_CoA_490/2024, Düsseldorf Local Division, 5 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_318/2025), Munich Local Division, default decision of 9 January 2025 (UPC_CFI_508/2023), Milan decision of 22 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_597/2024)

Related decisions

• Amycel, 1 April 2025, order rejecting the Rule 320 application and announcing the decision by default.

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.