Opens in a new tab

Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 18 October 2023)

Date18 October 2023
CourtCFI
DivisionThe Hague (NL) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_239/2023
Registry referenceORD_581189/2023 · UPC_CFI_239/2023
PartiesPlant-e Knowledge B.V., Plant-e B.V. v. Arkyne Technologies S.L.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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 order of 18 October 2023 (UPC_CFI_239/2023), the President of the Court of First Instance, having consulted the panel of The Hague Local Division, granted the application of Arkyne Technologies, defendant in the infringement action brought by Plant-e Knowledge and Plant-e on EP 2137782, and changed the language of the proceedings from Dutch to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The order reads Art. 49(5) UPCA in a way that favours defendants: a significant inconvenience is enough, and no disproportionate disadvantage need be shown.

Question

Was the defendant’s application under Rule 323 RoP admissible, and did fairness justify switching to the language of grant?

Decision

Rule 323.1 RoP is read as requiring the defendant to apply no later than with the statement of defence. The application, which was not challenged on admissibility, was admissible. On the merits, both parties have a good command of English, the language of their pre-litigation correspondence. Being sued in a language one does not master is a significant inconvenience, even with Dutch-speaking representatives, given the cost and time of translation. The claimants gave no particular reason for refusing, and since no translation of existing documents was requested under Rule 324 RoP, the change caused them no further detriment. Costs were left to the main proceedings. The order may be appealed within 15 calendar days of notification.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Arts 41, 49(3) to (5), 52 and 73(2)(a)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 14, 23, 220.1(c), 321, 322, 323 and 324

Related decisions

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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

  • UPC_CFI_239/2023 official number

Follow this case

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 3 August 2023 Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 3 August 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_239/2023

    Le juge dispense les demanderesses de traduire en néerlandais, langue de la procédure, les pièces rédigées en anglais, aucun intérêt du défendeur à une traduction n'apparaissant.

  2. 18 October 2023 Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 18 October 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_239/2023
  3. 17 January 2024 Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 17 January 2024) Procedural Order · UPC_CFI_239/2023

    Le délai de la règle 29 a) court de la signification du mémoire en défense contenant la demande reconventionnelle, mais il est prorogé au 23 janvier 2024 en raison de la confusion créée par le CMS.

  4. 13 February 2024 Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 13 February 2024) Generic application · UPC_CFI_239/2023

    La division locale de La Haye rejette la demande de garantie des frais de 200 000 euros, les demanderesses étant établies aux Pays-Bas et aucune circonstance exceptionnelle n'étant établie, et autorise l'appel.

  5. 15 February 2024 Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 15 February 2024) Generic Order · UPC_CFI_239/2023

    La division locale de La Haye décide, à la demande des deux parties et avant la clôture de la procédure écrite, d'instruire ensemble l'action en contrefaçon et la demande reconventionnelle en nullité.

  6. 4 March 2024 Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 4 March 2024) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_239/2023

    Les informations financières de Plant-e sont confidentielles au sens de l'article 58 de l'Accord et de la règle 262A, seuls les représentants de la défenderesse y ont accès, pour la seule demande de garantie des frais.

  7. 4 March 2024 Plant-e v Arkyne (CFI, 4 March 2024) Application RoP262A · UPC_CFI_239/2023

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La présidente du tribunal de première instance remplace le néerlandais par l'anglais, langue de délivrance, à la demande du défendeur, la demande présentée avant le mémoire en défense étant recevable et l'équité commandant le changement.
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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 137 782
Device and method for converting light energy into electrical energy
recorded proprietor: Plant-E Knowledge BV		Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 8 other decision(s): Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 22 November 2024) · Arkyne Technologies v Plant-e Knowledge (CoA, 23 June 2025) · Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne (CFI, ORD_27758/2024, 15 May 2024) · Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 4 March 2024) · Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 15 February 2024) · Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 13 February 2024) · Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 17 January 2024) · Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 3 August 2023)		not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · 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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.