Opens in a new tab

Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 17 January 2024)

Date17 January 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionThe Hague (NL) Local Division
Type of actionProcedural Order
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_239/2023
Registry referenceORD_2223/2024 · UPC_CFI_239/2023
PartiesPlant-e, Plant-e Knowledge 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 an order of 17 January 2024 (UPC_CFI_239/2023, ACT_549536/2023, CC_588768/2023, ORD_2223/2024), issued of its own motion by the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division (M. Kokke) in the action brought by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. against Arkyne Technologies S.L. for infringement of EP 2 137 782, Plant-e Knowledge’s time limit to file its Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation and any Application to amend the patent was extended to 23 January 2024. It also sets a provisional timetable and invites the parties to comment on Art. 33(3) UPCA.

Question

When does the Rule 29(a) RoP time limit start to run where the counterclaim, first included in the Statement of defence, had to be filed again separately in the CMS?

Decision

Time runs from service of the Statement of defence containing the counterclaim (13 November 2023), whose wording the claimant knew from that date. Later service of the separate filing is not relevant (paragraphs 1.5 and 1.6). Since the CMS set-up and the messages sent may have caused confusion, the misunderstanding is not held against the claimant, as the consequences would be disproportionate (paragraph 1.7). The time limit is extended under Rules 331.1, 334(a) and 9.3(a) RoP, having regard to both parties’ interests and the aim of speedy proceedings (paragraph 1.8). The filing date of that Defence will count as the date of the Reply in the infringement action.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 33(3)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 9.3(a), 28, 29(a) and (d), 37.2, 331.1 and 334(a)

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: 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

  • 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

    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.

  3. 17 January 2024 Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 17 January 2024) Procedural Order · UPC_CFI_239/2023
  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
Procedural Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
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.
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, 18 October 2023) · 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.