Opens in a new tab

Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 13 February 2024)

Date13 February 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionThe Hague (NL) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_239/2023
Registry referenceApp_586761/2023 · ORD_586897/2023 · 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 13 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_239/2023, App_586761/2023), The Hague Local Division dismissed the application by Arkyne Technologies S.L., defendant in the infringement action on EP 2 137 782, for Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. to provide security of EUR 200,000 for its legal costs. Leave to appeal was granted. The order holds that security based solely on fears about the solvency of a claimant established in the EU is justified only in exceptional circumstances.

Question

Should security for costs (Rule 158 RoP) be ordered against claimants established in the Netherlands whose cash position is said to be limited?

Decision

The panel recalled that the decision lies within its discretion and weighed the protection of the defendant against the patentee’s right to enforce its patent and its right of access to justice (Art. 47 of the Charter). As the claimants are established in the Netherlands, a costs order would be directly enforceable there. The panel therefore distinguished the order of the Munich Central Division of 30 October 2023, made against a claimant domiciled outside the EU with no enforcement treaty in place. Security based solely on the risk of practical non-enforcement is warranted only in exceptional circumstances, such as abuse of rights, which Arkyne had not shown. Both parties being SMEs with limited cash flow, security would impede Plant-e’s access to justice, contrary to the Agreement’s aim of helping SMEs enforce their patents. Leave to appeal was granted because the issue may arise in other cases.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 2(c), 24, 59 to 62, 69(1) and (4), 73 and 82
Rules of Procedure
Rules 158.1 to 158.3, 220.2, 224.1, 331.2 and 354.1
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012
Art. 71a and 71d
Directive 2004/48/EC
Recital 10
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
Art. 47 and 52(1)
Case law cited
Munich Central Division, 30 October 2023, UPC_CFI_252/2023

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: 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

    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
  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
Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
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.
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, 17 January 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.