Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 15 February 2024)

Date	15 February 2024
Court	CFI
Division	The Hague (NL) Local Division
Type of action	Generic Order
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_239/2023
Registry reference	ORD_8243/2024 · UPC_CFI_239/2023
Parties	Plant-e B.V., Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v. Arkyne Technologies S.L.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

3 August 2023 : Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 3 August 2023) ORD_555528/2023 · UPC_CFI_239/2023
18 October 2023 : Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 18 October 2023) ORD_581189/2023 · UPC_CFI_239/2023
17 January 2024 : Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 17 January 2024) ORD_2223/2024 · UPC_CFI_239/2023
13 February 2024 : Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 13 February 2024) App_586761/2023 · ORD_586897/2023 · UPC_CFI_239/2023
4 March 2024 : Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 4 March 2024) ACT_549536/2023 · ORD_590350/2023 · UPC_CFI_239/2023
4 March 2024 : Plant-e v Arkyne (CFI, 4 March 2024) ORD_590350/2023 · ACT_549536/2023 · UPC_CFI_239/2023

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 15 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_239/2023, ORD_8243/2024), The Hague Local Division, in the infringement action on EP 2 137 782 brought by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. against Arkyne Technologies S.L., decided to proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. The decision, taken before the written procedure closed and at the joint request of the parties, reflects the usual choice of a joint hearing under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA.

Question

Should the local division keep the counterclaim for revocation or bifurcate it to the central division?

Decision

Having invited the parties’ comments by an order of 17 January 2024, the panel found that a joint hearing is procedurally expedient and avoids the risk of delay that bifurcation entails, allows the same judges to decide validity and infringement on a uniform construction of the patent, and matches the preference of both parties. The decision was taken before the written procedure closed (Rule 37.2 RoP) and the allocation of a technically qualified judge has been requested (Rule 37.3 RoP).

Key points for practice

Practical point: where both parties ask for a joint hearing, the local division may settle the Article 33(3) option during the written procedure and have the technical judge allocated without waiting.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 33(3)(a)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 37.2, 37.3 and 264

Related decisions

Plant-e v Arkyne, 17 January 2024, earlier procedural order setting the timetable for the counterclaim.

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

Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne S.L (CFI, 2023-08-03), 3 August 2023
Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne S.L (CFI, 2023-10-18), 18 October 2023
Plant-e v Arkyne S.L (CFI, 2024-01-17), 17 January 2024
Plant-e v Arkyne S.L (CFI, 2024-02-13), 13 February 2024
Plant-e v Arkyne S.L (CFI, 2024-03-04), 4 March 2024
Plant-e v Arkyne S.L (CFI, 2024-03-04), 4 March 2024

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

claimantPlant-e Knowledge B.V.9 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantPlant-e B.V.7 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantArkyne Technologies S.L12 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

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.
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.
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.
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.
15 February 2024 Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 15 February 2024) Generic Order · UPC_CFI_239/2023
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.
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 Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): 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.
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 2 137 782 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 4 March 2024) cited in this record
Plant-e v Arkyne (CFI, 4 March 2024) cited in this record
Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 13 February 2024) cited in this record
Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 17 January 2024) cited in this record
Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 18 October 2023) cited in this record
Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 3 August 2023) 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 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, 13 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 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.