Amycel v *** (CFI, 1 April 2025)

Date	1 April 2025
Court	CFI
Division	The Hague (NL) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_10764/2025 · ORD_11029/2025
Parties	Szymon Spyra

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

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 1 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_499/2024), The Hague Local Division (Judges Brinkman, presiding, Lopez and Kokke, rapporteur) rejected the application for re-establishment of rights (Rule 320 RoP) filed by the defendant, a natural person whose name is redacted, in Amycel LLC’s infringement action on EP 1 993 350. The statement of defence, due on 25 February 2025, was filed only on 4 March 2025, the representative relying on an illness that began on 24 February. The defence is deemed not to have been filed and a decision by default will be given.

Question

Does the representative’s illness on the eve of the deadline for the defence justify re-establishment of rights?

Decision

Missing a time limit is in principle fatal and the Rule 320 exception is construed narrowly (paragraph 7). Even assuming the illness, which Amycel disputed (paragraph 9), the representative had not taken all due care against an unforeseen incapacity at the end of the period (paragraph 10): warned of the consequences of default, he had access to the file from 6 January 2025, some seven weeks, and sought no extension (paragraphs 11 to 16), he involved no other representative, although the CMS legal team function has existed for over a year (paragraph 17). Drawing on EPO practice under Article 122 EPC, the panel also noted that he filed a brief with the EPO on 27 February 2025 (paragraphs 19 and 20). The order cannot be appealed (Rule 320.7 RoP, paragraph 22).

Key points for practice

Practical point: a sole representative must arrange cover, for instance through the CMS legal team function, illness at the end of a time limit is not enough for re-establishment.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 23, 275, 300(c) and 320
European Patent Convention: Art. 122
Case law cited: No UPC decision, EPO Board of Appeal decisions J 41/92 and T 387/11

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.

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantSzymon SpyraFollow 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

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La demande de rétablissement est rejetée faute de vigilance suffisante du représentant. Le mémoire en défense est réputé non déposé et une décision par défaut sera rendue.
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 1 993 350 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Amycell v *** (CFI, 1 April 2025) cites this decision

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 1 993 350` Brown mushrooms for commercial production recorded proprietor: Amycel LLC	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 11 other decision(s): Name not displayed for GDPR reasons. Represented by Michal PRZYLUSKI v · * v AMYCEL (CoA, 2 July 2026) · Applicant * v Amycel (CoA, 24 March 2026) · Applicant * v Amycel (CoA, 16 January 2026) · Amycell v * (CFI, 9 December 2025) · Amycel v XXX (CFI, 21 October 2025) · Amycel v * (CFI, 18 December 2024) · * v Amycel (CoA, 28 November 2024)	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.