*** v Amycel (CoA, 28 November 2024)

Date	28 November 2024
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Appeal RoP220.1
Case number(s)	UPC_CoA_490/2024
Registry reference	APL_47391/2024 · UPC_CoA_490/2024 · ORD_63265/2024
Parties	*** v. Amycel LLC

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 28 November 2024 (UPC_CoA_490/2024, APL_47391/2024, App_61227/2024), the Court of Appeal (second panel, presided over by R. Kalden) closed by a decision by default the appeal against the order for provisional measures made by The Hague Local Division on 31 July 2024 in favour of Amycel LLC (EP 1 993 350). The appellant, who had declared micro-enterprise status so as to pay only 60% of the fee, paid neither the balance nor the 50% additional fee imposed on him.

Question

Can the additional fee imposed for an incorrect micro-enterprise declaration be waived or covered by legal aid, and what follows from non-payment?

Decision

The 50% additional fee under Rule 370.8(d)(ii) is reasonable, as a party must verify its status and promptly supply the figures requested. The micro-enterprise declaration had no basis and small-enterprise status was not substantiated, so no waiver was justified (paragraphs 17 and 18). The legal aid application was inadmissible, lacking the statement on economic situation and the documents required by Rule 378A.1 (paragraph 19). As nothing was paid, the appeal was closed by default under Rules 357.3, 355.1(a) and 370.8(e) (paragraph 21), the appellant bears the costs of the appeal, with no interim award beyond what the Local Division had set (paragraphs 22 and 23). The hearing of 5 December 2024 was cancelled.

Key points for practice

Practical point: the reduced fee for small and micro-enterprises depends on an accurate, substantiated declaration, otherwise the 50% additional fee applies and failure to pay it leads to the appeal being closed by default.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 172.2, 355.1(a), 357.3, 370.8 and 378A
Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC: Annex, Title I, Art. 2
Case law cited: No UPC decision is cited.

Related decisions

Amycel v ***, 31 July 2024, order for provisional measures of The Hague Local Division under appeal.

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: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

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_CoA_490/2024 official number

Follow this case

Parties

defendantAmycel LLC8 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

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: Appeal RoP220.1
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La remise de la majoration de 50 % et l'aide juridictionnelle sont refusées. Faute de paiement des droits, l'appel est clos par une décision par défaut et l'appelant supporte les frais.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

EP 1 993 350 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Amycel v *** (CFI, 31 July 2024) cited in this record
Amycel v XXX (CFI, 21 October 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, 1 April 2025) · Amycel v * (CFI, 18 December 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.