[REDACTED] v Amycel (UPC_CoA_000935/2025)
Decision date:
16 January 2026
Osborne Clarke summary
- At first instance, following inter partes proceedings on Amycel's application for provisional measures against the defendant (identity redacted) before the Hague LD, the court ordered a preliminary injunction. Amycel subsequently brought an infringement action. The Hague LD found that the defendant's representative had not taken all due care to avoid the late filing of its statement of defence, ordering a decision by default under Rule 355 RoP.
- In its decision by default , the Hague LD held the defendant liable for infringement concerning the mushroom strain Cayene, and ordered the defendant to return stock, notify customers of the decision online and make an interim damages payment.
- The defendant/applicant appealed against the Hague LD’s default judgment decision and applied for suspensive effect of the Hague LD’s order to notify customers, publish the decision and to pay interim damages pursuant to Rule 223 RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the application for suspensive effect as the defendant/applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying suspension of the orders.
- The defendant/applicant had argued that the publication orders would be impossible to revert, claiming "any information published on the internet will stay there forever". It also asserted that no urgency existed and contended that the interim damages payment would have serious business consequences.
- The Court of Appeal noted that Article 74(1) UPCA provides that appeals have no suspensive effect unless the court decides otherwise, and Rule 223.2 RoP requires applications to set out reasons and supporting evidence. The panel examined whether exceptional circumstances justified departing from this principle, referencing its previous decisions in Suinno v Microsoft and Chint v Jingao, which recognised that exceptions may apply if the decision is manifestly erroneous or the appeal becomes devoid of purpose absent suspension.
- The Court of Appeal held that the defendant/applicant bore the burden of establishing any exceptional circumstances, which it failed to do. Merely claiming irreversibility of the effects of publication of the decision and customer letters was insufficient without establishing the Hague LD’s decision was manifestly erroneous.
- Furthermore, the court held that even if it were to accept that the consequences of the orders were not fully reversible, it did not follow that the appeal would become devoid of purpose in the absence of suspensive effect or that the defendant/applicant's interest in maintaining the status quo until the decision on appeal outweighed Amycel's legitimate interest informing the defendant/applicant’s customers and the public of the decision.
- Regarding interim damages, the Court of Appeal held that bare assertions of "serious consequences" without substantiation could not outweigh Amycel's interest in enforcement.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.