2026-10-28 - LD The Hague - CAELUS LIFESCIENCES IP v. PENDULUM THERAPEUTICS et al. - UPC-CFI-0001615/2026
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC-CFI-0001615/2026
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- CAELUS LIFESCIENCES IP B.V. v. PENDULUM THERAPEUTICS INC., HEBRON NUTRITION, INC., IHERB NETHERLANDS B.V., SPECTRUM SUPPLEMENTS, INC., DETOXPEOPLE LTD.
Kernaussage: The Hague Local Division (single judge) granted provisional measures for the UPC territory and Switzerland against a US manufacturer and its Dutch-domiciled online retailer.
2026-10-28 - LD The Hague - CAELUS LIFESCIENCES IP
v.
PENDULUM THERAPEUTICS et al. - UPC-CFI-0001615/2026
notable
The Hague Local Division (single judge) granted provisional measures for the UPC territory and Switzerland against a US manufacturer and its Dutch-domiciled online retailer. The Court took jurisdiction over the US defendant because its website directed European customers to third-party retailers through which test purchases were delivered, and extended the Swiss part of the claim against it through the Dutch anchor defendant on the risk of irreconcilable decisions. Urgency was met because the patentee has no general duty to monitor the market and time runs from actual knowledge. On the merits, the Court construed the purpose-limited use claim at the priority date (unaffected by a later taxonomic reclassification of the claimed organism, and not limited to the strain of an example), held that the claimed organism need only contribute meaningfully to the effect rather than achieve it alone, treated the TBA-upheld patent as presumptively valid, and found infringement more likely than not on the defendants' own marketing statements. Information on quantities was ordered at the provisional stage and the defendants' request for security for enforcement was refused.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
vorläufig ·Art. 138 EPCInventive Step
Preliminarily survivedArt. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“All three attacks (Gao with Louis, Guilloteau, Sanz) failed; the defendants' objective problem was tainted with hindsight and none of the documents gave a pointer to administering hallii for insulin resistance [4.6.17]-[4.6.20].”
Added Matter
Preliminarily survivedArt. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“The objection that 'E. hallii et rel.' is an indivisible group from which hallii could not be isolated failed: the application as filed presents hallii as an alternative and discloses its use as such, confirmed by Example 3 [4.6.2]-[4.6.3].”
Insufficiency of Disclosure
Preliminarily survivedArt. 83 EPC · Art. 138(1)(b) EPC
“Examples 1 and 3 give a credible experimental basis for the therapeutic effect; dosage and formulation are routine matters, and a reasonable amount of trial and error does not defeat enablement [4.6.4]-[4.6.7].”