On July 31, 2024, the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in The Hague issued a provisional ruling in favor of Amycel LLC, ordering Polish mushroom producer Szymon Spyra to immediately cease the production, sale, and distribution of his Cayene mushroom spawn in key European markets, including the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Italy. This decision marks an important step in protecting Amycel’s patent rights for its well-known Agaricus bisporus BR06 strain, commercially known as Heirloom.
(30.08.2024 we published update here “Szymon Spyra press rectification“)
The Court’s Decision
The court’s ruling followed extensive legal proceedings in which Amycel presented convincing evidence that the Cayene strain is genetically identical to the patented Heirloom strain. According to court documents, Amycel’s arguments were based on rigorous genetic analyses that showed a 99.88% similarity between the genetic material of the Cayene and Heirloom strains. This level of genetic similarity, which falls within the acceptable margin for biological replicates, led the court to conclude that the Cayene strain is a direct copy of Heirloom, thus infringing on Amycel’s European Patent EP 1 993 350 B2.
The defendant argued that the patent could only be considered infringed if genetic similarity was 100% based on the available evidence. However, the court rejected this claim, ruling that genetic identity could also be considered present if the sequencing results showed a similarity of 99.88% or higher. Furthermore, the sequencing results of various Heirloom samples showed the same differences among themselves as the Cayene strain differed from the baseline Heirloom sample. This strengthened Amycel’s position that Cayene is indeed a copy of Heirloom.
According to the NakTuinbouw report, all Heirloom and Cayene samples showed a similarity of 99.88% or higher with the baseline sample. In comparison, other strains, such as Brawn, Lambert818, and Tuscan 860, demonstrated similarity with the baseline sample in the range of 72.38% to 85.85%. These results convincingly proved that Cayene is genetically identical to Heirloom, which formed the basis of the court’s decision.
Legal and commercial consequences
As a result of this ruling, the court issued a comprehensive order prohibiting Spyra from continuing the production, sale, or distribution of the Cayene strain in the specified countries. The court also ordered Spyra to withdraw all existing Cayene batches from these markets to prevent further infringements. Additionally, Spyra was required to provide Amycel with detailed information on all customers who purchased or were offered the Cayene spawn in these countries. This information will allow Amycel to track and remove any infringing products that may have already entered the market.
The court also imposed a substantial fine on Spyra to ensure compliance with the order. Should Spyra fail to comply with the ruling, he will be required to pay up to €50,000 for each day of violation. This fine underscores the seriousness with which the court views the protection of intellectual property rights and serves as a strong deterrent against future violations.
Commenting on the ruling, John Clay, Amycel’s Sales Director in Europe, stated, “It means that new mushroom strains can be patented and protected so that research is worthwhile to continue. Spawn laboratories who copy strains are not allowed to do this anymore in Europe.” Clay’s statement highlights the broader significance of the court’s decision for the industry, signaling a new era in which intellectual property rights in agricultural biotechnology will be more rigorously enforced.
Spyra’s defense and the appeal process
According to Spyra, the company disagrees that it is infringing on Amycel’s rights. Spyra has already filed an appeal against the provisional injunction, which is currently under review by the Unified Patent Court in Luxembourg. In its defense, Spyra claims that the Cayene strain is not a copy of Heirloom but was independently developed and has its unique characteristics. The company also claims that it has been producing and selling brown mushroom spawn—originally under the trade name Sp B1—since the early 1990s, long before Amycel’s patent was granted. It should be noted that this information is based on Spyra’s statements.
According to Spyra, in addition to filing an appeal, Spyra has initiated separate legal proceedings to invalidate Amycel’s patent. This case is being heard in the Milan division of the Unified Patent Court. Spyra’s argument is based on the claim that the Cayene strain, or its predecessor, has been in use for decades, which calls into question the novelty and originality of Amycel’s patent. Moreover, Spyra has filed a claim with the Polish Patent Office to register its rights as a prior user of the brown mushroom spawn, which could potentially allow it to continue using the strain despite Amycel’s patent.
These legal challenges highlight the complexity of patent protection in the biotechnology sector, especially when it comes to organisms with high levels of genetic similarity. The ongoing legal proceedings also underscore the high stakes for both parties, with potential implications not only for their businesses but for the entire industry.
For those interested in the full court decision, it is available for public access here.
Amycel press release can be found here.
Spyra comments can be found here.
