Carola Wagner
8 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
8 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entities v.STADAPHARM GmbH and other STADA entities, Reddy Pharma SAS and other Dr. Reddy entities, and Zentiva France and other Zentiva entities
This case concerned European Patent 2,493,466, held by Sanofi SA, relating to a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel for treating prostate cancer. Sanofi filed infringement actions against STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva entities for marketing generic versions of its JEVTANA product, while the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP a.o. v.STADAPHARM GmbH a.o.
Sanofi and related entities filed patent infringement actions against generic pharmaceutical companies (Stada, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which covers a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety, finding the claimed subject-matter lacked inventive step over prior art describing Phase III clinical trials with cabazitaxel, and dismissed the infringement actions accordingly.
Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entities v.STADAPHARM GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, Zentiva France and others
Multiple Sanofi entities filed patent infringement actions against generic pharmaceutical companies (STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which relates to the anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty and inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs of both the counterclaims and the infringement proceedings.
Sanofi SA and Others v.STADAPHARM GmbH and Others
Multiple Sanofi entities filed patent infringement actions against generic pharmaceutical companies (STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which covers the anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs of both the counterclaims and the infringement proceedings.
Sanofi SA v.STADAPHARM GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, and Zentiva France
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court revoked European Patent 2,493,466 in its entirety in consolidated proceedings involving three sets of defendants (STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva) who had filed counterclaims for revocation against Sanofi's infringement actions. The patent, which relates to the anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel (marketed as JEVTANA), was found invalid for lack of inventive step. Consequently, all three infringement actions were dismissed, and Sanofi was ordered to bear the costs of both the revocation counterclaims and the infringement actions.
Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entities v.STADAPHARM GmbH and other STADA entities, Reddy Pharma SAS and other Dr. Reddy entities, and Zentiva France and other Zentiva entities
Multiple Sanofi entities filed patent infringement actions against three groups of generic pharmaceutical companies (STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which relates to a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, finding that the skilled person would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on prior art describing a Phase III clinical trial with cabazitaxel, and dismissed the infringement actions.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, LDA
Boehringer Ingelheim, proprietor of European patent EP 1 830 843 covering nintedanib for treating fibrotic diseases including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), sought provisional measures against Zentiva, which held Portuguese marketing authorisations for generic nintedanib products and had completed national pricing and reimbursement procedures. The Lisbon Local Division denied the application, finding no imminent infringement, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that completion of national health technology assessment, pricing and reimbursement procedures can constitute imminent infringement. The Court of Appeal granted a provisional injunction against Zentiva across all UPC territories where the patent is in force, coupled with recurring penalty payments, and ordered Zentiva to pay €199,000 in interim costs.
Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H. (Application under RoP 262.1(b)) v.Ex Parte
This procedural order concerns an application by Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H. under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_146/2024) involving Sanofi entities as claimants and STADA entities as defendants regarding European patent EP 2 493 466. Medac had uploaded a privileged and confidential letter from Sanofi as 'Exhibit 2' in unredacted form, prompting objections from Sanofi. The court permitted the withdrawal of the application and the exhibit, ordered Medac to bear the costs of removing the exhibit from the CMS, imposed a recurring penalty for any future use of the document, and issued a warning to Medac's representative for negligent breach of the Code of Conduct.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.