Pharma — European UPC Patent Cases
76 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 3 · 76 total
Sanofi SA (and associated Sanofi entities) v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U. (and associated Accord Healthcare entities, STADAPHARM GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, Zentiva France)
This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addresses multiple infringement actions involving Sanofi and various generic competitors, including Accord Healthcare and Stada. The court did not rule on the merits but instead focused heavily on case management, setting specific financial values for both the claims and counterclaims. Sanofi was immediately tasked with correcting significant deficiencies in its formal submissions regarding jurisdiction and scope of the claims, highlighting the strict procedural requirements within the UPC.
Sanofi Mature IP / Sanofi SA v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB, STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS, Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl, Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order addresses a corporate restructuring within the Sanofi group, specifically concerning the patent ownership of EP 2 493 466. The UPC Court accepted the request to substitute the original claimant, Sanofi Mature IP, with its successor entity, Sanofi SA. This decision ensures that the ongoing infringement actions and related counterclaims continue seamlessly under the new legal proprietor. For practitioners, this highlights the UPC's flexibility in accommodating complex corporate changes without disrupting active litigation.
Sanofi Mature IP v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U.
This Procedural Order from the UPC Local Division Munich addresses complex issues of confidentiality and evidence access across several parallel infringement actions involving Sanofi (Claimant) and Accord Healthcare (Respondent). The core dispute revolved around how a key witness statement (Exhibit No. D.4), containing sensitive commercial data, should be handled by the Court. The Judge issued detailed instructions to balance the need for full disclosure in litigation against the protection of trade secrets.
Sanofi Mature IP v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U.
In a key procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a complex corporate restructuring involving Sanofi. The court formally approved the substitution of Sanofi-Aventis France with its successor entity, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, in multiple ongoing infringement actions. This decision validates the principle that rights and obligations transfer seamlessly through mergers under UPC rules. It allows the substantive patent litigation to proceed without interruption despite significant changes in the claimant's corporate structure.
G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG v.pharma-aktiva GmbH
G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG successfully obtained provisional measures against multiple defendants, including pharma-aktiva GmbH and various Aldi/Hofer group entities, regarding the alleged infringement of EP 1 993 363 B1. The patent covers a specific composition used to combat ectoparasites. The court issued an immediate injunction prohibiting the manufacture and sale of the infringing product in Germany and Austria, alongside imposing significant penalty payments (Zwangsgeld). This decision highlights the broad reach of UPC provisional measures against large retail groups.
Dehns v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe, and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.
This UPC Order addressed a request by Dehns, a representative firm, seeking access to all documents in an ongoing revocation action (Sanofi-Aventis v Amgen). The Court clarified the scope of Rule 262.1(b) RoP, distinguishing between 'written pleadings and evidence' and other administrative or formal documents. While granting Dehns access to the core case materials, the Court rejected requests for non-substantive documentation, setting a clear boundary on public transparency rights in UPC proceedings.
Dehns v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This UPC Order addressed a request by Dehns (a representative firm) to access documents from concluded revocation and counterclaim proceedings involving Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Amgen, Inc. The Court confirmed that while the general principle favors public access after a decision is rendered, the scope of access must strictly adhere to 'written pleadings and evidence' as defined in Rule 262.1(b) RoP. Consequently, Dehns was granted access to relevant core documents but was denied access to administrative or formal procedural documents.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe, and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A. v.Amgen, Inc.
This UPC Order addressed a request by Dehns, an external representative firm, seeking access to all written pleadings and evidence in the Sanofi v Amgen revocation action. The Court affirmed that there is a general public interest in transparency, allowing practitioners to better understand how the court reached its decision. While granting access to substantive documents, the Court strictly limited the scope of disclosure only to 'written pleadings and evidence,' rejecting requests for administrative or formal documentation.
Novartis AG v.Celltrion Healthcare Italy S.R.L., Celltrion Healthcare Belgium SPRL, Celltrion Healthcare Finland Oy, Celltrion Healthcare Netherlands B.V., Celltrion Healthcare France SAS, Celltrion Healthcare Deutschland GmbH, Celltrion Healthcare Hungary Kft.
In this UPC case concerning a pharmaceutical formulation patent (EP 3 805 248 B1), Novartis and Genentech sought provisional measures against the Celltrion group, alleging imminent infringement. The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected the application for provisional measures. The court determined that since no prior order had been issued, the requirements for interim relief under Rule 213.1 RoP were not met. This decision highlights the strict procedural prerequisites required before a party can seek urgent protective measures in UPC proceedings.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the effective date of service for an appeal statement in a pharmaceutical patent case (EP 3167888). The core issue was whether direct communication between parties via specialized electronic mailboxes ('beA') could count as valid service. The court definitively ruled that only service effected by the Registry through the official CMS is considered effective under UPC rules.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This procedural order from the UPC Court of Appeal addressed Alexion Pharmaceuticals' appeal against a prior decision concerning provisional measures. The core issue was Alexion's request for an expedited hearing, arguing that the matter was purely legal and required swift resolution. The Court ultimately rejected this request, emphasizing the need to balance due process with the respondent's interests, thereby maintaining standard procedural timelines.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company; Amgen N.V.; Amgen GmbH; Amgen AB; Amgen S.A.S.; Amgen s.r.l.; Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda.; Amgen Zdravila D.O.O.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals appealed a decision from the Court of First Instance regarding its application for provisional measures against Amgen entities. The appeal sought an expedited hearing process under UPC Rules of Procedure. However, the Court of Appeal ultimately rejected the request for expedition, finding that Alexion's arguments were insufficient to outweigh the respondents' interests in maintaining standard procedural timelines. This decision underscores the high threshold required to obtain accelerated proceedings within the Unified Patent Court framework.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Amgen Inc.'s infringement suit against Sanofi and Regeneron regarding EP3666797 (covering Praluent/Alirocumab) was stayed by the UPC Local Division Munich. This stay followed a prior Central Division decision that had revoked the patent in its entirety, which is now subject to appeal. The parties agreed to halt the infringement proceedings until the validity challenge reaches a final resolution.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen N.V. a.o. (including its subsidiaries and affiliates)
Alexion Pharmaceuticals sought a preliminary injunction against Amgen's biosimilar product, BEKEMV®, which treats paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH). The UPC Local Division dismissed Alexion's application for provisional measures. The court ruled that while infringement could be established, the patent's validity could not be proven with sufficient certainty, particularly due to concerns regarding insufficient disclosure of the claims. This decision highlights the high bar required in UPC preliminary injunction proceedings when patent validity is contested.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals sought a preliminary injunction against Samsung Bioepis regarding its biosimilar product Epysqli®, which challenges Alexion's patented antibody for treating PNH. The UPC Local Division ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures. The court found that while infringement could be established, there was insufficient certainty regarding the patent's validity to warrant an immediate injunction.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH; Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A.; Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding the service of claims when supporting annexes are submitted later than the initial Statement of Claim. The court affirmed that a claim can be validly served even if it refers to future annexes, provided the core statement is complete enough for the defendant to assert their rights. Crucially, the ruling established that failure by the claimant to comply with simultaneous submission rules (Rule 13.2 RoP) automatically entitles the defendant to an extension of procedural deadlines equal to the delay period.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.