Short Summary
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals' request for expedition of its appeal against an order of the Hamburg Local Division dismissing its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis concerning EP 3167888. The court held that the circumstances were not sufficiently urgent to justify shortening the already brief 15-day time limit for the respondent's statement of response, and that Alexion's arguments about seeking patent protection quickly and the appeal involving a purely legal issue were insufficient.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (Panel 1c) on 30 July 2024, in proceedings concerning patent EP 3167888. The appellant, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a U.S. company based in Boston, Massachusetts), had previously filed an application for provisional measures against the respondent, Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. (a Dutch company based in Delft), before the Hamburg Local Division of the Court of First Instance. By the impugned order, the Court of First Instance dismissed the application, ordered Alexion to pay the costs of the proceedings, and set the value of the dispute at €100,000,000.
Alexion lodged an appeal against that order. In its amended statement of appeal and grounds of appeal, Alexion submitted several requests, including a request for expedition of the appeal pursuant to Rule 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court (RoP).
The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition. It reasoned that under Rule 9.3(b) RoP, the Court may shorten any time period on a reasoned request by a party, but must balance the interests of both parties, giving due account to principles of due process, including equality of arms (citing CoA 19 June 2024, UPC_CoA_301/2024). The court found that the circumstances of the present case were not so urgent that the appellant's interests outweighed those of the respondent. Alexion's arguments that it sought patent protection as soon as possible and that the appeal concerned a purely legal issue were deemed insufficient to justify shortening the time limit for lodging the statement of response. The court noted that this time period was already relatively short for appeals against orders referred to in R. 220.1(c) RoP, namely only 15 days. The fact that Alexion did not use the entire time period available for lodging its statement of grounds of appeal did not alter this assessment.
The court further held that, since the decision on the request had no adverse effect on the respondent and given the urgency of a decision on the request, it was not necessary to hear the respondent before issuing the order. The procedural order was signed by President Klaus Grabinski, judge-rapporteur Peter Blok, and judge Emanuela Germano.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. vs Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KGvsEx Parte
Procedural Order
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KGvsALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning the protection of trade secrets and confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The court classified certain financial information submitted by the defendant as confidential and restricted access to a limited number of persons on the plaintiff's side. The plaintiff raised no objections to the classification, and the order was issued by mutual agreement of the parties.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the Qualcomm defendants in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 552 399. The defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the patent had been validly opted out and the withdrawal of the opt-out was ineffective due to lack of proper authorization of the UPC representative who filed it. The court held that the withdrawal of the opt-out was effective, as a UPC representative acting under Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP is not required to submit a written mandate or power of attorney for the withdrawal to be effective, and such lack of representation cannot be raised as a preliminary objection.
10x Genomics, Inc.vsCurio Bioscience Inc.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 697 391 B1, addressing the Claimant's application under R. 262A RoP for protection of confidential information. The court classified certain information highlighted in gray in the Defendant's Application for a cost decision as confidential and restricted access to a defined confidentiality club. The Defendant's argument that the number of individuals granted access should correspond to parallel proceedings was rejected.
EOFlow Co., Ltd.vsInsulet Corporation
This appeal concerns a confidentiality request filed by EOFlow in proceedings related to a preliminary injunction finding that its insulin pump products infringe Insulet's European patent EP 4 201 327. The Court of Appeal held that there is no implicit limitation on the use of information received as a result of compliance with a court order to communicate information under Art. 67 UPCA and R. 191 RoP, and that EOFlow should have filed a R. 262A RoP application rather than relying on R. 262.2 RoP. The Court granted Insulet access to the documents labelled 'confidential,' denied EOFlow's request to restrict Insulet's use of the communicated information, and declined to decide on the remaining requests at that stage.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.