Ferring B.V. and Others v. Accord Healthcare B.V. and Others

UPC-CFI-1470/2026

Procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerning European Patent EP4512389 owned by Ferring B.V. The defendants (various Accord Healthcare entities and others) requested correction of service dates and alignment of deadlines for filing preliminary objections and statements of defence. The judge-rapporteur granted the request, setting uniform deadlines for all defendants while reserving rights regarding defendant 6 (Pharmadox Healthcare Limited), whose representative had not yet appeared.

Jurisdiction
European UPC
Court
The Hague - Local Division
Case Number
UPC-CFI-1470/2026
Outcome
LITIGATION

Detailed Summary

This is a Procedural Order (UPC-CFI-1470/2026) issued by Judge-rapporteur Van Peursem of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, The Hague Local Division, on 9 June 2026, concerning European Patent EP4512389 owned by Ferring B.V.

The Claimants are five Ferring entities: Ferring B.V. (Netherlands), Ferring International Center S.A. (Switzerland), Ferring Portuguesa – Produtos Farmacêuticos, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda (Portugal), Ferring S.A.S. (France), and Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S (Denmark), all represented by François Pochart.

The Defendants are seven entities: Accord Healthcare B.V. (Netherlands), Accord Healthcare France S.A.S. (France), Accord Healthcare S.L.U. (Spain), Accord Healthcare Polska Sp. z o.o. (Poland), Laboratori Fundació Dau (Spain), Pharmadox Healthcare Limited (Malta), and Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda (Portugal), with defendants 1-5 and 7 represented by Jules Fabre. Defendant 6 (Pharmadox Healthcare Limited) had no known representative at the time of the order.

On 1 June 2026, defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 filed requests for correction of service dates and alignment of defendants' deadlines pursuant to R.331.1 and R.334.a of the Rules of Procedure (RoP). This included a R.9 application to align the dates for lodging the Preliminary objection (18 June 2026) and the Statement of Defence and any Counterclaim for revocation (18 August 2026) for these defendants.

The Claimants agreed to this request on 5 June 2026, but additionally requested that the same dates be set for defendant 6, notwithstanding that no representative for defendant 6 was yet known.

The judge-rapporteur noted that according to R.271.6.b RoP, the effective service date for defendant 6 was 18 May 2026 (the tenth day following posting, which was delivered to defendant 6 on 11 May 2026). However, this date was subject to conditions set forth in R.271.6.b RoP. Since defendant 6 had not yet made an appearance in court, it could not have raised any objections based on these conditions, so the judge-rapporteur reserved the right to decide this matter.

The judge-rapporteur concluded that the requested alignment for all defendants, including defendant 6, could be the same as requested and agreed upon for defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7, without prejudice to the deadlines that apply for defendant 6 as foreseen in the UPCA/RoP. The judge-rapporteur confirmed the new deadlines for all defendants by order pursuant to R.9.3 RoP and found it unnecessary to correct the service dates as requested by defendants 1, 2, and 7.

The final order set: (1) the deadline for lodging a Preliminary objection according to R.19.1 RoP as 18 June 2026 for all defendants, subject to application of any conditions in R.271.6.b RoP regarding defendant 6; and (2) the deadline for lodging the Statement of Defence according to R.23 RoP and the Counterclaim for revocation according to R.25.1 RoP as 18 August 2026 for all defendants, subject to the same conditions regarding defendant 6.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before The Hague - Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Ferring B.V. and Others vs Accord Healthcare B.V. and Others is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentUPC-001582

Seoul Viosys Co., LtdvsLaser Components SAS

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action (ACT_588685/2023) related to European Patent EP3404726 held by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The defendant, Laser Components SAS, requested a change of the language of procedure from French to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request, finding that the claimant's choice of French respected the rights of the French defendant and that no serious reasons of convenience or fairness justified a change of language.

patentUPC-001009

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.vsDexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning European Patent EP3977921, and Dexcom filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties subsequently applied to withdraw their respective claims, with each consenting to the other's withdrawal. The Court of First Instance declared the proceedings closed without issuing a cost decision.

patentUPC-001333

AGFA NVvsGucci Sweden AB, Gucci France SAS, Guccio Gucci S.p.A., Marbella Pellami S.p.A., Gucci Logistica S.p.A., GG Luxury Goods GmbH, Gucci Belgium SA, G Commerce Europe S.p.A., GG FRANCE SERVICES SAS

Procedural order in a patent infringement action brought by AGFA NV against nine Gucci group entities concerning European Patent EP3388490. The defendants jointly sought to protect as trade secrets certain information contained in their Statement of Defence and Rejoinder relating to the Gucci group's internal organization, supply chain, and sales data. The Hamburg Local Division granted the application, classifying the identified information as confidential under R. 262A RoP and restricting its use outside the present proceedings.

patentUPC-001250

AUDI AGvsNetwork System Technologies LLC

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Audi AG's appeal against orders of the Munich Local Division that had dismissed Audi's preliminary objections and requests under R.361 RoP in three parallel patent infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Audi had argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over damages claimed in the UK and Northern Ireland, that the opt-out withdrawal was invalid due to lack of power of attorney, that NST lacked standing for pre-acquisition damages, and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the timing of preliminary objection decisions is within the discretion of the Court of First Instance, and that R.361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and not for evaluating the sufficiency of claim substantiation.

patentUPC-001277

Qualcomm IncorporatedvsEPO

Qualcomm Incorporated filed an application before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Paris Central Division) seeking annulment of a decision of the European Patent Office dated 10 July 2024. The EPO subsequently rectified the contested decision in accordance with Qualcomm's request during interlocutory revision. The court closed the case without prior consultation of the parties and without ordering reimbursement of the action fee.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call