Executive Summary
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of appeals in a dispute between Samsung Bioepis and Alexion Pharmaceuticals regarding EP 3 167 888. The case, which had previously involved provisional measures and cost disputes, was ultimately closed when both parties agreed to withdraw their respective applications for leave to appeal. The court confirmed that consent from the opposing party negates any legitimate interest in the continuation of the proceedings.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court ruled that a claimant may withdraw an action or appeal if there is no final decision and the other party does not have a legitimate interest in the outcome. Since the respondent consented to the withdrawal and stated they would not claim costs, their legitimate interest was deemed absent.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. vs Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Sanofi SA (as successor of Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi-Aventis France)vsAccord 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 sets the stage for a complex pharmaceutical patent infringement case involving Sanofi against multiple defendants, including Accord Healthcare and STADA. The court confirmed the dates for the final interim conference and the subsequent oral hearing, indicating that the case is moving toward substantive arguments. A key focus remains on assessing obviousness, requiring parties to prepare expert testimony regarding industry knowledge at the priority date.
Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsXiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Mannheim addressed requests for deadline extensions across multiple parallel infringement and revocation proceedings involving Panasonic and Xiaomi. The court distinguished between technical arguments, which were immediately accessible to the defendants, and complex FRAND-related submissions, where delayed access justified a specific extension. This decision underscores the importance of procedural coherence in UPC litigation, requiring parties to submit pleadings in unified final versions rather than fragmented drafts.
CEAD B.V.vsBEGO Medical GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a motion concerning the confidentiality of litigation costs in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_367/2023). The parties sought to restrict access to detailed cost breakdowns, which included individually negotiated attorney fees. The Court ultimately granted public confidentiality for these documents, finding that the private interest in protecting fee arrangements outweighed the general public's need for such granular financial detail. This ruling reinforces the protection of sensitive commercial information within UPC proceedings.
Huawei Technologies Co. LtdvsNetgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
In this UPC infringement case between Huawei and Netgear, the court issued an order revoking a previous decision to appoint a translation expert. The revocation was based on the parties' mutual agreement that critical Chinese-language documents related to the patent were identical. This procedural step simplifies the ongoing litigation, allowing the case to proceed without the need for external linguistic verification.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KGvsHimson Engineering Private Limited
In this procedural order concerning the revocation of EP2145848, Oerlikon sought to introduce an eighth auxiliary request (AR8) based on new prior art. The UPC Court ruled against Oerlikon, emphasizing that Rule 30.2 ROP is a restrictive measure designed to prevent endless amendments and maintain procedural efficiency. This decision reinforces the strict requirements for introducing subsequent amendments in patent litigation.
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.