Short Summary
This decision concerns an application by Sanofi and Regeneron to withdraw their application for rehearing filed against the Court of Appeal's 25 November 2025 decision, which had set aside the Central Division Munich's revocation of EP 3 666 797 and rejected the revocation request. Amgen consented to the withdrawal and indicated no decision on costs was necessary. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and rejected the request for reimbursement of court fees because only one fee had been paid when two were due.
Detailed Summary
The dispute concerns European Patent EP 3 666 797. On 1 June 2023, Sanofi brought a revocation action against the patent before the Central Division, section Munich. On the same day, Amgen brought an infringement action based on the same patent before the Local Division Munich against Sanofi and Regeneron. Regeneron filed a counterclaim for revocation, which was subsequently referred to the Central Division Munich and joined to the pending revocation action lodged by Sanofi. The infringement action was stayed.
On 16 July 2024, the Central Division Munich revoked the patent in its entirety and ordered Amgen to bear the Respondents' legal costs. Amgen timely lodged two appeals against this decision: UPC_CoA_529/2024 (regarding the counterclaim for revocation) and UPC_CoA_528/2024 (regarding the revocation action). On 25 November 2025, the Court of Appeal set aside the impugned decision and rejected the request for revocation of the patent at issue.
On 26 January 2026, Sanofi and Regeneron filed an application for rehearing, together with a request for suspensive effect. The application for suspensive effect was rejected by an Order dated 18 February 2026. On 25 February 2026, Amgen filed its reply to the application for rehearing. On 11 March 2026, Sanofi and Regeneron filed an application to withdraw the application for rehearing and a request for reimbursement of court fees, seeking (a) permission to withdraw the application for rehearing dated 26 January 2026, (b) reimbursement of 50% of the court fees, and (c) closure of the application for rehearing. On 13 March 2026, Amgen consented to the withdrawal and indicated that no decision on costs was necessary.
The Court of Appeal applied Rule 265.1 RoP, which provides that a claimant may apply to withdraw an action as long as there is no final decision, and that the Court shall decide upon the application after hearing the other party. The Court noted that this provision equally applies to withdrawals of appeals and applications for rehearing. Given Sanofi and Regeneron's request and Amgen's consent, the Court permitted the withdrawal.
Regarding costs, the Court noted that Rule 265.2(c) RoP provides that the Court shall issue a cost decision in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5 (Rules 150 to 152 RoP). Since none of the parties requested such a decision before the Court of Appeal seised of the application for rehearing, there was no need for a cost decision.
Regarding reimbursement of court fees, the Court observed that Sanofi and Regeneron had paid only one fee when lodging their two applications for rehearing (for cases 528 and 529/2024), although two fees were due. Consequently, there was no reason for a reimbursement of court fees under Rule 370.9(b) RoP.
The Court of Appeal therefore: (1) permitted the withdrawal of the applications for rehearing UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024 and declared the proceedings closed; (2) ordered that the decision be entered on the register; and (3) rejected the request for reimbursement of the court fees. The decision was issued on 25 March 2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A. and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. vs Amgen, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
OCADO INNOVATION LIMITEDvsAUTOSTORE AS
Unified Patent Court decision.
BFexaQC AG and ParTec AGvsNVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH
BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG sued NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH for infringement of European Patent No. EP 3 743 812, which concerns the dynamic assignment of heterogeneous computing resources over application runtime. NVIDIA filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the infringement action and, since the patent was found not infringed regardless of validity, did not decide on the counterclaim for revocation. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Daedalus Prime LLCvsXiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. & Others (including MediaTek Inc.)
Daedalus Prime LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Hamburg Local Chamber of the Unified Patent Court against Xiaomi entities and MediaTek Inc. regarding European Patent EP 2 792 100. MediaTek, which is domiciled in Taiwan (not a UPC Member State), filed a preliminary objection under Rule 19.1(a) RoP challenging the UPC's international jurisdiction. The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the UPC has international jurisdiction under Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 71b(2) and Art. 7(2) Brussels-Ia-Regulation, and that questions of MediaTek's liability as a joint perpetrator are matters for the merits, not jurisdiction.
3V Sigma S.p.A.vsACEF S.r.l. and AGA S.r.l.
This order concerns a request by the defendants (ACEF and AGA) for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP regarding documents obtained during the execution of an evidence preservation order in proceedings involving the MFSorb 513 filter. The parties agreed on absolute prohibition of access to certain documents and unrestricted access to others, with the only disputed issue being the composition of the confidentiality club for documents nos. 3 to 18. The Court ruled in favor of a balanced confidentiality regime allowing access to the claimant's representatives, their legal team, one technical consultant, and one natural person from 3V Sigma.
Visibly Inc.vsEasee B.V. and Others
Visibly Inc. appealed an order of the Hamburg Local Division concerning security for legal costs in its patent infringement action against Easee. After the proceedings were stayed due to insolvency proceedings against the Easee companies, Visibly applied to withdraw the appeal citing an out-of-court settlement, to which Easee consented. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees to Visibly.
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.