Short Summary
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in patent infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The order addresses pending issues including the awaited written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent at an oral hearing in June 2025), ongoing French appeal proceedings regarding invalidation of the French part of the patent, and preparations for the oral hearing scheduled for October 2025. The court confirmed dates for the final interim conference and oral hearing, and addressed procedural matters including confidentiality of interim damages calculations and the format of Sanofi's briefs.
Detailed Summary
This is a Procedural Order (ORD_22245/2025 and related orders) issued on 17 July 2025 by Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann of the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court, following an interim conference held on the same date.
The proceedings involve multiple Sanofi claimants (including Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi AB, and Sanofi A/S) against four groups of defendants: (1) Accord Healthcare entities, (2) STADA entities (STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS), (3) Reddy Pharma entities (Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl), and (4) Zentiva entities (Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.). The patent at issue is European patent n° 2 493 466.
Key points raised during the interim conference:
1. The EPO Board of Appeal had conducted an oral hearing on 2-4 June 2025 in which the patent was upheld as granted, but the written reasoned decision had not yet been uploaded. The defendants were given three weeks from availability to comment, while Sanofi would comment in its brief due 8 August 2025 if possible.
2. Sanofi explained that French first-instance decisions invalidating the French part of the European patent were under appeal, with no hearing date yet scheduled.
3. The judge-rapporteur indicated the panel would independently assess counterclaim issues, considering both EPO and French decisions. A key question for obviousness assessment concerned what information a person skilled in the art would have derived from the Phase III TROPIC study and whether there was reasonable expectation of success. The parties identified experts (Sanofi: Dr. Nelson; Accord: Dr. Denmeade; Stada and Reddy relied on written evidence) who may be called for hot tubbing at the oral hearing in October 2025.
4. Sanofi's application for a tailored version of the 8 May 2025 order and Reddy's application (ORD_22246/2025) regarding disclosure of non-confidential elements of interim damages calculations were addressed. The court suggested circulating the original version within confidentiality clubs, to which all parties agreed.
5. Accord raised concerns about Sanofi's identical briefs across defendant groups, making it difficult to identify which statements responded to which defendant's pleadings. The court ruled that previously filed briefs would remain unchanged, but Sanofi must highlight passages not directed to all defendants in future briefs.
The order confirmed: (1) the final interim conference for 12 September 2025 at 10:00 via videoconference; (2) parties to submit topic suggestions by 1 September 2025; (3) oral hearing dates of 14-17 October 2025 at 09:00; (4) parties may comment on the EPO BoA written decision within three weeks of availability; and (5) Sanofi may file consolidated briefs but must highlight passages not directed to all defendants. The order is subject to review by the panel under R. 333 RoP.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda vs STADA Nordic ApS, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADAPHARM GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.