Short Summary
1. In the case of a second medical use claim, a substance or composition within the mean- ing of Art. 54(4) EPC is used for any specific use which is not comprised in the state of the art. Such a therapeutic use can be a new indication, e.g. a disease not yet treated by the claimed substance, or an indication for a new group of patients. 2. For a finding of infringement of a second medical use claim, the alleged infringer must offer or place the medical product on the market in such way
Detailed Summary
1
Düsseldorf Local Division
UPC_CFI_505/2024
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
delivered on 13 May 2025
concerning EP 3 536 712 B1
Headnotes:
1.
In the case of a second medical use claim, a substance or composition within the mean-
ing of Art. 54(4) EPC is used for any specific use which is not comprised in the state of
the art. Such a therapeutic use can be a new indication, e.g. a disease not yet treated
by the claimed substance, or an indication for a new group of patients.
2.
For a finding of infringement of a second medical use claim, the alleged infringer must
offer or place the medical product on the market in such way that it leads or may lead
to the claimed therapeutic use of which the alleged infringer knows or reasonably
should have known that it does. The requirements of such behaviour cannot be defined
in an abstract manner but require an analysis of all relevant facts and circumstances of
the patent claim in question.
3.
In order to benefit from the notional novelty afforded by Art. 54(5) EPC, second medical
use claims must relate to a specific use in a method according to Art. 53(c) EPC. The
sole reason why such claims can still be patented is the novelty (and inventiveness) of
the new use.
4.
In terms of inventive step, the subject matter of the claim may be obvious if the skilled
person would have been motivated to implement it as the next step in the view of the
problem. A motivation to implement may be absent or negated if the skilled person is
faced with many uncertainties or expected difficulties. If there is no motivation at all
or a negated motivation, the subject matter of the claim is not obvious and involves an
inventive step.
5.
Objections based on pleading ignorance are in principle disregarded. The Rules of Pro-
cedure of the Unified Patent Court do not acknowledge this type of pleading.
Keywords:
Second medical use claim; infringement; novelty; pleading ignorance; inventive step; obviousness
2
CLAIMANT:
1.
Sanofi Biotechnology SAS, represented by its chairman, Laurent Gilhodes, 82 avenue Raspail,
94250 Gentily, France
2.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., represented by its CEO Leonard Schleifer, 777 Old Saw Mill
River Road, Tarrytown, New York 10591, United States of America
all Claimants represented by:
Attorneys-at-law Dr Niels Hölder, Mike Gruber, Dr Michael
Pfeifer and all other UPC Represenatives of HOFFMANN EITLE
PartmbB, Arabellastraße 30, 81825 Munich, Germany
European Patent Attorney Daniel Wise, Attorney-at-law
Agathe Michel-de Cazotte and all other UPC Representatives
of Carpmeals & Ransford LLP, One Southhampton Row, Lon-
don WC1B 5HA, United Kingdom
electronic address for service:
nhoelder@hoffmanneitle.com
DEFENDANTS:
1.
Amgen Inc., represented by its CEO Robert Bradway, One Amgen Center Drive, Mail Stop 2-
28-C, 91320 1799 Thousand Oaks, California, USA
2.
Amgen Europe B.V., represented by its managing directors Jan Arie Bouman, Paulus Johan-
nes Dekkers and Daniëlle Christine IJkema, Minervum 7061, 4817 ZK Breda, The Netherlands
3.
Amgen N.V., represented by its Directors Gwenaël Caesens, Paraskevi Florou and Gabor
Sztaniszlav, Telecomlaan 5-7 1831 Diegem, Belgium
4.
Amgen GmbH, represented by its managing directors Manfred Heinzer, Adam Stewart Elinoff
and Andreas Wolfgang Bierl, Riesstraße 24, 80992 Munich, Germany
5.
Amgen B.V., represented by its directors Johannes Jacobus Michel Maria Rijnierse, Maria
Carolina Correa and Paraskevi Florou, Minervum 7061 Breda, 4817 DH, The Netherlands
6.
Amgen S.A.S., represented by its president Corinne Buffet, 18-20 Quai du Point du Jour, Bou-
logne-Billancourt, 92100 France
7.
Amgen S.R.L., represented by its directors Corrado Napolitano and Paraskevi Florou, Via En-
rico Tazzoli 6, Milano (Mi), 20154 Milano, Italy
all Defendants represented by:
Johannes Heselberger and Nadine Westermey
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. vs Amgen Inc. , Amgen GmbH, Amgen Europe B.V., Amgen NV, Amgen S.R.L., Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLCvsRespondent
This order concerns a patent infringement action relating to European Patent No. EP 2 746 957, in which the claimant Total Semiconductor, LLC sought review of an order by the judge-rapporteur requiring it to provide security for costs under Rule 158 RoP. The defendants (Texas Instruments entities) had requested security for costs, arguing that the claimant, a recently founded US-based licensing entity operating from a co-working space and funded by third-party investors, posed an enforcement and insolvency risk. The claimant opposed, contending that the defendants failed to establish sufficient facts demonstrating a real risk that cost reimbursement could not be satisfied or enforced.
Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S.vsPanasonic Holdings Corporation
This order concerns an application for discretionary review by the Court of Appeal under Rule 220.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The dispute involves three infringement proceedings between Xiaomi entities (as defendants) and Panasonic Holdings Corporation (as plaintiff) concerning European Patents EP 3096315, EP 2568724, and EP 2207270 before the Local Division Mannheim. The contested issue relates to the expiration and extension of deadlines under Rule 29(d) RoP for the plaintiff's reply to the counterclaim for revocation, rejoinder to the reply to the statement of defense, and response to a request to amend the patent, particularly in light of the plaintiff's submission of a partially redacted reply and subsequent confidentiality requests regarding third-party license agreements.
Faro Technologies, Inc.vsBlankenhorn GmbH
This is a cost assessment proceeding (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) related to a prior main case (UPC_CFI_500/2025) concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835. Faro Technologies, Inc. sought cost assessment against Blankenhorn GmbH, the respondent from the main proceedings. The court permitted the withdrawal of the cost assessment application after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and the respondent did not object, declaring the cost assessment procedure terminated without a costs decision.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI)vsShenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd a.o.
A patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3258692 was filed by Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) against eight defendants, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and related entities. The claimant subsequently applied to withdraw the action against all defendants before the closure of the written procedure. The Düsseldorf Local Division permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the claimant.
CITY GLASS AND GLAZING PRIVATE LIMITEDvsMAARS HOLDING B.V., MAARS PROJECTEN B.V., MAARS PARTITIONING SYSTEMS B.V., MAARS FRANCE
This case concerned European Patent EP 1 651 838, titled 'Glazing System,' owned by City Glass and Glazing Private Limited, an Indian company. The patent, which expired on 14 July 2024, related to a self-locking glazing mechanism using aluminium profiles and grooved rubber beading. The proceedings involved both an infringement action by City Glass against several Maars entities and a counterclaim by the Maars parties. The decision, delivered on 29 August 2025, addressed issues relating to the expired patent, a final cost decision, and a security deposit under Rule 3(c) UPCA.
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.