Short Summary
This appeal concerned provisional measures in a patent infringement dispute over European Patent EP 2 152 073 relating to herbicidal compositions. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court largely upheld the Munich Local Division's order finding that Sumi Agro's 'Kagura' herbicide more likely than not infringed the patent, while adding Romania to the territorial scope and reversing the cost decision to order Sumi Agro to bear Syngenta's costs.
Detailed Summary
Syngenta Limited, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 152 073 ('Herbicide Compositions'), applied for provisional measures against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited before the Munich Local Division. The patent, filed on 19 May 2008 with priority from GB 0709710 (21 May 2007), was granted on 15 April 2015. Claim 1 of the patent covers an herbicidal composition comprising at least one sulfonylurea herbicide, at least one HPPD-inhibiting herbicide, and at least one saturated or unsaturated fatty acid from 1% to 95% by weight.
The contested embodiment was a herbicide marketed by Sumi Agro under the trade names 'Kagura' or 'Genki', containing mesotrione and nicosulfuron as active ingredients, sold as an oil dispersion for weed control in maize. Syngenta obtained samples of Kagura in the Czech Republic in June 2023 and in Bulgaria on 4 July 2024, and alleged that the product contained fatty acids (palmitic acid, stearic acid, oleic acid, and linoleic acid) in excess of 1% by weight. Sumi Agro refuted this, arguing that the rapeseed oil used as diluent in its UPC-territory product contained only 0.0% to 0.5% free fatty acids and that no additional fatty acid ingredient was included.
Sumi Agro also challenged the validity of the patent based on EP 0 915 652 B1 (EP 652), arguing lack of novelty and inventive step, which Syngenta refuted.
On 27 August 2024, the Munich Local Division ordered provisional measures against Sumi Agro, finding it more likely than not that the 2023 version of Kagura literally infringed claim 1. The Local Division reasoned that as claim 1 is a product claim, it was sufficient for Syngenta to show that fatty acids were present in the required concentration, even if the percentage increased over time due to hydrolysis during the product's 2-year shelf life. The injunction covered multiple UPC Contracting Member States.
Sumi Agro appealed, raising issues including infringement, validity, necessity, urgency, weighing of interests, territorial scope, and security. On infringement, the Court of Appeal found that the contested embodiment more likely than not made literal use of the technical teaching of claim 1, noting that the skilled person would understand that fatty acids in the composition could originate from the oil component. On validity, the Court found that Sumi Agro had not convincingly demonstrated that the patent was more likely invalid than not, particularly regarding the technical effect and the skilled person's assessment of the prior art.
Regarding territorial scope, the Court of Appeal held that there are no transitional rules connected to Art. 34 UPCA, and when a UPC Signatory State ratifies and accedes, the application of Art. 34 UPCA should be automatic from the day of accession. Accordingly, Romania was added to the territorial scope of the injunction.
On necessity, the Court found that a move from a market situation with only one product to one with two competing products could be expected to lead to permanent price erosion, making the provisional injunction necessary. The requirements of urgency and weighing of interests were also met.
Regarding security for enforcement, the Court of Appeal found that Sumi Agro had not substantiated any undue burden in enforcing a UPC compensation order in the UK, noting that both parties are UK registered companies, and that any enforcement would be between UK companies in the UK.
On costs, the Court of Appeal reversed the Local Division's decision, holding that a cost decision should be issued in inter partes proceedings for provisional measures since it concludes the action, and ordered Sumi Agro to bear the reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred by Syngenta both at first instance and on appeal.
The final order: (1) The appeal was rejected except for the cost decision, with Romania added to the territorial scope; (2) The cost decision was reversed, with Sumi Agro ordered to bear Syngenta's costs; (3) All other requests were dismissed.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Sumi Agro Europe Limited vs Syngenta Limited 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.