Short Summary
This case concerns an application by Sumi Agro to revoke provisional measures previously granted in favor of Syngenta Limited regarding European patent EP 2 152 073. The dispute centered on whether Syngenta had timely 'started proceedings on the merits' within the deadline set under Rule 213.1 RoP, given that the Statement of Claim was uploaded to the CMS on 27 September 2024 but the court fee was received on 30 September 2024. The Local Division Munich upheld the judge-rapporteur's dismissal of Sumi Agro's application, finding that Syngenta had started proceedings in due time, and granted leave to appeal.
Detailed Summary
This order was issued by the Local Division Munich on 11 March 2025 in proceedings UPC_CFI_201/2024 concerning European patent EP 2 152 073. The Applicant, Syngenta Limited, had obtained provisional measures against the Respondents, Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited, by order dated 27 August 2024 (ORD_47657/2024). That order provided that the provisional measures would be revoked if Syngenta did not start proceedings on the merits within 31 calendar days or 20 working days, whichever was longer, from 27 August 2024. The 20 working day deadline expired on 24 September 2024, and the 31 calendar day deadline expired on 27 September 2024.
Sumi Agro filed an application on 25 November 2024 seeking revocation of the provisional measures order, arguing that Syngenta had missed the non-extendable deadline. According to Sumi Agro, the Statement of Claim was uploaded to the CMS on 27 September 2024, but the court fee was only received by the Court on 30 September 2024. Sumi Agro contended that under Rule 15.2 RoP, the Statement of Claim is not deemed lodged until the court fees have been paid, meaning proceedings were only started on 30 September 2024—after the deadline.
Syngenta opposed the application, arguing that Sumi Agro misrepresented the relevant Rules of Procedure. Syngenta relied on Rule 371(1) RoP, which states that payment should be made at the time of filing, and argued that no provision requires the monies to have arrived at the UPC's bank account before the deadline's expiry. Syngenta also filed a precautionary application for re-establishment of rights on 4 December 2024.
The judge-rapporteur dismissed Sumi Agro's application by order dated 12 December 2024 (ORD_65555/2024). Sumi Agro then filed an application for panel review on 16 December 2024, seeking revocation of that order and, alternatively, leave to appeal. Both parties agreed to await the outcome of related appeal proceedings (APL_51115/2024, UPC_CoA_523/2024), which were dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 4 March 2025.
The panel upheld the judge-rapporteur's dismissal. The Court reasoned that Rule 15(2) RoP, examined in its English, German, and French versions, states that the statement of claim shall not be deemed lodged until the fee is paid, but does not specify the date of filing. The Court further held that Rule 213(1) RoP requires the applicant to 'start proceedings on the merits,' which is satisfied by filing the statement of claim in the CMS. Nothing in Rule 213(1) requires that court fees be received by the court in order to start proceedings. Since Syngenta had started the main proceedings and paid the court fee in due time, the application was dismissed. The Court also dismissed Syngenta's precautionary application for re-establishment of rights as unfounded, and granted leave to appeal on the fundamental questions of interpretation regarding Rule 15(2) RoP and the commencement of proceedings before the UPC.
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 Syngenta Limited vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.vsZhuhai ouguan Electronic
Hewlett-Packard Development Company filed an application for provisional measures against two defendants for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1, both titled 'Fluid cartridge.' The Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against both defendants after Defendant 1 failed to lodge an objection within the prescribed time period, while Defendant 2's objection was considered on the merits. The court ordered both defendants to cease infringement, with additional information and penalty payment orders against Defendant 1.
STÄUBLI TEC-SYSTEMS GMBHvsRespondents
This appeal concerned the allocation of costs in a revocation action before the Unified Patent Court after the former patent proprietors waived the patent in suit (EP 3 170 639). Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH had filed a revocation action against the patent proprietors, who subsequently waived the patent. The Court of Appeal addressed whether an exception to the general 'loser pays' rule under Article 69(1) EPGÜ applies when a patent proprietor waives the patent at the outset of revocation proceedings without having provoked the action.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBHvsZentiva Portugal, Lda.
Boehringer Ingelheim filed a patent infringement action against Zentiva Portugal before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP1830843 (relating to nintedanib for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis), based on a threat of infringement following an INFARMED communication. Zentiva raised a preliminary objection arguing the UPC lacked jurisdiction because the dispute involved an administrative matter falling under Portuguese administrative courts. The Court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the UPC has exclusive competence over European patent infringement actions and that the dispute between two private parties did not concern an administrative matter.
TCL EUROPE SASvsCorning Incorporated
TCL Europe SAS filed a revocation action against Corning Incorporated on 22 April 2025 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 296 274. Following an interim conference held on 28 November 2025, the Judge-rapporteur issued an order on 1 December 2025 setting out procedural directions, including deadlines for submissions, the value of the case, and the date for the oral hearing.
AX Wireless, LLCvs1) Xiaomi Inc. 2) Xiaomi Corporation 3) Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH 4) Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
AX Wireless, LLC filed a patent infringement action against four Xiaomi entities before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP3072324. The Defendants requested an extension and alignment of procedural deadlines for all four Defendants so that a consolidated defence could be filed, and the Claimant consented. The Court granted the request, aligning the deadlines for all Defendants.
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.