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
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.