UPC CFI 201/2024

Vor dem UPC: Syngenta Limited (9 Verfahren)·Sumi Agro Limited (8 Verfahren)

• 2025-03-11
  Öffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: Order from Munich Local Division dated 11 March 2025 on procedural matters arising from a preliminary injunction dispute between Syngenta and Sumi Agro. The panel upheld the judge-rapporteur's earlier order dismissing Sumi Agro's application to revoke provisional measures (which had been granted on 27 August 2024). The panel held that Syngenta had filed and paid court fees for the main proceedings in time to satisfy R. 213(1) and R. 15(2) RoP, confirming that payment does not require receipt by the court before the deadline, only that the fee was paid. Syngenta's application for re-establishment of rights was also dismissed as unfounded. Leave to appeal was granted given the fundamental interpretive issues involved.

  Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)

  • Timeliness of filing and court fee payment under R. 15(2) and R. 213(1) RoP
  • Revocation of provisional measures under R. 213 RoP
  • Re-establishment of rights
  • Interpretation of 'start proceedings'
• 2024-12-12
  Öffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: Munich Local Division (12 December 2024) dismissed Sumi Agro's application to revoke a preliminary measures order, holding that Syngenta Limited had validly commenced main proceedings by uploading the statement of claim to the CMS within the applicable time limit, as the filing date under R. 15.2 RoP is the date the court fee is received.

  Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)

  • Revocation of provisional measures order (R. 213 RoP)
  • Time limit for commencing main proceedings
  • Date of filing statement of claim (R. 15.2 RoP)
  • Court fee payment
• 2024-08-27
  Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: Munich Local Division granted a preliminary injunction (inter partes) against respondents ordering them to cease and desist from manufacturing, offering, placing on the market, using, exporting or possessing a herbicide composition (Kagura) infringing a patent with claims directed to a composition, across multiple UPC contracting states. The court held that for a product composition claim the applicant need only allege and prove the composition had all features of the claim; it is not required to explain why the composition had those features. Distributing infringing products outside contracting states while advertising under the same name inside creates a risk of first infringement. An actus contrarius is insufficient to eliminate such risk; a cease-and-desist declaration with penalty clause is required. Respondents may revoke the injunction if applicant does not commence main proceedings within 31 calendar days.

  Rechtsfragen anzeigen (6)

  • Provisional measures (Art. 62 UPCA, R. 206 RoP)
  • Product composition claim - burden of proof
  • Risk of first infringement
  • Cease-and-desist declaration requirement
  • Validity assessment in PI proceedings (best 3 arguments rule)
  • Temporal urgency (2 months rule - Munich LD)
• 2024-06-16
  Öffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division granted a confidentiality protection order under Rule 262A RoP for documents in provisional measures proceedings, covering information in Confidential Exhibits SA-1 and SA-9 submitted by the defendants (Sumi Agro). The claimant (Syngenta) did not formally object. The order was issued in a new workflow due to a CMS malfunction in the original application.

  Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)

  • Confidentiality protection under Rule 262A RoP
  • CMS technical malfunction and alternative workflow