UPC CoA 405/2024

Vor dem UPC: AstraZeneca Group (13 Verfahren)·Amgen Group (19 Verfahren)

• 2025-06-19
  Öffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal set out general principles for rehearing applications under Art. 81(1)(b) UPCA, establishing that only fundamental procedural defects that would have led to a different outcome can justify rehearing, in proceedings where Alexion sought to reopen a dismissed provisional measures appeal against Amgen concerning EP 3 167 888.

  Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)

  • Rehearing application (Art. 81(1) UPCA, R. 245 RoP)
  • Fundamental procedural defect
  • Standard for reopening final decisions
• 2024-12-20
  Appeal RoP220.1Öffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal dismissed Alexion's appeal against the first-instance refusal of provisional measures, upholding the finding that the patent claim could not be corrected by interpretation to remove alleged errors, and confirming that claim 2 of EP 3 167 888 was more likely than not insufficiently disclosed (Article 83 EPC). The provisional measures application was therefore denied.

  Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)

  • Claim interpretation — correction of errors
  • Insufficiency of disclosure (Article 83 EPC)
  • Provisional measures
  • Claim interpretation from perspective of skilled person
  • Patent prosecution history (TBA proceedings)
• 2024-08-08
  Öffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal ruled that service of written pleadings must be effected through the Court's electronic CMS and that prior communication via Germany's beA (besonderes elektronisches Anwaltspostfach) does not constitute effective service under R.278.1 RoP.

  Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)

  • Service of documents
  • R.278.1 RoP
  • Electronic CMS service
  • beA (besonderes elektronisches Anwaltspostfach)
• 2024-07-30
  Öffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals' request to expedite the appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal to grant provisional measures against Amgen, holding that the circumstances were not sufficiently urgent to justify shortening the time period for the respondents to lodge their statement of response.

  Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)

  • Expedition of appeal
  • R.9.3(b) RoP
  • Shortening of deadlines
  • Provisional measures appeal
  • R.225(e) RoP