UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 165/2024

Apr 9, 2024·EP3805248 · PROCESS FOR CONCENTRATION OF ANTIBODIES AND THERAPEUTIC PRODUCTS THEREOF

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Chemistry
    Biotechnology · Pharmaceuticals
Language
English
EPO Opposition
  • Celltrion Inc.Withdrawn2023-10-16
  • Kilburn & Strode LLPAdmissible2023-10-18
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Preliminary injunction grantedMedian days to first decision
All UPC54% (38/70)124
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Berenice ThomLockedLocked
Judge Alima ZanaLockedLocked
Judge John PetersenLockedLocked

At the UPC: Novartis AG (4 cases)·Celltrion Healthcare Hungary Kft. (1 case)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 166/2024

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2024-09-06
    Application for provisional measuresPublic

    Summary: Order of Düsseldorf Local Division rejecting Novartis/Genentech's application for provisional measures against Celltrion Healthcare entities regarding EP 3 805 248 B1 (biosimilar product Epysqli). The court found the requirements for provisional measures were not met and ordered Novartis/Genentech to pay interim costs of EUR 138,562.80. The court set out important headnotes on: the interpretation of Art. 25 and 62 UPCA as autonomous uniform law; the concept of imminent infringement; group company liability; inapplicability of R. 295 RoP to provisional measures applications; and parties' obligation to present focused technical arguments.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Autonomous interpretation of Art. 25 and Art. 62(1) UPCA
    • Imminent infringement as basis for provisional measures
    • Group company liability in distribution networks
    • Inapplicability of R. 295 RoP (stay) to provisional measures
    • Claim interpretation obligation on parties
Documents
Show all 543 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case Closure Formal Check2025-03-27Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2024-09-06Not public
Measures_DecisionOutcome_Notification.pdf2024-09-06Not public
Final Order on PI Application2024-09-06Public
Final Order on PI Application2024-09-06Not public
18492-2024_OH_DUS-LOC_UPC202407310930AM_S032024-09-06Not public
18492-2024_OH_DUS-LOC_UPC202407310930AM_S042024-09-06Not public
18492-2024_OH_DUS-LOC_UPC202407310930AM_S042024-09-06Not public
18492-2024_OH_DUS-LOC_UPC202407310930AM_S022024-09-06Not public
18492-2024_OH_DUS-LOC_UPC202407310930AM_S012024-09-06Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Novartis AG and Genentech, Inc. applied for provisional measures at the Düsseldorf Local Division against Celltrion Healthcare entities regarding EP 3 805 248 B1 (antibody concentration process related to the biosimilar Epysqli). The court rejected the application, finding the requirements for provisional measures not satisfied and awarding EUR 138,562.80 in interim costs to the defendants, while establishing important headnotes on the autonomous interpretation of UPCA, imminent infringement, group company liability, and parties' obligations to present focused technical arguments.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Court must be convinced of patent validity with sufficient certainty before granting provisional measures, including likelihood of EPO outcome

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 62(4) UPCA; R. 211.2 RoP

    Note: The Düsseldorf court denied provisional measures partly because the requirements for technical arguments to be focused, precise, and comprehensible were not met by the applicants.

  • Art. 25 UPCA constitutes uniform substantive law interpreted independently, not by reference to national patent laws

    argumentParty.court (headnote)Legal basis: Art. 25 UPCA

    Note: Court articulated that UPCA substantive and procedural law takes precedence over national patent laws and must be interpreted autonomously.

  • R. 295 RoP (stay of proceedings) does not apply to applications for provisional measures

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 295 RoP

    Note: Court confirmed that R. 295 refers to main actions only, not to provisional measure applications.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Provisional measures application for preliminary injunction against Celltrion entities regarding EP 3 805 248 B1

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA; R. 211 RoP

    Reason: Requirements for provisional measures were not met; the application was rejected in its entirety and Novartis/Genentech were ordered to pay EUR 138,562.80 in interim costs.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Art. 25 and Art. 62 UPCA constitute uniform autonomous law superseding national patent lawImminent infringement requires preparations fully completed and infringement being only a matter of startingGroup company members playing key distribution roles can be infringers even if located outside Contracting Member StatesR. 295 RoP stay of proceedings does not apply to provisional measuresParties must present technical arguments in a focused, precise, and comprehensible form — especially in PI proceedingsClaim interpretation is mandatory for both court and parties

Browse other cases on this principle.