- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionProvisional measuresCategoryProvisional measures
- Parties
- Claimants
- Syngenta LimitedOperating co.
Representatives- Jörn Peters-Fieldfisher
- Aloys Hüttermann-Michalski Hüttermann & Partner Patentanwälte mbB
- Filip Alois J. de Corte-Syngenta Crop Protection AG
- Christopher Andrews-Syngenta Crop Protection AG
Respondents- Sumi Agro LimitedOperating co.
- Sumi Agro Europe LimitedOperating co.
Representatives- Gareth Williams-Marks & Clerk LLP
- Johannes Heselberger-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Axel B. Berger-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Kerstin Galler-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Markus Ackermann-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technology
- ChemistryBasic materials chemistry
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Jun 16, 2024
- Last decision
- Mar 11, 2025
| Preliminary injunction granted | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| Munich LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Matthias Zigann | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Walter Schober | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Tobias Pichlmaier | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Xavier Dorland-Galliot | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Syngenta Limited (9 cases)·Sumi Agro Limited (8 cases)
This dispute contains 8 other proceedings
UPC CFI 326/2025·UPC CFI 322/2025·UPC CoA 286/2025·UPC CFI 566/2024·UPC CoA 523/2024 and 3 more
- 2025-03-11
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (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
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (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
- 2024-08-27Application for provisional measuresPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (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
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (2)
- Confidentiality protection under Rule 262A RoP
- CMS technical malfunction and alternative workflow
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2025-07-24 | Not public |
| Bundle of Exhibits FF CD14 | 2025-07-23 | Not public |
| Exhibit FF CD15 | 2025-07-23 | Not public |
| Exhibit FF CD13 | 2025-07-23 | Not public |
| Amendment to Application | 2025-07-23 | Not public |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-03-13 | Not public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-03-13 | Not public |
| R 333 final | 2025-03-13 | Public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-03-13 | Not public |
| R 333 final | 2025-03-13 | Public |
An unnamed applicant (proprietor of a herbicide composition patent) obtained a preliminary injunction from the Munich Local Division against respondents manufacturing and distributing the 'Kagura' herbicide product, covering multiple UPC contracting states. The court established key procedural principles: that product composition claims require proof only that the composition has all claim features (not why), that cross-border distribution combined with domestic advertising creates risk of first infringement, and that only a cease-and-desist declaration with a penalty clause (not an actus contrarius) sufficiently eliminates infringement risk. The Munich Local Division maintained its two-month temporal urgency window, diverging from Düsseldorf's one-month approach.
For a product composition claim, it is sufficient to allege and prove the composition had all features of the claim; applicant need not explain why the composition had those features
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCANote: The Munich Local Division held that the burden of pleading and proof for a product composition claim requires only demonstrating the composition's features, not explaining the mechanism or reason those features are present.
Distributing infringing composition outside contracting states while advertising under the same name within contracting states creates risk of first infringement within contracting states
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62(1) UPCANote: The court found that cross-border distribution and advertising under the same product name creates a legally cognisable risk of first infringement in contracting states where the patent is valid.
Cease-and-desist declaration without penalty clause is insufficient to eliminate risk of first infringement; actus contrarius not sufficient
ClaimantNote: The court held that only a cease-and-desist declaration with a penalty clause adequately eliminates risk of first infringement; an actus contrarius alone is insufficient.
Temporal urgency of two months applies (Munich Local Division practice)
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211.4 RoPNote: The Munich Local Division adhered to its two-month urgency window, diverging from the Düsseldorf Local Division's one-month approach, citing diverging case law.
Application for seizure of goods should be maintained in full
ClaimantReason: The applicant partially withdrew the seizure application; the remaining injunction application was successful.
Browse other cases on this principle.
The patent claim was directed to a herbicidal composition comprising at least one sulfonylurea herbicide, at least one HPPD-inhibiting herbicide, and at least one saturated or unsaturated fatty acid from 1% to 95% by weight. The claim construction issue was primarily about what the applicant must prove for a composition claim (that the composition has all claimed features), not what mechanism produced those features.