UPC CoA 523/2024

The Court of Appeal permitted Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited's withdrawal of their application for rehearing (R. 245 RoP) in the appeal UPC_CoA_523/2024, filed following ongoing settlement discussions between the parties. Both parties jointly applied for the withdrawal, agreed that no costs would be claimed, and requested release of the security deposit. The proceedings were declared closed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Docket Navigator's application for access to written pleadings and evidence in the Sumi Agro v. Syngenta proceedings (UPC_CoA_523/2024) under R. 262.1(b) RoP. The Court held that granting access to a commercial patent intelligence platform intending to republish documents to its subscribers is not an interest protected under Art. 45 UPCA. Copyright is not a general interest to be considered under Art. 45 UPCA. The requirement of representation and the proper conduct of proceedings would be compromised by granting access for commercial redistribution purposes.

Order by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_523/2024, 3 March 2025) dismissing Sumi Agro's appeal and upholding the preliminary injunction granted by the first instance in favour of Syngenta for EP 2 152 073 (crop protection). The CoA found the patent more likely than not valid and infringed, extended the injunction to Romania following its UPCA accession, reversed the first-instance costs decision and ordered Sumi Agro to bear all costs at first instance and on appeal. The CoA also held that a cost decision must be issued in inter partes PI proceedings.

The Court of Appeal decided on Syngenta's request to file a German-language exhibit without translation in the appeal proceedings, applying Rule 7 and Rule 13.1(q) RoP to the statement of response filed at appeal stage.

The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled on admission of new evidence in the appeal by Sumi Agro against the Munich Local Division's provisional measures order in favour of Syngenta concerning EP 2 152 073. Exhibit SA17 (new pages from a publication already partly submitted at first instance) was disregarded as Sumi Agro failed to justify why these additional pages could not have been submitted earlier. Syngenta's Exhibits FF28-29 were also disregarded. However, Syngenta's Exhibits FF24-27 (concerning a possibly changed version of the contested Kagura product) were admitted, as they related to new evidence about a product modification.