UPC CoA 528/2024

At the UPC: Amgen Group (19 cases)·Sanofi Group (33 cases)

• 2026-03-25
  Withdrawal (RoP265)Public

  Summary: Sanofi and Regeneron withdrew their application for rehearing (R.245 RoP) concerning the Court of Appeal's decision of 25 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024) which had rejected the revocation of EP 3 666 797 and set aside the Central Division Munich's first-instance decision. The application for withdrawal was permitted. The decision covers both UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024. Court fees were to be reimbursed accordingly.

  Show the legal issues (2)

  • Withdrawal of application for rehearing under R.245 RoP
  • Reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9 RoP
• 2026-02-18
  Public

  Summary: The Court of Appeal (Panel with Klaus Grabinski, Nathalie Sabotier, Peter Blok) rejected Sanofi and Regeneron's application for suspensive effect concerning the Court of Appeal's own decision of 25 November 2025 which had rejected the requests for revocation of EP 3 666 797. Sanofi and Regeneron sought suspensive effect as part of a petition for rehearing (R. 220.4 RoP). The court found no basis to suspend a revocation-rejection decision (as this had no practical effect on the patent's validity status), and rejected the claim that the CoA's reasoning on claim interpretation and inventive step was based on issues not argued by the parties.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Suspensive effect in connection with petition for rehearing (R. 220.4 RoP)
  • Revocation action - patent maintained by CoA on appeal
  • Right to be heard (ultra petita) in appeal proceedings
  • Suspensive effect of revocation appeal (Art. 74(2) UPCA)
• 2025-11-25
  Appeal RoP220.1Public

  Summary: The Court of Appeal allowed Amgen's appeals in the revocation action and counterclaim for revocation concerning the PCSK9 antibody patent (Amgen v Sanofi and Regeneron). It set aside the Munich Central Division's decision revoking the patent, rejected the requests to revoke the patent in the UPC territories, and ordered Sanofi and Regeneron to bear the costs of both instances (EUR 1,375,000 each for first instance). The patent is maintained; the Court of Appeal found the claimed invention involved an inventive step.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Claim interpretation (medical use-format claims)
  • Added matter
  • Sufficiency of disclosure
  • Inventive step (PCSK9 antibodies)
  • Reasonable expectation of success