Overview · Filed: Sep 13, 2024
UPC_CoA_528/2024
ANTIGEN BINDING PROTEINS TO PROPROTEIN CONVERTASE SUBTILISIN KEXIN TYPE 9 (PCSK9)
AppealsMain AppealCourt of AppealAppealCase Closed
This case cites
Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.
Rules of Procedure · 5
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 220.4 | sufficiency — rehearing petition procedure | Binding | Sanofi and Regeneron sought suspensive effect as part of a petition for rehearing (R. 220.4 RoP). |
| 223 | sufficiency — suspensive effect requires motivated request | Binding | For appeals, there is an explicit requirement that a request for suspensive effect is motivated (Art. 74(1) UPCA and Rule 223 RoP). |
| 265.1 | withdrawal — conditions for permitting withdrawal of rehearing application | Binding | Pursuant to R.265.1 RoP, as long as there is no final decision in an action, a claimant may, pursuant to R. 265.1 RoP, apply to withdraw his action. |
| 245 | withdrawal — rehearing procedure | Binding | concerning an application for withdrawal (R. 265 RoP) regarding an application for rehearing (R. 245 RoP) |
| 370.9 | withdrawal — reimbursement of court fees | Binding | and an application for reimbursement of Court fees (R. 370.9 RoP) |
EPC article · 2
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 74(1) | sufficiency — appeals do not have suspensive effect unless court decides otherwise | Binding | a parallel may be drawn with appeals, which also do not have suspensive effect unless the Court decides otherwise (Art. 74(1) UPCA). For appeals, there is an explicit requirement that a request for suspensive effect is motivated (Art. 74(1) UPCA and Rule 223 RoP). |
| 76 | sufficiency — rehearing requirements | Binding | In case the Court of Appeal were to consider that the decision dated 25 November 2025 satisfies the requirements of Art. 76 UPCA, Sanofi and Regeneron request the referral of a question to the European Court of Justice. |
Cited by
Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.
| Cited in | Date | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_CFI_337/2025 Munich CD | Dec 1, 2025 | inventive step and sufficiency | Binding | as well as cases UPC_CoA_528 and 529/2024 (Amgen/Sanofi and Regeneron). The submissions should address the legal implications of the aforementioned Court of Appeal decisions only |
| UPC_CoA_529/2024 Court of Appeal | Nov 25, 2025 | sufficiency — test and inventive step analysis in PCSK9 antibody patent revocation | Binding | UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_528/2024 UPC_CoA_529/2024 |