MUNICH CENTRAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Julia Traumann and Ulrich Blumenröder, Grünecker
Furthermore, the calendar notes an online interim conference held on 13 March 2024 in Astellas v Healios et al (UPC_CFI_80/2023, ACT_465342/2023, and UPC_CFI_75/2023, ACT_464985/2023). Interested members of the public were permitted to follow via live stream from a hearing room at the premises of the CD Munich. It can be assumed that further interim conferences and video conferences have taken place, most of which were likely not open to the public. 2.3 Case Classification Of the ten isolated revocation actions filed before the CD Munich, seven pertain to IPC class C and three to IPC class F. At this stage, no discernible industry trends can be identified. 2.4 Time Lines The CD Munich has demonstrated a strong commitment to following the timelines set out as guidelines by the Preparatory Committee. In recent cases, the judge-rapporteur has repeat - edly emphasised the “front-loaded character” of UPC proceedings, urging parties to present their full case early and declining to consider new arguments introduced – eg, only in the reply to the defence to revocation. Clear dead - lines for submissions and hearings are consist - ently established, and proceedings are system - atically streamlined. This includes, for instance, limiting the number of auxiliary requests (see Kunststoff KG Nehl v Häfele, UPC 526/2024, ACT_51533/2024, ORD_18972/2025, order issued on 18 April 2025; see also 4.2 Key Pro- cedural Issues ). The cases Sanofi/Regeneron v Amgen (UPC 1/2023, ACT_459505/2023, and UPC 14/2023, CC_586764) offer an early yet compelling exam -
ple of the CD Munich’s procedural efficiency. Sanofi filed an isolated revocation action before the CD Munich on 1 June 2023, while Amgen initiated an infringement action before the LD Munich on the same day. It was almost a race to file proceedings. It appears that the isolated revocation action had been filed first by not even an hour, meaning that Sanofi had not been forced to file the revocation action as a coun - terclaim pursuant to Article 33 (4) paragraph 2 UPCA. A counterclaim for revocation was still filed in the infringement proceedings, and it was served on 24 November 2023. With the parties’ consent, the LD Munich referred the counter - claim for revocation to the CD Munich on 2 Feb - ruary 2024 (UPC_CFI_14/2023, ORD_392/2024). Shortly thereafter, on 27 February 2024, the CD Munich ordered its joint handling of the isolated revocation action and the counterclaim. Despite the rather late joining, the revocation decisions were issued by the CD Munich on 16 July 2024 – just over a year after the isolated revocation action was filed, and about eight months after the counterclaim. This timeline was in line with the UPC’s stated goal of delivering (final) deci - sions approximately one year after proceedings begin and reflects strong adherence to the pro - cedural benchmarks. The authors do not see a trend of hearings becoming longer than anticipated. On the con - trary, the CD Munich has repeatedly indicated its intention to keep hearings concise. In this regard, the judge-rapporteur has explicitly stat - ed several times that the hearing should be com - pleted in one day, with a second day reserved only for exceptional circumstances. 2.5 Interaction Between Central and Local/Regional Divisions An interaction between the Central Division and local divisions/the Regional Division may occur
16
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook