MUNICH CENTRAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Julia Traumann and Ulrich Blumenröder, Grünecker
the parties. Amgen and Sanofi, together with Sanofi’s partner company Regeneron, have been involved in litigation over the cholesterol- lowering drugs Praluent® and Repatha® since 2014. This legal battle was initially fought before national patent courts, but on the very first day of the UPC’s operation, 1 June 2023, both parties chose to escalate the dispute to the new court system. 3.3 Pending Cases A search of the CMS reveals several newly initi - ated cases, primarily isolated revocation actions. While members of the public can identify the rel - evant patent numbers, they do not have access to the procedural documents. As a result, it is not possible to determine the specific patent law issues raised in those proceedings. However, the following can be gathered on pending cases from recent decisions and orders. One such case is the already-mentioned Kunst - stoff KG Nehl v Häfele (UPC 526/2024), con - cerning European Patent EP3 767 151 (cabinet levelling apparatus). The isolated revocation action was initiated following UPC provisional measures proceedings between the parties at the LD Munich, which were decided in favour of the claimant (the defendant in those proceed - ings) on the basis of a weighing of interests in its favour (see LD Munich, UPC_CFI_443/2024, ACT_43563/2024, order of 25 November 2024). The panel of the LD Munich (also with Presiding Judge Voß as presiding judge) had expressed the opinion that (provisionally, in summary pro - ceedings – and where the CD Munich stressed that it had of course arrived at its own opinion independently) an infringement of the patent was more likely than not, but that the validity of the patent was doubtful (see UPC 526/2024,
ACT_51533/2024, order issued on 18 April 2025). In the isolated revocation action, the claimant argues that the subject matter of all claims is not patentable – specifically, that it lacks nov - elty and/or inventive step. Furthermore, it is alleged that the patent does not disclose the invention clearly and completely enough for a person skilled in the art to carry it out, and that the subject matter extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed. The parties are currently engaged in settlement negotiations (comprising a number of proceedings in differ - ent fora), and the CD Munich has agreed to stay the proceedings pursuant to Rule 295 (d) RoP, pending the outcome of those negotiations (UPC 526/2024, ACT_51533/2024, ORD_24550/2025, order issued on 22 May 2025). Another pending case is TCL Europe v Corn - ing, which involves both an isolated revocation action (UPC 337/2025) and an infringement action, including a counterclaim for revoca - tion, and is currently before the LD Munich (UPC_CFI_819/2024). The case concerns EP 3 296 274 (related to the fining of boro-alumino silicate glasses). The isolated revocation action was filed on 22 April 2025, followed by the coun - terclaim for revocation on 15 May 2025. In this matter, the claimant appears to argue that the patent is not valid – specifically alleging lack of inventive step and the presence of added matter. The deadline for filing the defence to revoca - tion has been extended, reportedly until 7 July 2025. It remains to be seen whether the isolated revocation action and the counterclaim for revo - cation will be consolidated at a later stage (for previous similar cases, please see 2.5 Interac- tion Between Central and Local/Regional Divi- sions ).
19
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook