MUNICH LOCAL DIVISION Trends and Developments Contributed by: Julia Traumann and Ulrich Blumenröder, Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB
would have prevented it from pursuing its main UPC proceedings for EP’782. The main infringe - ment proceedings at the Munich Local Division, which were meanwhile stayed, can resume and will, according to the authors’ knowledge, go to trial in September 2025 where 10x Genomics is seeking, inter alia, a permanent injunction. Cases from the Pharmaceuticals Sector – Local Division Munich The UPC has made a promising start, with cases from the life sciences and pharmaceuticals sec - tor being presented at the UPC. In particular, the long-running PCSK9 inhibitor dispute between Amgen and Regeneron/Sanofi has featured prominently: Amgen asserted one of its patents on the very first day of the UPC’s existence, 1 June 2023, at the Local Division Munich. Hav - ing filed a revocation action against that patent on the same day, Sanofi/Regeneron went on to assert their own PCSK9-related patent against Amgen at the beginning of 2024 at the Local Division Düsseldorf. Relatively few pharma cases followed in the subsequent months, with some being the classic “branded versus generic” dis - putes, others being “biologics versus biosimi - lars” disputes, and still others being, surprisingly, “innovator versus innovator” disputes. In the first quarter of 2025, four new UPC drug/ vaccine-related disputes were initiated, includ - ing two at the Local Division Munich, apparently one of the “go-to” venues for pharma cases as well. The first case, BioMarin Pharmaceuticals v Ascendis Pharma, pertains to Ascendis Phar - ma’s prospective achondroplasia treatment, TransCon CNP. In that case, the challenged product is not yet on the market: following posi - tive Phase III data in 2024, Ascendis announced its intention to file its marketing authorisation application to the European Medicines Agency during Q3 of 2025.
The second dispute, Promosome LLC v BioN - Tech/Pfizer, brings the UPC its first COVID 19-vaccine patent lawsuit. Although Promosome has no rival product on the market, it is seeking royalties from the defendants’ blockbuster COV - ID-19 vaccine, Comirnaty, based on its messen - ger RNA (mRNA)-related platform technology. The third dispute is a PI application in Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva, filed in February 2025 with the Local Division Lisbon and becoming the first UPC pharma case outside of German divisions. The fourth dispute consists of a set of two infringement actions in Genevant Sciences/ Arbutus Biopharma v Moderna before the Local Division The Hague. It constitutes the second mRNA-related enforcement campaign launched at the UPC. Most interesting of all, these UPC actions seek injunction and damages for 29 European countries, including five EU countries that are not participating in the UPC and six non- EU countries. It remains to be seen whether these disputes mark a turning point for pharmaceutical compa - nies and their use of the UPC. So far, companies from the pharmaceuticals sector have generally been very cautious, largely due to the risk of cen - tralised revocation of their “crown jewel patents” protecting compounds. It has so far remained common for pharma patentees to assert their patents on a country-by-country basis across Europe, meaning that national litigation contin - ues to play a significant role in this field. This trend is likely to continue in the near future. Patent Owner-Friendly? The many cases filed with the Local Division Munich tell a tale of the division, and its judg - es, generally being considered “patent owner- friendly”. Yet, both panels are very demanding
64
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook