Key takeaways
Opt-out withdrawals must clearly identify the patent but don’t require listing every state where it’s valid
✓
The Court found that listing member states in the withdrawal solely in the context of identifying the proprietor was sufficient. Including states where the patent was granted (Art. 97(1) EPC) but not validated didn’t invalidate the withdrawal.
Sufficient infringement allegations must clearly explain the contested embodiment and acts, establishing jurisdiction (Rule 13.1 RoP)
✓
The Court found that the claimant’s statement of claim met this requirement, clearly explaining the contested embodiment and alleged infringing acts. The undisputed occurrence of the allegedly infringing acts in Germany established the Munich local division’s competence.
Division
LD Munich
UPC number
UPC_CFI_18/2025
Type of proceedings
Infringement action/Preliminary objection
Parties
Claimant: BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
Defendants: Ascendis Pharma A/S and Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S
Patent(s)
EP 3 175 863
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 13.1 RoP, Rule 19 RoP, Art. 97 (1) EPC
