Key takeaways
Request of referral of a counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division by the parties (Art. 33(3)(c) UPCA)
According to Article 33(3)(c) UPCA, a Local Division may refer the case for decision to the central division based on the agreement of the parties. Strong counterarguments would be necessary for the Local Division not to grant such a request when all parties agree. After unanimous request of referral by all parties, the Local Division thus granted the request.
The LD considers the time schedule of a case when deciding whether to suspend or continue with an infringement action (Art. 33(3)(c) UPCA and Rule 37(4) RoP) after referral of the counterclaim for revocation to the CD
In the present case, while the Defendants requested to stay the infringement proceedings, the Local Division considered that a validity decision will be available fast enough. Thus, the Local Division did not have to stay the infringement proceedings. To allow for additional time for the CD’s written decision on validity, the Local Division may postpone the already scheduled interim conference.
Division
Local Division Munich
UPC number
UPC_CFI_14/2023
Type of proceedings
Patent infringement and counterclaim for revocation
Parties
Claimant: Amgen Inc.
Defendant 1): Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
Defendant 2): Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A.
Defendant 3): Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.
Defendant 4): Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Patent(s)
EP3666797
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 37 RoP, Art. 33(3) UPCA