Key takeaways
Counterclaim for revocation can be combined with central revocation action against the same patent upon request by the parties
The parties agreed that the counterclaim for revocation pending at LD Munich should be dealt with together with an earlier filed and considerably further advanced central revocation action pending at the CD. The LD Munich thus referred the counterclaim to the CD. The CD (Section Munich) ordered that both actions are dealt with jointly under the conditions that all parties are “on the same page” where it concerns the grounds for revocation, arguments, facts and evidence, such that both cases can be dealt with together in the foreseen timeline for the revocation action. The parties and the judge rapporteur agreed that it was “deemed” that all facts, grounds, arguments etc. are known to all parties and that those having been submitted in the recovation action have also been submitted in the counterclaim for revocation and vice versa.
(Only) costs may be dealt with separately.
Further submissions on costs
In order to assess whether the costs incurred can be recovered which requires that they are “reasonable and proportionate”, Art. 69 UPCA, the Court and parties must have access to information showing at least a detailed description of the number of hours spent working on this particular case, by whom, what for and at what rate.
The Court will, in principle, respect an agreement between the parties on the amount of costs that is deemed reasonable and proportionate.
Division
Panel 1 of the Central Division (Section Munich)
UPC number
UPC_CFI_1/2023, UPC_CFI_14/2023
Type of proceedings
Revocation action
Parties
1st Claimants: Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.,
2nd Claimant: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Defendant: Amgen, Inc.
Patent(s)
EP3666797
Body of legislation/Rules
Art. 69 UPCA, Rule 9 RoP, Rule 103 RoP