Key takeaways
Different workflows can be attributed to one action, and requests should be made in the appropriate workflow – if no appropriate workflow exists, a new workflow should be opened
In the present case, requests to extend or shorten the deadline to submit the statement of defense had been made by the Parties in different, existing workflows, not strictly relating to this question (here: “separation of proceedings against Defendant 4)” or “upload of exhibits”). The Court ordered that the requests did not have to be made again, but that in principle each subject (order) should be discussed in a separate workflow, for clarity reasons, and that, in the future, requests that did not relate to an open workflow should be made in a new, separate workflow.
Division
LD Munich
UPC number
UPC_CFI_14/2023
ORD_562104/2023
Type of proceedings
Infringement action
Parties
Amgen Inc. ./. 1) Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, 2) Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., 3) Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., 4) Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Patent(s)
EP 3 666 797
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 9.3 RoP