REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - Beyond the ai hype: ai in patent prosecution
​

Infringement action following provisional injunction

No items found.
​
January 22, 2025
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
UPC
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Syngenta Limited v Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited (UPC_CFI_201/2024)

Order of 12 December 2024 (ORD_65555/2024[1])

As we reported,[2] Syngenta obtained a provisional injunction against Sumi Agro from the UPC local division in Munich. A requirement of such an injunction according to Rule 213(1) RoP is that an action on the merits is started within 31 calendar days or 20 working days, whichever is the longer, from a date specified in the order, in this case 27 August 2024, failing which the injunction will lapse.

Syngenta uploaded the papers for an infringement action on the merits through the CMS on 27 September 2024. The court fee was received by the Court on 30 September 2024.

Sumi Agro applied to have the provisional injunction revoked. They argued that, since Rule 15(2) RoP states: "The Statement of claim shall not be deemed to have been lodged until the fixed fee and, where applicable, the value based fee for the infringement action has been paid…", the action on the merits was not deemed filed until 30 September 2024, later than the 27 September 2024 deadline according to Rule 213 RoP. It was therefore asserted that the order for the provisional injunction should be revoked.

The Court disagreed on two grounds.

First, the Court considered that Rule 15(2) RoP requires only that the fee have been paid. It does not require that it have been received by the court, nor does it specify when.

Moreover, Rule 213 (1) RoP states that applicant has "to start" proceedings on the merits. The Court considered that this is complied with when the statement of claim is filed in the CMS, and does not require that the fees have been received by the Court.

Therefore, the Court decided that the deadline of 27 September 2024 had been observed in compliance with Rule 213(1) RoP, and rejected the application to revoke the provisional injunction.

[1] https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/1323

[2] https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/upc_ld_munich_further_defines_the_limits_for_issuing_a_preliminary_injunction/

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending risks liability for defendant’s costs
24 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that setting aside a first-instance decision granting relief subject to recurring penalties generally has retroactive effect. Any penalty fees already paid will be refunded by the Court. The value of proceedings is determined by the interest of the party that brought the action. This is not changed as a result of an appeal. A claimant bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending does so at its own risk and may be liable for the defendant’s costs related to the enforcement proceedings.‍
​
Replacement parts and the value of asserting a narrower claim combination
17 July 2026
The UPC's Düsseldorf Local Division found that Wessper's cartridges indirectly infringed Brita's patent, and that a narrower claim combination can turn a consumable into an essential element.
​
Preliminary objection on jurisdiction partially successful – UPC clarifies requirements of anchor-defendant jurisdiction for non-UPC territories
25 June 2026
The Hamburg Local Division let Nixu pursue US-based Infoblox in the UPC for Germany, France and Finland, but threw out the UK claim. To reach a non-UPC territory through an anchor defendant, a claimant must plead joint infringement there.
​