REGISTER now: Sweden Event - A new era for innovation: AI, the UPC and global patent opportunities
​

Infringement action following provisional injunction

​
Darren Smyth
​
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

Court of Appeal focuses on the technical effect to determine added matter
30 September 2026
The Court of Appeal provided guidance on their approach to assessing added subject matter, highlighting that the technical effect underlying the invention and how the claimed and unclaimed features contribute thereto is central to the analysis.
​
Court of Appeal affirms interpretation of product-by-process features in claims, and clarifies applicable law pre-June 2023
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that product-by-process features in a product claim limit the claim only where the specified process imparts characteristics that can be achieved solely by that process. It also clarified the law applicable to acts occurring before 1 June 2023, holding that UPC law may apply to ongoing infringement for injunctive relief, whereas damages for acts completed before that date are governed by national law, and that claims for provisional protection remain governed by national law.
​
Appeal reveals tricky deadlines for orders contained in decisions
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that where a “privileged order” under Rule 220(1)(c), such as an order relating to the production of evidence under Article 59 UPCA and Rule 190 RoP, is contained within a decision on the merits, a 15 day appeal deadline for that order applies, separate from the substantive appeal deadline. Appeals challenging such orders after that deadline are inadmissible, and parties cannot circumvent the appeal rules by re-filing substantially the same request in the appeal proceedings.
​