1. Key takeaways
Single closure date for written procedure ensures fairness and efficiency
The Court confirmed that only one closure date for written submissions is permitted, rejecting the defendant's request for separate dates for infringement and revocation proceedings.
Admissibility of amended requests and burden of proof addressed
The Court found that any uncertainty about which requests and arguments are admitted does not prejudice the defendant, as final damages will be determined in separate proceedings.
Generous interpretation of claimant's requests
The court indicated it would interpret the claimant's requests generously, in line with the procedural history and parties' submissions.
2. Division
LD Munich
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_148/2024, UPC_CFI_503/2024
4. Type of proceedings
infringement action, procedural order
5. Parties
Claimants: Sanofi SA, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi – Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi AB, Sanofi A/S
Defendants: Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
6. Patent
EP 2 493 466
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 333 RoP, Rule 29 RoP, Rule 36 RoP, Rule 36 RoP
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
