REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - BEYOND THE HYPE: AI IN PATENT PROSECUTION
​

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

Invalidity of juicer patent upheld on appeal
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Hurom’s juicer patent for lack of inventive step, while clarifying the admissibility requirements for patent amendments and the use of the unamended description when construing amended claims. It also confirmed the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement in Poland despite Poland not being a UPCA Contracting Member State, but found that Hurom had failed to establish infringement under Polish law.
​
Evidence preservation doesn’t stretch to interrogation
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence-preservation orders may be granted ex parte where there is a demonstrable risk that evidence could be destroyed or become unavailable, and that such orders may extend to relevant commercial and promotional documents. However, Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant’s personnel on substantive technical matters, which must instead be handled under the Court’s control.
​
UPC Court of Appeal clarifies claim construction, the role of party experts, and provisional measures in direct-competition cases
03 November 2026
The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.
​