Infringement action following provisional injunction

​
Darren Smyth
​
January 22, 2025
#
UPC
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

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.
​