UPC_CFI_566/2024 – Syngenta v Sumi Agro
- Court
- Local Division Munich
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Chemicals
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Date setting - The Interim Conference is scheduled for one week later than Düsseldorf. - The Court asks for the same Technical Judge as Düsseldorf (see above). Comment: - Is it a good idea to have the same Technical Judge in two different Local Divisions between the same parties with patents on the same technology? - It is certainly efficient, but why did the claimant file in two different divisions? Probably because they wanted two different panels. - I think efficiency should prevail—but if you really want different perspectives, going to two German divisions (are they really that different?) isn’t very original anyway.
Full Decision Text
Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division Munich issued on 12 February 2025 CLAIMANT Syngenta Limited, Jealott’s Hill International Research Centre, RG42 6EY, Bracknell, Berkshire – GB represented by: Benjamin Grzimek, Dr. Jörn Peters, Aylin Cremers (Fieldfisher) Prof. Dr. Aloys Hüttermann (Michalski, Hüttermann & Partner) Dr. Filip Alois J. De Corte, Dr. Christopher Andrews (Syngenta Crop Protection AG) DEFEFDANTS 1) Sumi Agro Limited, Bürgermeister-Neumeyr-Str. 7 - 85391 - Allershausen – DE 2) Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Bürgermeister-Neumeyr-Str. 7 - 85391 - Allershausen – DE represented by: Gareth Williams (Marks & Clerk) Johannes Heselberger, Dr. Axel B. Berger, Dr. Kerstin Galler (Bardehle Pagenberg) PATENT AT ISSUE European patent n° 2 152 073 PANEL/DIVISION Panel 1 of the Local Division Munich DECIDING JUDGES This order has been issued by the presiding judge Dr. Matthias Zigann acting as judge- rapporteur. Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_566/2024 UPC_CFI_566/2024 2 LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS Patent infringement; scheduling of the interim conference and the oral hearing ORDER 1. The date for the Interim Conference via videoconference is set for 6 October 2025, 10.00 a.m. 2. Suggestions for topics for the Interim Conference may be submitted until 19 September 2025. 3. The date for the Oral Hearing in person at Denisstr. 3 in Munich, room 212 and overflow room 220b, is set for 10 December 2025, 9.00 a.m. 4. The parties are summoned to the Interim Conference and the Oral Hearing. 5. The Judge-Rapporteur requests the President of the Court of First Instance to assign Judge Dorland-Galliot to the panel as a technically qualified judge pursuant to Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure. INSTRUCTIONS TO THE PARTIES The Interim Conference and the Oral Hearing will deal with the Infringement Complaint and possibly the Counterclaim for Revocation. The Panel will decide at a later stage under Rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure. Syngenta is invited to submit observations on this issue in its next written submission. INFORMATION ABOUT REVIEW BY PANEL Any party may request that this Order be referred to the panel for a review pursuant to R. 333 RoP. Pending review, the Order shall be effective (R. 102.2 RoP) INFORMATION ABOUT ORAL HEARING HELD IN COURT The oral hearing shall be open to the public unless the Court decides to make it, to the extent necessary, confidential in the interests of one or both parties or third parties or in the general interest of justice or public order (R. 115 RoP). INFORMATION ABOUT AUDIO RECORDING The interim conference and the oral hearing shall be audio recorded. The recording shall be made available at the premises of the Court to the parties or their representatives after the oral hearing (R. 106, 115 RoP). INFORMATION ABOUT ABSENCE OR DELAY OF A REPRESENTATIVE A decision by default may be given, upon request, against a party that was duly summoned but fails to appear at the oral hearing (R. 355.1 (b) RoP. UPC_CFI_566/2024 3 INFORMATION ABOUT DECISION BY DEFAULT Should a party fail to comply with the present Order within the time period specified, a decision by default may be given in accordance with R. 355 RoP (R. 103.1, last subparagraph and .2 RoP). DETAILS OF THE ORDER Order no. ORD_68881/2024 in ACTION NUMBER: ACT_53813/2024 UPC number: UPC_CFI_566/2024 Action type: Infringement Action Dr. Zigann Presiding Judge
Key Holdings
- The Munich Local Division scheduled an Interim Conference for the case, one week after the Düsseldorf division.
- The Munich Court requested the appointment of the same Technical Judge as in the Düsseldorf proceedings for the same case.
- The commentator questions the strategy of filing in two different divisions while requesting the same technical judge, weighing efficiency against the desire for different judicial perspectives.
Tags
- Case Management
- Efficiency
- Jurisdiction
- Technically Qualified Judge