UPC_CoA_528/2024;UPC_CoA_529/2024 – Sanofi v Amgen
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Date
- Outcome
- Withdrawn
- Sector
- Pharma/Bio
- Decision Type
- SETTLEMENT
Expert Commentary
Settlement rehearing Facts 1. On 1 June 2023, Sanofi initiated revocation proceedings in the Central Division Munich. 2. On 1 June 2023, Amgen initiated infringement proceedings in the Local Division Munich. Sanofi filed a Counterclaim for revocation, which was referred to the Central Division. 3. The Central Division Munich revoked the patent in both cases. 4. Amgen appealed, and the Court of Appeal set aside the Central Division’s decisions. 5. Sanofi filed a request for a rehearing. 6. Sanofi’s request for suspensive effect was rejected. 7. Sanofi has now asked for a withdrawal of the request for rehearing. 8. Amgen agreed with this request and did not want a decision on costs. The Court 1. The Court agreed to the withdrawal. 2. It rejected the request for a 50% reimbursement of court fees because Sanofi was required to pay the fee in both cases, but only paid it once. Comment 1. The Registry did not seem to have noticed that Sanofi had only paid for one case. The Court of Appeal took note of this and came up with a practical solution! 2. When the request for suspensive effect failed, it seems that Sanofi realized that it had no choice but to settle. In any case, we now know that a rehearing is not a second appeal and will only succeed in exceptional circumstances, which normally never occur. The UPC has only two instances, whereas many national systems have three instances, with a Supreme Court above the Court of Appeal.
Full Decision Text
Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court Appeal n°: UPC CoA 528/2024, UPC CoA 529/2024 Decision Issued on 25 March 2026 Patent at issue: EP 3 666 797 DECISION of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 March 2026 concerning an application for withdrawal (R. 265 RoP) regarding an application for rehearing (R. 245 RoP) and an application for reimbursement of Court fees (R. 370.9 RoP) **APPLICANTS (RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL AND CLAIMANTS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)** 1. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, Brüningstrasse 50, 65926, Frankfurt am Main, Germany 2. SANOFI-AVENTIS GROUPE S.A., 82 Avenue Raspail, 94250 Gentilly, France 3. SANOFI WINTHROP INDUSTRIE S.A., 82 Avenue Raspail, 94250 Gentilly, France hereinafter: (”Sanofi”) represented by Daniel Wise, attorney-at-law, Carpmaels & Ransford, London, The United Kingdom and other representatives from that law firm and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., 777 Old Saw Mill River Road, Tarrytown, NY 10591, USA hereinafter: (”Regeneron”) represented by Niels Hölder, attorney-at-law, Carpmaels & Ransford, London, United Kingdom, and other representatives from that law firm **RESPONDENT (APPELLANT BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL AND DEFENDANT BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)** AMGEN, INC, One Amgen Center Drive, CA 91320-1799, Thousand Oaks, USA hereinafter: (“Amgen”) represented by represented by Koen Bijvank, attorney-at-law, Brinkhof N.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands and representatives from Bardehle Pagenberg, Munich, Germany **Appeal n°:** UPC CoA 528/2024 UPC CoA 529/2024 **PATENT AT ISSUE** EP 3 666 797 **DECIDING JUDGES** Klaus Grabinski, President of the Court of Appeal Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur Peter Blok, legally qualified judge **LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS** English **DECISION UNDER REVIEW** □ Decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated 25 November 2025 □ Numbers attributed by the Court of Appeal: UPC CoA 528/2024 UPC CoA 529/2024 **FACTS, REQUESTS AND SUBMISSIONS** 1. On 1 June 2023, Sanofi brought a revocation action against the patent at issue before the Central Division, section Munich. On the same day, Amgen brought an infringement action based on the same patent before the Local Division Munich against Sanofi and Regeneron. Regeneron filed a counterclaim for revocation, which was subsequently, with the agreement of the parties, referred to the Central Division Munich, where it was joined to the pending revocation action lodged by Sanofi. The infringement action has been stayed. 2. On 16 July 2024, the Central Division Munich revoked the patent in its entirety and ordered Amgen to bear Respondents’ legal costs. 3. Amgen timely lodged two appeals against this decision respectively regarding the counterclaim for revocation (UPC CoA 529/2024) and the revocation action (UPC CoA 528/2024). 4. On 25 November 2025, the Court of Appeal set aside the impugned decision, rejected the request for revocation of the patent at issue. 5. On 26 January 2026, Sanofi and Regeneron filed an application for rehearing. Together with this application for rehearing, Sanofi and Regeneron requested the Court of Appeal to order that the lodging of the application for rehearing has suspensive effect. 6. The application for suspensive effect was rejected by an Order dated 18 February 2026. 7. On 25 February 2026, Amgen filed its reply to the application for rehearing. 8. On 11 March 2026, Sanofi and Regeneron filed an application to withdraw the Application for rehearing and a request for reimbursement of Court fees. The applicants request that the Court of Appeal: a. permit the withdrawal of the Application for Rehearing dated 26 January 2026; b. reimburse Claimants 50% of the Court Fees; and c. close the Application for Rehearing. 9. On 13 March 2026, Amgen, in response to the application for withdrawal, consented to the withdrawal of the application for rehearing and indicated that no decision on costs is necessary. **GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION** Conditions for permitting withdrawal 10. Pursuant to R. 265.1 RoP, as long as there is no final decision in an action, a claimant may, pursuant to R. 265.1 RoP, apply to withdraw his action. The Court shall decide upon the application after hearing the other party. The application to withdraw shall not be permitted if the other party has a legitimate interest in the action being decided by the Court. 11. This provision equally applies to withdrawals of appeals (CoA, 5 July 2024, CoA 234/2024, 10x Genomics vs Curio Bioscience, para 9 and CoA, 23 December 2025, CoA 691/2025, Lindal Dispenser v Rocep, para 5) and applications for rehearing. 12. In view of Sanofi and Regeneron’s request and given the consent from Amgen, the Court of Appeal permits the withdrawal of the application for rehearing. Costs 13. R. 265.2 (c) RoP provides that the Court shall issue a cost decision in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5 (R.150 to 152 RoP). 14. Before the Court of Appeal seised of the application for rehearing, none of the parties requests such a decision. Therefore, there is no need for a cost decision. Reimbursement of Court fees 15. In the present case, it appears that Sanofi and Regeneron paid only one fee when lodging their two applications for the rehearing of the two cases (528 and 529/2024), although two fees were due. It follows that there is no reason for a reimbursement of Court fees by virtue of R. 370.9 (b) RoP. **DECISION** The Court of Appeal 16. permits the withdrawal of the applications for rehearing UPC CoA 528/2024, and UPC CoA 529/2024, and declares the proceedings closed; 17. orders that the decision be entered on the register; 18. Rejects the request for a reimbursement of the Court fees. This decision was issued on 25 March 2026. Klaus Grabinski, President of the Court of Appeal Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur Peter Blok, legally qualified judge
Key Holdings
- Withdrawal of a request for rehearing is accepted if the opposing party agrees and no cost decision is sought.
- Reimbursement of court fees may be denied if the fee was only partially paid (e.g., for one case instead of two related cases).
- A rehearing is not a second appeal and will only succeed in exceptional circumstances, which are rare.
- The UPC system is designed with only two instances (CFI and CoA), unlike some national systems with a Supreme Court.
Tags
- Settlement
- Withdrawal
- Rehearing
- Court Fees
- Appeal
- Procedural