ARTICLE
12 March 2025

Court Of Appeal, March 3, 2025, Order, UPC_CoA_523/2024

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
A move from a market situation where only one product is available, to one where there are two competing products, can be expected to lead not just to price pressure but to a permanent price erosion.
Germany Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

1. Key takeaways

Price erosion is an important factor to be considered when evaluating the necessity of provisional measures.

A move from a market situation where only one product is available, to one where there are two competing products, can be expected to lead not just to price pressure but to a permanent price erosion. This risk is an important factor when considering whether a provisional injunction is necessary.

Art. 34 UPCA (territorial scope of the decisions) applicable as soon as a UPC Signatory State ratifies and accedes.

There are no transitional rules connected to Art. 34 UPCA. When a UPC Signatory State ratifies and accedes, the application of Art. 34 UPCA should be automatic and not subject to limitations, from the day of accession.

Security for enforcement of provisional measures can be issued retroactively if the defendant brings forward further arguments and facts.

If the Court does not see reasons to order, of its own motion, the rendering of security for enforcement of provisional measures, a defendant can still bring forward arguments and facts to support that the outcome may be different once the action on the merits is tried, and/or that there will be an undue burden in enforcing an order for compensation of damages caused by the provisional measures if these measures are revoked. The burden of proof is then generally on the defendant. The undue burden can for example be related to the financial position of the applicant, or to the foreign law and its application in the territory where the order for compensation shall be enforced.

A cost decision is to be issued also at the end of proceedings for provisional measures.

A cost decision should be issued with the final order in inter partes proceedings for provisional measures, since it concludes the action.

2. Division

Court of Appeal

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_523/2024, APL_51115/2024

4. Type of proceedings

Proceedings for provisional measures

5. Parties

Sumi Agro Limited

Sumi Agro Europe Limited

vs.

Syngenta Limited

6. Patent(s)

EP 2 152 073

7. Jurisdictions

Place jurisdictions

8. Body of legislation / Rules

R. 211.1 RoP, R. 212.3 RoP, Art. 34 UPCA, Art. 82.2 UPCA, R. 211.5 RoP

self

2025-03-04 – Court of Appeal Decision – UPC_CoA_523-2024 Download

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More