European Union Unified Patent Court (UPC) The first preliminary opinion has been issued. This year8month, In a case involving Amgen and Sanofi, The court considered the admissibility of the lawsuit based on the place and time of the complaint. finally, The corresponding infringement action and cancellation action will be filed separatelyUPCThe local and central branches of Munich are responsible for the trial. evident, This is contrary toUPCIt was proposed earlier "They are not normally tried separately" The view of.

Over the years, Amgen and Sanofi have cholesterol-lowering drugsPraluentThe battle is being fought in several patent courts in Europe. now, The latest drama in this caseUPCrestage, That is, both parties compete to file infringement and revocation claims in the form of hard copies. Here's whyUPCThe content management system had an electronic glitch on the first day of operation.

Among other things, The court also studiedUPCSeparate issues within the system, A lot of people are interested in this. Judging from the current situation, The parties concerned must file an action for cancellation in the central branch court, Unless the other party has already filed an infringement suit elsewhere. At the same time, Amgen continues to be numberedEP2215124The parent patent has been sued by Sanofi in several international courts and in various European courts.

Amgen and Sanofi have filed competing lawsuits

inUPCThe first day of official operation, Amgen and Sanofi are in a new battle. The two companies are scrambling to go their separate waysUPCAnnulment and infringement proceedings were initiated at the Central and local branches in Munich.

The lawsuits involve AmgenEP3666797Patent No, This is the biopharmaceutical companyEP2215124The first of the patent family3subcase.

EP3666797Patent No. 1 contains the active ingredient ilozumab (evolocumab) , Its use "Preprotein converting enzyme subtilysin9 (pcsk9) Antigen-binding protein" .

At the European Patent Office (EPO) conferEP3666797After the patent, Amgen did not opt outUPCJurisdiction of. On the contrary, The company inUPCAn infringement suit was filed in the Munich District Court. Sanofi responded in kind, Try inUPCThe Central Branch of Munich filed an annulment suit.

however, Due to some technical errorUPCThe content management system crashed, Therefore, the corresponding electronic application was not approved. thereupon, Sanofi is based in LuxembourgUPCThe registry submitted the application by hand, Amgen, on the other hand, filed the infringement claim at the branch office of the Munich Regional Court. result, The latter raised preliminary objections, Claiming that he filed the infringement suit first, Sanofi's dismissal is therefore inadmissible.

Consult the rulebook

Judge Andrash．Cupechi (András Kupecz) There are two main considerations, The first is when both sides can file lawsuits. merely, Kupach's point is that Sanofi filed an infringement suit half an hour ago.

The second consideration is also important, namely "UPCRules of procedure" Whether Sanofi is allowed in LuxembourgUPCThe registry filed a dismissal suit, Rather than filing a lawsuit directly with the central branch. On the basis of "UPCagreement" The first33Article No4The provisions of paragraph, Unless one of the parties has already filed an infringement suit in a local sub-court, Otherwise, the other party has to askUPCThe Central branch filed an annulment lawsuit. And in this case, The above parties must also file an annulment action in the same local branch.

however, Sanofi argues, On the basis of "UPCRules of procedure" The first4Article No2paragraph, The court system may allow parties to file hard copies of their proceedings at any relevant location. On the other hand, Amgen claimed that Sanofi had not submitted copies to the relevant authorities, And pointed out that the above departments should beUPCThe central branch of Munich.

Lawsuits are allowed in Luxembourg

finally, The court ruled in favor of Sanofi. "UPCRules of procedure" Point out, If it is not possible to submit documents electronically because the Court's electronic case management system is not functioning, The party may then submit the document in hard copy form to the Registry or sub-registry.

On the basis of "UPCRules of procedure" Regulation of, The losing party has two weeks to appeal. Amgen is likely to appeal the ruling, though, But it is not clear that this will happen. in8month24The preliminary objections hearing was held on Sunday by video. It is reported, Both parties are currently inUPCThe amount of money involved in the lawsuit is as high as1Billions of euros.

Separate trial

Some observers believe that, The case has sparked discussion about splitting up trials. In principle, UPCA separate trial system is adopted, That is, every court has the power to hear infringement and quashing actions.

however, The case will test the limits of its case law, That is, the defendant filed a cancellation lawsuit after the infringement case was filed. In this case, The local branch court may also transfer the annulment case to the central branch court. presumably, As the Court continues to refine its case law, In the future, the separate hearing process of the court will be further simplified. (Be compiled fromwww. juve-patent. com)

TRANSLATORS: Liu Peng　proofread: Wang Dan



　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.