1
Order
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
Local Division Munich
issued on 11 March 2025
APPLICANT
Syngenta Limited, Jealott’s Hill International Research Centre, RG42 6EY, Bracknell,
Berkshire – GB
represented by: Dr. Jörn Peters (Fieldfisher)
Prof. Dr. Aloys Hüttermann (Michalski, Hüttermann & Partner)
Dr. Filip Alois J. De Corte, Dr. Christopher Andrews (Syngenta Crop
Protection AG)
RESPONDENTS
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, Dr. Markus Ackermann (Bardehle Pagenberg)
PATENT AT ISSUE
European patent n° EP 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, the legally qualified judges Dr. Walter Schober and Tobias Pichlmaier, and the
technically qualified judge Xavier Dorland-Galliot.
Local Division Munich
UPC_CFI_201/2024
2
LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
English
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS
Application for provisional measures - ORD_47657/2024 in ACT_23636/2024;
Request to revoke an Order for preliminary measures - App_62613/2024 and
ORD_5034/2025, ORD_65555/2024;
Application to review a case management Order - App_66415/2024 and APP_68407/2024,
APP_2747/2025, ORD_5034/2025, APP_8433/2025;
Application for re-establishments of rights - App_64036/2024
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND REQUESTS BY THE PARTIES
With order dated 27 August 2024 (ORD_47657/2024 in ACT_23636/2024) the Local Division
Munich ordered provisional measures against Sumi Agro, as follows:
“…VI. These provisional measures will be revoked or otherwise cease to have effect,
upon request of the Respondents, without prejudice to the damages which may be
claimed, if, within a time period not exceeding 31 calendar days or 20 working days,
whichever is the longer, from 27 August 2024, the Applicant does not start proceedings
on the merits of the case before the Court…”
With application dated 25 November 2024 (App_62613/2024) Sumi Agro requested:
a. Revoke Order No. ORD 47657/2024, without prejudice to the damages which may
be claimed by the Defendants.
b. Order the Claimant to pay the Defendants’ costs of the proceedings, including the
costs of this Application.
Syngenta requested:
I. The Respondents' [= Sumi Agro] Application to revoke provisional measures is
dismissed.
II. The Respondents [= Sumi Agro] bear the costs of the proceedings, including
the costs of their Application to revoke provisional measures.
Sumi Agro argued:
“The 20 working day deadline expired on 24 September 2024, while the 31 calendar
day deadline expired on 27 September 2024. Pursuant to Rule 9.4 RoP, the deadline
set under Rule 213.1 is non-extendable. It is a mandatory time limit which cannot be
modified. The Claimant subsequently started proceedings on the merits on 30
September 2024 under ACT 53813/2024 (UPC CFI 566/2024). The date on which
proceedings are started is determined by when (in this case) the Statement of claim is
uploaded to the CMS and when the court fee is paid. Pursuant to Rule 15.2 RoP, the
Statement of claim shall not be deemed to have been lodged until the applicable court
fees have been paid. Accordingly, proceedings are not started until the court fees have
been paid. On 21 November 2024, the Registry of the Court confirmed the following
information to the Defendants’ representatives concerning when the Claimant started
proceedings on the merits (see the email exchange attached as Exhibit SA-18):
3
a. The Statement of claim was uploaded to the CMS on 27 September 2024.
b. The court fee was received by the Court on 30 September 2024.
The Statement of Claim is therefore deemed to have been lodged and the
proceedings started on 30 September 2024. This is after the non-extendable
deadline of 27 September 2024. The Order must therefore be revoked under Rule
213.1 RoP. The rule does not permit the exercise of discretion.”
Syngenta argued:
“The Respondents' request is based on a misrepresentation of the relevant
provisions in the Rules of Procedure and, most importantly, ignores the main relevant
Rule for the timely payment of court fees, R. 371 (1) RoP, which clearly states that
the payment should be made at the time of filing. None of these provisions demand
that the monies paid upon filing need to have arrived at the UPC's bank account
before the deadline's expiry. Requesting a party to make the payment so that it
arrives before the end of the deadline would also not be consistent with how the
Case Management System of the court is set up, would amount to a de facto
shortening of said deadline by at least one day and lead to various impractical
consequences for both the users of the UPC system and the Courts.”
Syngenta filed a precautionary application for re-establishment of rights on 4 December
2025 (App_64036/2024).
With order dated 12 December 2024 (ORD_65555/2024) the judge-rapporteur dismissed
Sumi Agro`s application:
“1. The application is dismissed.
2. The Applicant [= Sumi Agro] must bear the costs of this application.”
On 16 December 2024 Sumi Agro filed an application for a panel review (App_66415/2024)
and requests:
a. Order No. ORD 65555/2024 of the presiding judge in the proceedings UPC_CFI
201/2024 of 12 December 2024 be reviewed by the panel and revoked.
b. Revoke Order No. ORD 47657/2024, without prejudice to the damages which may
be claimed by Defendants.
c. Order Claimant to pay Defendants’ costs of the proceedings, including the costs of
Defendants’ application to revoke provisional measures and Defendant’s application
for review.
d. In the alternative, leave to appeal be granted.
Syngenta filed observations (App_2747/2025) and requests:
I. The Respondents' Application for panel review of the order number ORD
65555/2024 is dismissed.
II. The Respondents bear the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of their
Application to revoke provisional measures and their Application for panel review.
4
III. Under the condition precedent that the Court revokes ORD 47657/2024, grant
leave to appeal.
Both parties agreed to await the outcome of the appeal proceedings APL_51115/2024
UPC_CoA_523/2024 (ORD_5034/2025, App_8433/2025). With order dated 4 March 2025 the
Court of Appeal dismissed Sumi Agro`s appeal against the order on provisional measures.
GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER
The Judge-Rapporteur rightly dismissed Sumi Agro's application.
Sumi Agro misapplies Rule 15 (2) RoP and also gives it an improper meaning.
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 have been
paid, unless otherwise provided".
In German:
“Soweit nichts anderes bestimmt ist, gilt die Klageschrift erst dann als eingereicht, wenn die Festgebühr und gegebenenfalls die streitwertabhängige Gebühr für die Verletzungsklage bezahlt wurde.“
In French:
“Le mémoire en demande n’est pas réputé avoir été déposé tant que le droit fixe et,
le cas échéant, le droit fondé sur la valeur du litige pour l’action en contrefaçon n’a
pas été payé, sauf disposition contraire”.
Neither the English, German nor the French version states that the fee "has been received
by the court". The wording in all languages clearly states that it is sufficient that the court
fees have been paid for the statement of claim to be deemed to have been lodged (per se
and not when): R. 15 (2) RoP does not specify the date of filing).
Furthermore, Rule 213 (1) RoP states that the applicant must " start proceedings on the
merits". The wording of the rule clearly states that it is sufficient to " start " the proceedings
on the merits. In other words, to start something means to begin with it. The start of the
proceedings on the merits means that the statement of claim is filed in the CMS. Nothing in
R. 213 (1) RoP states or implies that the court fees have to be received by the court in order
to start the proceedings.
As Syngenta has started the main proceedings and has paid the court fee in due time, the
application must be dismissed.
Leave to appeal is granted as the present application concerns fundamental questions of
interpretation of the requirements to be met in order to satisfy the requirement of payment
under Rule 15(2) of the Rules of Procedure and what is required to start or commence
proceedings before the UPC.
As the payment was made in due time, the application for re-establishment of rights is
unfounded and must be dismissed.
5
ORDER
1. The order of the judge-rapporteur dated 12 December 2024 (ORD_65555/2024) is
upheld.
2. Syngenta’s application for re-establishment of rights (APP_64036/2024) is dismissed.
3. Leave to appeal is granted.
INFORMATION ABOUT APPEAL IN CASE OF AN ORDER FALLING UNDER ART. 73(2)(B) UPCA:
The present order may either - be the subject of an appeal by any party which has been unsuccessful,
in whole or in part, in its submissions together with the appeal against the final decision of the Court of
First Instance in the main proceedings, or - be appealed by any party which has been unsuccessful, in
whole or in part, in its submissions at the Court of Appeal with the leave of the Court of First Instance
within 15 days of service of the Court of First Instance’s decision to that effect (Art. 73(2)(b) UPCA, R.
220.2, 224.1(b) RoP)
DETAILS OF THE ORDER
Order no. ORD_11873/2025 in ACTION NUMBER: Not provided
UPC number: UPC_CFI_201/2024
Action type: Not provided
Related proceeding no. Application No.: 23636/2024
Application Type: Application for provisional measures (RoP206)
Order no. ORD_65353/2024 in ACTION NUMBER: Not provided
UPC number: UPC_CFI_201/2024
Action type: Not provided
Related proceeding no. Application No.: 23636/2024
Application Type: Application for provisional measures (RoP206)
Order no. ORD_11874/2025 in ACTION NUMBER: Not provided
UPC number: UPC_CFI_201/2024
Action type: Not provided
Related proceeding no. Application No.: 23636/2024
Application Type: Application for provisional measures (RoP206)
Dr. Zigann
Presiding Judge
Dr. Schober
Legally Qualified Judge
Pichlmaier
Legally Qualified Judge
Dorland-Galliot
Technically Qualified Judge
Matthias
ZIGANN
Digital unterschrieben von
Matthias ZIGANN
Datum: 2025.03.11 13:02:59
+01'00'
Tobias Günther
Pichlmaier
Digital unterschrieben von Tobias
Günther Pichlmaier
Datum: 2025.03.11 13:13:02 +01'00'
Walter Schober
Digital unterschrieben von
Walter Schober
Datum: 2025.03.13 11:08:42
+01'00'
XAVIER THOMAS
OLIVIER DORLAND
Signature numérique de XAVIER
THOMAS OLIVIER DORLAND
Date : 2025.03.13 11:16:10 +01'00'