Sankyo v Biogaran and others (Cass. com., 21-25.143, 2023)

Date	6 September 2023
Jurisdiction	France
Court	French Court of Cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber
Case number	21-25.143
Parties	[J] Sankyo Company Limited, venant aux droits de Sankyo Company Limited (demanderesse au pourvoi) v Biogaran, directeur général de l'office (anonymisé « [7] »), Teva santé, E G Labo (Laboratoires Eurogenerics) et Sandoz (défendeurs)
Language of the decision	FR

Text of the decision · Texte intégral reproduit par l'INPI, PIBD (pibd.inpi.fr), texte partiellement anonymisé ; Juricaf et Légifrance non accessibles à l'outil

Dhenne Avocats · 11 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The French Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal by the holder of an SPC for pravastatin, which had lapsed for non-payment of the fourth annual fee, against the Paris Court of Appeal judgment of 21 May 2021 given on remittal after cassation. Two points emerge: notification of the lapse decision to the sole representative appointed at filing was valid, payment of the fees by another firm not amounting to the appointment of a new representative (paras 8 to 11); and the lapse of an SPC is indivisible and benefits all generic companies party to the proceedings, not only the third party opponent (paras 15 and 16).

Question

Does payment of annual fees by a second attorney change the representative entitled to receive notifications, and may a judgment set aside on third party opposition be confined to the opponent alone?

Decision

Sankyo, a foreign company, was required to appoint a representative in France and had given the appointed firm a general power, with no provision excluding receipt of notifications (paras 8 and 9). Payment of the fees by another firm does not amount to appointing a new representative and the office had not been told of any change: the Court of Appeal rightly concluded that the first firm remained the only appointed representative when the lapse decision was notified (paras 10 and 11). On the second ground, the admissibility of EG Labo’s and Sandoz’s interventions had become final (para 14). The lapse applies erga omnes, as an SPC cannot lapse for some parties and remain valid for others: the dispute was indivisible by its subject matter and the Court of Appeal was right to refuse to confine the setting aside to Biogaran (paras 15 and 16).

Key points for practice

A foreign holder must inform the office of any change of representative; otherwise notifications to the original representative bind it (paras 10 and 11).
Practical point: the lapse of an SPC, being indivisible, benefits all generic companies party to the proceedings (para 16).

Provisions applied

National law: Decree No 79-822 of 19 September 1979, Article 2, extended to SPCs by Decree No 91-1180 of 19 November 1991; French Intellectual Property Code, Article R. 612-2 (version prior to Decree No 2007-731); Code of Civil Procedure, Articles 455, 584, 591 and 700
Case law cited: Cass. com., 4 December 2019, Nos 17-31.734, 18-11.410 and 18-11.918; Paris Court of Appeal, 14 March 2007; Paris Court of Appeal, 27 October 2017, RG No 13/15762

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the text of the decision (PIBD, INPI, partly anonymised text), consulted on 11 October 2026. Only the official text is authoritative.