Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company (CoA, 30 July 2024)

Date	30 July 2024
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_43889/2024 · ORD_44368/2024
Parties	Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a procedural order of 30 July 2024 (UPC_CoA_405/2024), the Court of Appeal rejected Alexion’s request to expedite its appeal against the Hamburg Local Division’s order refusing provisional measures against nine Amgen group companies under EP 3 167 888. The wish to obtain patent protection quickly and the purely legal nature of the issue were not enough to shorten the respondents’ time to reply. The order notes that, for provisional measures, the response period is already short. On the same day the Court issued a separate order in Alexion’s appeal against Samsung Bioepis (UPC_CoA_402/2024).

Question

Should the respondents’ time limit for lodging their statement of response be shortened under Rule 9.3(b) in an appeal against an order made under Rule 220.1(c)?

Decision

The Court may shorten a time period on a reasoned request, balancing the parties’ interests and respecting due process, including equality of arms (paragraph 5). The circumstances were not so urgent that the appellant’s interests should prevail: the 15-day response period is already short, and the fact that the appellant did not use its full time for the statement of grounds made no difference (paragraph 6). As the order did not adversely affect the respondents, there was no need to hear them (paragraph 7).

Key points for practice

Expediting an appeal in interim proceedings requires specific urgency, beyond the patentee’s general interest in prompt protection.
Practical point: filing the grounds of appeal early gives no entitlement to require the other side to respond sooner.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 9.3(b) and 220.1(c)
Case law cited: Court of Appeal, 19 June 2024, UPC_CoA_301/2024 (APL_33746/2024, App_35055/2024)

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.

Going further

Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantAlexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.11 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La cour d’appel rejette la demande d’Alexion d’abréger le délai de réponse des intimées, l’urgence invoquée ne l’emportant pas sur leurs intérêts et le délai de 15 jours étant déjà bref.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 167 888 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 167 888` Treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria patients by an inhibitor of complement recorded proprietor: Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 11 other decision(s): Samsung Bioepis NL v Alexion Pharmaceuticals (CoA, 18 February 2026) · Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis NL (CFI, 1 August 2025) · Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis (CFI, 1 August 2025) · Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company · Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis (CoA, 19 June 2025) · Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis NL (CoA, 20 December 2024) · Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company · Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Amgen Technology (Ireland) (CoA, 8 August 20	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.