Opens in a new tab

Sanofi Mature IP v Accord Healthcare (CFI, 14 January 2025)

Date14 January 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionApplication RoP262A
Registry referenceApp_55583/2024 · ORD_59844/2024
PartiesAccord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Acc…

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

By order of 14 January 2025, Presiding Judge Matthias Zigann, acting as judge-rapporteur of panel 1 of the Munich Local Division, ruled on Sanofi’s application to protect the witness statement filed as Exhibit D.4 in its infringement actions on EP 2 493 466 against Accord Healthcare, STADAPHARM, Reddy Pharma and Zentiva France (UPC_CFI_145/2024 to UPC_CFI_148/2024). The exhibit is largely confidential, but access cannot be confined to each defendant’s representative alone. The order sets out the minimum content of the confidentiality club under Rule 262A RoP.

Question

Which information in Exhibit D.4 is confidential and who may access its unredacted version?

Decision

The witness’s personal details and passport copy do not fall under Rule 262A RoP, they remain protected through Rule 262 RoP and the GDPR. The remaining redacted information (remuneration, intra-group accounting, sales and profit figures, licence terms) is confidential, its public availability not having been shown. Access must include at least one natural person per party and all lawyers and representatives. The persons nominated by the defendants were admitted, Zentiva’s list being reduced. Videoconference-only access and a ban on screenshots were refused, since the persons admitted are already bound by confidentiality, on pain of a penalty payment. Sanofi must file an amended redacted version within five days and the defendants must provide English translations of cited case law within thirty days.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 58
Rules of Procedure
Rules 102.2, 262, 262A and 333
Other provisions
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR)
Case law cited
FUJIFILM v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 27 March 2024 (relied on by Sanofi)

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: Confidentiality club.

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

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
Application RoP262A
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La pièce D.4 est confidentielle, sauf les données personnelles du témoin. L'accès est ouvert aux représentants et à des personnes physiques désignées par chaque défenderesse, sans restriction à la visioconférence.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 493 466
Novel antitumoral use of cabazitaxel
recorded proprietor: Sanofi SA
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 12 other decision(s): Sanofi v Reddy Pharma (CFI, 12 December 2025) · Zentiva France v Sanofi Mature IP (CFI, 24 January 2025) · Accord Healthcare v Sanofi (Paris Judicial Court, RG 21/06416, 2024) · Sanofi v Accord Healthcare (CFI, ORD_69482/2024, 15 September 2025) · Sanofi v Accord Healthcare (CFI, ORD_69480/2024, 15 September 2025) · Sanofi v Accord Healthcare (CFI, 17 July 2025) · Sanofi v Zentiva France (CFI, 27 June 2025) · Sanofi v Accord Healthcare (CFI, 8 May 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · 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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.