Sanofi Mature IP v Accord Healthcare (CFI, 14 January 2025)
| Date | 14 January 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Application RoP262A |
| Registry reference | App_55583/2024 · ORD_59844/2024 |
| Parties | Accord 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.
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
- The confidentiality club includes at least one natural person per party. Additional technical restrictions (videoconference, no screenshots) must be justified beyond the duty of confidentiality.
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
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
Parties
- claimantAccord Healthcare B.V.4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantAccord Healthcare GmbHFollow this party
- claimantAccord HealthcareFollow this party
- claimantUnipessoal Lda4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantAccord Healthcare Italia SrlFollow this party
- claimantAccFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 2 493 466mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 27 March 2024) cited in this record
- Promosome v BioNTech (CFI, 10 March 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 493 466Novel 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 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 |
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.