Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis NL (CoA, 30 July 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 30 July 2024 (UPC_CoA_402/2024, APL_40470/2024), the Court of Appeal rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals’ request to expedite its appeal against the Hamburg Local Division’s dismissal of its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis NL on EP 3 167 888. The wish to obtain protection quickly and the purely legal nature of the issue were not enough to shorten the respondent’s time to reply.

Question

Can an appellant in provisional measures proceedings obtain, under Rule 9.3(b) RoP, a shorter period for the respondent to file its statement of response?

Decision

Not on these facts. The Court may shorten time periods on a reasoned request, balancing both parties’ interests with due regard to due process and equality of arms (paragraph 5). The circumstances were not urgent enough for the appellant’s interest to prevail: the fifteen-day response period for orders under Rule 220.1(c) RoP is already short, and the fact that the appellant did not use its full time for its grounds made no difference (paragraph 6). As the decision did not adversely affect the respondent, it was not heard (paragraph 7).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: on appeal in provisional measures proceedings, a request to expedite must rest on concrete urgency, beyond the general interest in swift protection.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3(b) and 220.1(c)

Case law cited

UPC Court of Appeal, 19 June 2024, UPC_CoA_301/2024.

Related decisions

• Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis NL, 26 June 2024, Hamburg Local Division order dismissing the provisional measures.

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.