Amgen v Sanofi Biotechnology (CoA, 24 March 2026)
| Date | 24 March 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Appeal RoP220.1 |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CoA_646/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CoA_646/2025 |
| Parties | Amgen N.V., Amgen S.R.L, Amgen GmbH, Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Inc., Amgen Europe B.V. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sanofi Biot… |
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
In a decision of 24 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_646/2025), the UPC Court of Appeal allowed Amgen N.V. and six other Amgen companies to withdraw their appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division decision of 13 May 2025 (UPC_CFI_505/2023, EP 3 536 712), insofar as it dismissed their counterclaim for revocation. As the parties had settled and waived a cost decision, none was given. The court did, however, dismiss the request for reimbursement of court fees: the withdrawal came in the interim phase, after the written procedure had closed. The decision is a reminder that the timing of a settlement has a direct bearing on court fees.
Question
Can an appellant withdrawing after the close of the written procedure obtain a full or partial refund of the court fees paid for the appeal?
Decision
Withdrawal was allowed under Rule 265.1, which applies mutatis mutandis to appeals, as the respondents had consented and so had no legitimate interest in a decision (paragraphs 9 and 10). Reimbursement is available only in the situations listed in Rules 370.9 and 370.10, on a reasoned application under Rule 370.11 (paragraph 12). Rule 370.9, in the version applicable since 1 January 2026 (paragraph 13), provides for a 50% refund where the action is withdrawn before the written procedure closes, which applies correspondingly to appeals (paragraph 14). Since the withdrawal came after that point (paragraph 15) and the court has no discretion beyond Rules 370.9 and 370.10 (paragraph 16), the request was dismissed (paragraph 17).
Key points for practice
- On appeal, the 50% refund under Rule 370.9(b)(i) is available only where the appeal is withdrawn before the written procedure closes (paragraphs 14 and 15).
- Asking for reimbursement « as the Court deems appropriate » achieves nothing: the court has no discretion outside the cases provided for in the Rules (paragraph 16).
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 265.1, 295(a), 370.9(b)(i), 370.10 and 370.11
- Case law cited
- Court of Appeal, 5 July 2024, UPC_CoA_234/2024, Court of Appeal, DISH v AYLO PREMIUM, 9 January 2025
Related decisions
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, Supplementary protection certificate (SPC), Biosimilar medicinal product, Launch at risk.
Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show, Pharmaceutical patents and the UPC: is the Court hostile to them?.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: The Launch Letter: How Generics and Biosimilars Should Write to Avoid UPC Urgency (Kluwer Patent Blog).
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
UPC_CoA_646/2025official number
UPC_CFI_505/2023Parties
- claimantAmgen N.V.4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantAmgen S.R.L5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantAmgen GmbH5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantAmgen B.V.3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantAmgen S.A.S4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantAmgen Inc.24 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantAmgen Europe B.V.2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantRegeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sanofi BiotFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Appeal RoP220.1
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La cour d'appel autorise le désistement de l'appel d'Amgen après transaction, sans décision sur les frais, et rejette la demande de remboursement des frais de justice, le désistement étant postérieur à la clôture de la procédure écrite.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal (first instance cited: UPC_CFI_505/2023).
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Patents mentioned
EP 3 536 712mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Sanofi Biotechnology v Amgen (CoA, 24 March 2026) cited in this record
- Sanofi Biotechnology v Amgen (CFI, 13 May 2025) cited in this record
- DISH Technologies v AYLO PREMIUM (CoA, 9 January 2025) cited in this record
- NovaCloud Licensing v Meta Platforms Ireland (CFI, UPC_CFI_1310/2025, 18 September 2026) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 536 712 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): Sanofi Biotechnology v Amgen (CFI, 13 May 2025) · Sanofi Biotechnology v Amgen (CoA, 24 March 2026) · Sanofi Biotechnologies v Amgen (CFI, 6 August 2025) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked 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.