Opens in a new tab

Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland (CFI, 29 August 2023)

Date29 August 2023
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_14/2023
Registry referenceORD_566193/2023 · UPC_CFI_14/2023
PartiesSanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Amgen, Inc.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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 29 August 2023 (ORD_566193/2023, UPC_CFI_14/2023, ACT_459916/2023), the full panel of the Munich Local Division fixed the dates of service of Amgen’s statement of claim in its infringement action on EP 3666797 against Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. It held that a statement of claim which merely announces exhibits to be uploaded later is complete and validly served without them, and refused in principle any extension on that ground, but exceptionally extended by six days the deadline for the defence of the first three defendants, in view of teething problems with the new system, so that all deadlines end on 17 October 2023. Leave to appeal was granted. The order was set aside by the Court of Appeal on 13 October 2023.

Question

When is a statement of claim served where the exhibits it announces are only uploaded later, and does that delay justify extending the time limits for a preliminary objection and for the defence?

Decision

Electronic service takes effect on the day the message is sent (Rule 271.6(a) RoP), the short delay before access is activated is negligible (point 1). Exhibits merely announced are neither evidence submitted under Rule 13.1(m) RoP nor a reference under Rule 13.2 RoP, so the statement of claim is complete (point 2). An extension requires the other party to be heard (Rule 9.3 RoP), aligning deadlines is not a ground in itself, nor is the late upload, since most exhibits concern the attacked embodiment or are public (point 3). The time limits for a preliminary objection had already expired (point 4). Leave to appeal was granted because the issue affects many cases (point 6).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 32(1)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 8.1, 9.3, 13.1(m), 13.2, 16, 19, 23, 102.1, 220.2, 223.5, 270.2, 271, 272.2 and 272.3
Other provisions
Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 (service of documents), Art. 19
Case law cited
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v Amgen, Munich Central Division, 29 June 2023, Munich Central Division, 23 June 2023, ORD_526798/2023 (UPC_CFI_1/2023), Edwards Lifesciences v Meril, Munich Local Division, 1 August 2023 (App_557291/2023), Edwards Lifesciences v Meril, Munich Local Division, 23 August 2023 (App_561742/2023)

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (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
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

  • UPC_CFI_14/2023 official number

Follow this case

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 17 July 2023 Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland (CFI, 17 July 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_14/2023

    Le juge rapporteur disjoint la procédure contre Regeneron, non encore signifiée, pour ne pas retarder l'instance contre les sociétés Sanofi, et partage par moitié les frais de justice.

  2. 28 July 2023 Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland (CFI, 28 July 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_14/2023

    La procédure contre Regeneron n'est pas disjointe, Amgen ayant retiré sa demande après la signification. L'ordonnance provisoire du 17 juillet 2023 devient sans objet.

  3. 16 August 2023 Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland (CFI, 16 August 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_14/2023

    Le juge rapporteur dispense exceptionnellement les parties de réitérer les demandes déposées dans de mauvais circuits, fixe au 21 août 2023 le terme des observations et réserve un circuit unique aux délais et à l'audition conjointe.

  4. 17 August 2023 Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland (CFI, 17 August 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_14/2023

    Le juge rapporteur dispense exceptionnellement les parties de réitérer les demandes déposées dans de mauvais circuits, réserve un circuit unique aux questions de délais et fixe au 22 août 2023 le terme des observations.

  5. 17 August 2023 Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v Amgen (CFI, 17 August 2023) Generic Order · UPC_CFI_14/2023
  6. 29 August 2023 Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland (CFI, 29 August 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_14/2023
  7. 3 November 2023 Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland (CFI, 3 November 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_14/2023

    La langue de procédure passe de l'allemand à l'anglais, langue de délivrance du brevet, toutes les parties et la formation y consentant. Amgen traduit son mémoire introductif sous deux mois.

  8. 2 January 2024 Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland (CFI, UPC_CFI_14/2023, ORD_597730/2023, 2 January 2024) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_14/2023

    Le juge rapporteur proroge au 8 janvier 2024 le délai accordé aux défenderesses pour commenter les dates provisoires de la conférence intermédiaire et de l'audience.

  9. 2 January 2024 Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland (CFI, UPC_CFI_14/2023, ORD_597730/2023, 2 January 2024, doc. 2) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_14/2023
  10. 2 January 2024 Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland (CFI, UPC_CFI_14/2023, ORD_597730/2023, 2 January 2024, doc. 3) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_14/2023
  11. 2 February 2024 Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland (CFI, 2 February 2024) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_14/2023

    La division locale de Munich renvoie la demande reconventionnelle en nullité de Regeneron à la division centrale et poursuit l'action en contrefaçon d'Amgen, en se réservant de la suspendre ultérieurement.

  12. 24 February 2024 Sanofi v Amgen (CFI, 24 February 2024) Revocation Action · UPC_CFI_14/2023

    L'action en nullité de Sanofi et la demande reconventionnelle en nullité de Regeneron contre le brevet d'Amgen sont instruites conjointement en vue d'une audience le 4 juin 2024, la valeur de chaque action étant fixée à 100 millions d'euros.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La division locale juge le mémoire en demande complet et valablement signifié malgré le téléversement ultérieur des pièces annoncées, refuse en principe toute prorogation, mais aligne à titre exceptionnel le délai de défense de tous les défendeurs au 17 octobre 2023.
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 3 666 797
Antigen binding proteins to proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin type 9 (PCSK9)
recorded proprietor: Amgen Inc		Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 21 other decision(s): Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland (CoA, 25 November 2025) · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v Amgen (CFI, 16 July 2024) · Regeneron Pharmaceuticals v Amgen (CFI, 16 July 2024) · SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND v AMGEN (CoA, 25 March 2026) · SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND v AMGEN (CoA, 18 February 2026) · Dehns v Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (CFI, 22 October 2024) · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v Amgen (CFI, ORD_47230/2024, 22 October 20 · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v Amgen (CFI, ORD_47238/2024, 22 October 20		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.