Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v Amgen (CoA, 13 October 2023)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order pronounced at the end of the hearing on 13 October 2023, with written reasons on 16 October 2023 (UPC_CoA_320/2023, APL_572929/2023), the Court of Appeal set aside the procedural order of the Munich Local Division of 29 August 2023 (ORD_566193/2023) and extended, for all defendants to Amgen’s infringement action (Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals), the time limit for a preliminary objection to 11 September 2023 and for the statement of defence to 10 November 2023. The Court lays down a clear rule: a statement of claim served without its exhibits is still validly served, but the defendant is entitled to an extension equal to the period during which the exhibits were unavailable.

Facts and procedure

Amgen filed its statement of claim referring to exhibits that it only uploaded to the case management system on 10 August 2023. The Local Division had found that service took place on 11 July 2023 for the first three defendants and on 19 July 2023 for Regeneron. The defendants asked for the claim to be treated as filed and served on 10 August 2023. The Local Division dismissed that main request and merely aligned the deadline for the defence with the latest one, that applying to Regeneron. The defendants appealed.

The applicable law

Rule 13.1 RoP lists exhaustively the contents of a statement of claim. Rule 13.2 RoP requires copies of the documents relied on to be provided at the same time. Service is governed by Rule 271 RoP and, under Art. 24(1)(a) UPCA, by Union law, including Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 and the CJEU’s judgment in Ingenieurbüro Weiss (paragraphs 5 to 7). The time limits for a preliminary objection and for the defence run from service (Rules 19.1 and 23 RoP).

Question

Is a statement of claim served without the exhibits it announces validly served and, if so, does the claimant’s breach of Rule 13.2 RoP warrant extending the defendant’s time limits?

Decision

On service, the Court held that a statement of claim may be validly served without its exhibits provided the defendant can assert its rights without them. Only exhibits essential to understanding the subject matter and cause of action must accompany it (paragraphs 5 to 7, 10 and 14). The documents referred to in Rule 13.2 RoP are not part of the statement of claim, but the rule has its own purpose: enabling the defendant to respond to all submissions and documents relied on (paragraphs 10 to 13 and 19 to 26). Compliance is subject to the Registry’s formal examination under Rule 16.2 RoP, where the court does not reject the claim under Rule 16.5 RoP, fairness requires an extension on a justified request (paragraphs 25 and 27). Where the claimant did not upload the exhibits together with the claim and they were unavailable when the defendant’s representative accessed the system, the extension must be granted irrespective of the nature or content of the exhibits. Unless the claimant shows special circumstances, it equals the period of unavailability, the consequences of the breach falling on the claimant (paragraphs 28 to 34). The Court rejected the first-instance reasoning (exhibits already known or public, feature analysis set out in the claim). It refused to stay the infringement action, as its decision took immediate effect (paragraphs 35 and 36).

Key points for practice

• Missing exhibits do not invalidate service of the statement of claim, save for those essential to understanding the claim.
• Late filing of exhibits entitles the defendant to an extension equal to the period of unavailability, without having to show their importance.
• Compliance with Rule 13.2 RoP falls within the Registry’s formal examination under Rule 16 RoP.
• Practical point: claimants should upload all exhibits with the statement of claim, defendants should record when the exhibits became available and apply for an extension promptly.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 24(1)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Preamble, recital 5, Rules 4, 9.2, 9.3, 13.1, 13.2, 16.2, 16.5, 19.1, 23, 270, 271 and 353

Other provisions

Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 of 25 November 2020 (service of documents)

Case law cited

CJEU, 8 May 2008, Ingenieurbüro Michael Weiss und Partner, C-14/07

Related decisions

• Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v Amgen, 29 August 2023, Munich Local Division order set aside on appeal.

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.