Sanofi v Accord Healthcare (CFI, 8 May 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 8 May 2025, the judge rapporteur of the Munich Local Division, dealing with Sanofi’s four joined actions against Accord, STADA, Reddy and Zentiva under EP 2 493 466 (UPC_CFI_145/2024 to UPC_CFI_148/2024, with the counterclaims for revocation), deferred the preliminary objections to the main proceedings and referred the remaining pending requests to the panel for decision after the oral hearing, and set the timetable. His observations on Rule 263 and on poorly drafted requests are of practical interest.

Question

Should the preliminary objections, repeatedly amended requests and requests for information be decided at the interim stage?

Decision

Using his powers under Rule 332, the judge rapporteur preferred to await the decision of the EPO Board of Appeal (hearing on 2 to 4 June 2025), the French designation having been invalidated at first instance in France. As Sanofi had still not, despite several invitations, filed unambiguous requests, no further opportunity to cure will be given: the panel will interpret the claims, which alone bind it (Art. 76(1) UPCA), and the extra cost caused may weigh in the costs decision (Art. 69(3) UPCA). Adding auxiliary requests for indirect infringement and a request for an interim award of damages does not appear to fall under Rule 263, since the patent and product remain the same. An order to produce sales figures would be premature. The rejoinder is due within two months, the written procedure closes on 8 August 2025 and the oral hearing remains set for 14 to 17 October 2025.

Key points for practice

• In the judge rapporteur’s view, relying on indirect infringement in the alternative is not an amendment of the case under Rule 263 as long as the patent and the product remain the same.
• Ambiguous requests do not lead to dismissal on formal grounds, but the ambiguity may count against the claimant when costs are apportioned.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 34, 47, 69(3) and 76(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9, 13, 20.2, 29, 118, 119, 125, 263, 265, 332 and 333

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_456/2024 and UPC_CoA_169/2025, Munich Local Division, 22 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_114/2024)

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.