Sanofi Mature IP v Accord Healthcare (CFI, 7 January 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 7 January 2025, made in the parallel infringement actions on EP 2 493 466 (UPC_CFI_145/2024 to UPC_CFI_148/2024, against Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy and Zentiva), Judge Zigann, judge-rapporteur at the Munich Local Division, substituted Sanofi Winthrop Industrie for Sanofi-Aventis France, which had been merged into it on 1 July 2024 during the proceedings. The order deals with a claimant’s succession without staying the proceedings.

Question

Does the disappearance of a co-claimant by merger during the proceedings require a stay, and what is the successor’s position?

Decision

Rule 310.1 provides for a stay where a party ceases to exist during the proceedings, until it is replaced (sections I and II). The retroactive effect of the rules on the transfer of assets is irrelevant, as it could not be taken into account when the action was filed. Since the succession of Sanofi Winthrop Industrie was undisputed, a formal stay was unnecessary and replacement sufficed. The successor is designated separately, as « Sanofi Winthrop Industrie as successor of Sanofi-Aventis France », so that the decision can be reversed, and it is bound by the proceedings as constituted. The defendants’ arguments on standing need not be decided now, and costs are reserved to the final decision (section III).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: where a claimant is merged, a Rule 305 application based on an undisputed succession avoids the stay provided for by Rule 310.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 102.2, 305, 306, 310 and 333

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.