Opens in a new tab

Sanofi Winthrop Industrie v Accord Healthcare (CFI, 22 January 2025)

Date22 January 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric Order
Registry referenceORD_3577/2025
PartiesSanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Mature IP, S…

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.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By a common order of 22 January 2025, issued after the preliminary interim conference in Sanofi’s four joined infringement actions against Accord, Stada, Reddy and Zentiva (UPC_CFI_145/2024 to UPC_CFI_148/2024, EP 2 493 466, cabazitaxel), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division (Judge Zigann) set the value of the actions and counterclaims and directed Sanofi to clarify its requests. The order sets out a method for valuing the dispute and defers any disclosure of the infringers’ profits.

Question

How should the value of several parallel infringement actions and of the counterclaims be set, and may disclosure of profits be ordered while validity is contested before the EPO and in France?

Decision

The judge estimated that remedies other than damages double the value of the damages claim: EUR 8.5 million for Accord, EUR 32 million for Stada, EUR 16.5 million for Reddy and EUR 16 million for Zentiva, with Sanofi to pay the additional fees within thirty days. Under point 2.b of the Guidelines, each counterclaim is worth the sum of the actions plus 50%, namely EUR 109.5 million. Requests for disclosure of profits belong in dedicated workflows, and none will be ordered before the EPO Board of Appeal issues its preliminary opinion, the French designation having been invalidated at first instance. The judge indicated that France could be carved out and that the UPC has jurisdiction over damages for periods before 1 June 2023. Other deadlines were waived.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 47(3), Art. 67 and Art. 68
Rules of Procedure
Rules 19, 102.2, 105.5, 118, 119, 263, 333, 334, 355, 361 and 363

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: Supplementary protection certificate (SPC), Biosimilar medicinal product, Launch at risk.

Dhenne Avocats blog: 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
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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Generic Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Le juge rapporteur fixe la valeur des quatre actions entre 8,5 et 32 millions d'euros et celle de chaque demande reconventionnelle à 109,5 millions d'euros, enjoint à Sanofi de préciser ses demandes et diffère toute communication des bénéfices.
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

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 2 493 466
Novel antitumoral use of cabazitaxel
recorded proprietor: Sanofi SA
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 12 other decision(s): Sanofi v Reddy Pharma (CFI, 12 December 2025) · Zentiva France v Sanofi Mature IP (CFI, 24 January 2025) · Accord Healthcare v Sanofi (Paris Judicial Court, RG 21/06416, 2024) · Sanofi v Accord Healthcare (CFI, ORD_69482/2024, 15 September 2025) · Sanofi v Accord Healthcare (CFI, ORD_69480/2024, 15 September 2025) · Sanofi v Accord Healthcare (CFI, 17 July 2025) · Sanofi v Zentiva France (CFI, 27 June 2025) · Sanofi v Accord Healthcare (CFI, 8 May 2025)
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.