Sanofi Winthrop Industrie v Accord Healthcare (CFI, 22 January 2025)
| Date | 22 January 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic Order |
| Registry reference | ORD_3577/2025 |
| Parties | Sanofi 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.
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
- The value of a counterclaim opposing several parallel actions may be based on the sum of their values plus 50%.
- Practical point: disclosure of the infringer’s profits must be sought in a dedicated workflow, and the judge weighs the prospects of success in light of pending validity proceedings.
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
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
Parties
- claimantS4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantSanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH28 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantSanofi-Aventis GmbH9 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantSanofi S.r.l.7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantSanofi B.V.12 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantSanofi AB6 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantSanofi Winthrop Industrie13 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantSanofi Mature IP10 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 2 493 466mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 493 466Novel 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · 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 |
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.