Sumi Agro Europe v Syngenta (CoA, 4 March 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 3 March 2025, the Court of Appeal largely upholds the provisional measures granted on 27 August 2024 by the Munich Local Division to Syngenta, proprietor of EP 2 152 073 on herbicide compositions, against Sumi Agro’s Kagura herbicide. It extends the injunction to Romania, which became a Contracting Member State after the impugned order, and reverses the costs ruling: Sumi Agro is to bear Syngenta’s reasonable and proportionate costs at first instance and on appeal. The order clarifies three points of practical interest: lasting price erosion caused by the arrival of a competing product supports the necessity of relief, Art. 34 UPCA applies without transitional rules from the date a State accedes, and a costs decision must be given in inter partes provisional measures proceedings.

Facts and procedure

The Munich Local Division had prohibited Sumi Agro, in thirteen States, from making, offering, marketing, using, importing or possessing the composition, subject to penalty payments and with immediate effect. It refused to make the injunction conditional on security of EUR 5 million, dismissed both parties’ costs requests and set the value in dispute at EUR 5 million (paragraph 12). On appeal, by order of 19 December 2024 the court disregarded Sumi Agro’s new evidence and some of Syngenta’s, but admitted Syngenta’s evidence on a new version of Kagura, which could not reasonably have been filed at first instance (paragraphs 26 and 27). The 2024 version uses the same formulation with rapeseed oil from a different supplier (paragraphs 61 to 63).

The applicable law

Provisional measures are governed by Art. 62 UPCA and Rules 206 and 211 RoP, the court considers whether it is more likely than not that the patent is valid and infringed (paragraphs 69 and 89). Territorial scope follows from Art. 34 UPCA. New evidence on appeal falls under Rule 222.2 and security under Art. 62(2) UPCA and Rule 211.5.

Question

Does Kagura meet feature c) of claim 1, which requires a fatty acid at 1 to 95% by weight, is the patent more likely than not valid, are necessity and urgency established, and can the order be extended to Romania?

Decision

The court holds that “fatty acid” in feature c) means free fatty acid and that the claim covers fatty acid added separately as well as fatty acid derived from an ingredient such as vegetable oil or formed by hydrolysis, the examples not limiting the claim (paragraphs 44 and 52 to 55). Syngenta’s laboratory analysis of the 2024 version is found credible and the data sheet relied on by Sumi Agro does not rebut it. The feature is met (paragraphs 68 to 76). The patent is more likely than not valid: EP 0 915 652 does not disclose the fatty acid content and contains no pointer towards it (paragraphs 79 to 89). The two products compete directly in a market worth about EUR 50 million per season, Kagura being some 60% cheaper, lasting price erosion makes a decision on the merits insufficient, and lost sales need not be quantified (paragraphs 91 to 97). Syngenta acted with the required urgency (paragraphs 99 to 102). Art. 34 UPCA has no transitional rules, so Romania, which acceded on 1 September 2024, is added (paragraphs 103 to 109). No security is ordered, since Sumi Agro did not show that enforcing an award between UK companies would be unduly burdensome (paragraphs 113 to 116). Finally, unlike the Local Division, the court holds that a costs decision must be issued, because inter partes provisional measures proceedings conclude the action (paragraph 117).

Key points for practice

• The arrival of a second ready-made product in a market where the patentee was alone can cause lasting price erosion, a relevant factor for the necessity of provisional relief (paragraph 93).
• Art. 34 UPCA applies automatically to a State from its accession. Territorial extension may be sought on appeal (paragraphs 107 to 109).
• Where the court does not order security of its own motion, the burden of showing that it is needed generally lies on the defendant (paragraph 114).
• Practical point: in inter partes provisional measures proceedings, parties should put forward their costs requests, which will be decided in the order itself (paragraph 117).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 25(a), 34, 62, 76(1) and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 171.2, 206.2, 211, 212.3, 213, 222.2, 263, 352.1 and 354.2

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024, Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Aarke v SodaStream, Court of Appeal, 29 November 2024, 10x Genomics v NanoString, Court of Appeal, 6 August 2024, Sumi Agro v Syngenta, Court of Appeal, 19 December 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.