Sumi Agro Europe v Syngenta (CoA, 23 June 2025)
| Date | 23 June 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Appeal RoP220.2 |
| Registry reference | APL_14947/2025 · ORD_28113/2025 |
| Parties | Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited v. Syngenta Limited |
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 order of 23 June 2025, the Court of Appeal dismisses Sumi Agro’s appeal against the Munich Local Division’s order of 11 March 2025 refusing to revoke the provisional measures granted to Syngenta on the basis of EP 2 152 073 (UPC_CoA_286/2025). Sumi Agro argued that the proceedings on the merits had not been started in time, as the Court received the court fee only on 30 September 2024. The Court of Appeal lays down a general rule on when court fees count as paid, relevant to any time limit that depends on payment.
Question
Are court fees paid in time where the transfer order is given to the bank on the day the pleading is lodged but the amount reaches the Court only on the next working day?
Decision
Art. 70(2) UPCA and Rule 371.1 are to be interpreted as meaning that fees are paid in time if the transfer order is given to a bank when the pleading is lodged, provided the payment is subsequently received (paragraphs 11 and 12). The lodging party can thus check compliance and use the full time limit without depending on bank processing times (paragraphs 13 and 15), the requirement to file proof of payment with the pleading (Rule 371.2) points the same way (paragraph 14). Fees never received are not deemed paid (paragraph 16). Syngenta gave its transfer order on 27 September 2024, the day it lodged its statement of claim, so Sumi Agro’s argument fails (paragraphs 17 and 18). Sumi Agro bears the costs of the appeal (paragraph 20).
Key points for practice
- The date of the transfer order, not the date funds are received, determines when court fees are paid, provided they are actually received.
- Practical point: a party lodging a pleading on the last day of a time limit should give the transfer order the same day and file proof of it.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 69(1) and Art. 70(2)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 15.2, 213.1 and 371
Related decisions
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: UPC Court of Appeal.
Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.
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
- defendantSyngenta Limited16 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantSumi Agro Limited8 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantSumi Agro Europe Limited12 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Appeal RoP220.2
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La cour d’appel juge que les frais de justice sont payés à temps lorsque l’ordre de virement est donné lors du dépôt de l’acte, pourvu que la somme soit ensuite reçue, et rejette l’appel de Sumi Agro.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Patents mentioned
EP 2 152 073mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Syngenta v Sumi Agro (CFI, 11 March 2025) cited in this record
- Sumi Agro Europe v Syngenta (CoA, 4 March 2025) cited in this record
- Syngenta v Sumi Agro (CFI, 27 August 2024) cited in this record
- Dainese v Alpinestars (CoA, 10 September 2026) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 152 073Herbicide compositions recorded proprietor: Syngenta Ltd | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 14 other decision(s): Gowling WLG v Sumi Agro (CoA, 24 February 2026) · Sumi Agro v Syngenta (CoA, 24 December 2025) · Docket Navigator (applicant) in Sumi Agro v Syngenta (CoA, 19 December · Syngenta v Sumi Agro (CFI, 29 July 2025) · Syngenta v Sumi Agro (CFI, 14 April 2025) · Syngenta v Sumi Agro (CFI, 11 March 2025) · Sumi Agro Europe v Syngenta (CoA, 4 March 2025) · Syngenta v Sumi Agro Europe (CFI, 12 February 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.