Opens in a new tab

Sumi Agro Europe v Syngenta (CoA, 23 June 2025)

Date23 June 2025
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionAppeal RoP220.2
Registry referenceAPL_14947/2025 · ORD_28113/2025
PartiesSumi 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
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
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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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 2 152 073
Herbicide 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 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.