Syngenta v Sumi Agro (CFI, 11 March 2025)

Date	11 March 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_2747/2025 · ORD_11873/2025
Parties	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 11 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_201/2024, ACT_23636/2024), the Munich Local Division (M. Zigann, presiding and rapporteur, W. Schober, T. Pichlmaier and X. Dorland-Galliot), on a review application by Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited, upheld the judge-rapporteur’s order of 12 December 2024 refusing to revoke the provisional measures granted to Syngenta on 27 August 2024 on EP 2 152 073, dismissed Syngenta’s application for re-establishment of rights and granted leave to appeal.

Question

Are proceedings on the merits following provisional measures started in time where the statement of claim is filed in the CMS within the time limit but the court fee reaches the Court only after it has expired?

Decision

Sumi Agro argued that the 31-day period had expired on 27 September 2024 and that the fee had been received only on 30 September. The panel held that Rule 15.2 had been misread: its English, German and French versions require only that the fee has been paid, not received, and the rule sets no date of filing. Starting proceedings under Rule 213.1 means filing the statement of claim in the CMS, with no requirement that the fee has been received. As Syngenta had started the action and paid the fee in time, the review application failed and re-establishment was unfounded. Leave to appeal is granted, as the case raises fundamental questions of interpretation.

Key points for practice

Practical point: it is enough to file the statement of claim in the CMS and pay the fee before the deadline, the date on which the funds arrive is irrelevant.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 73(2)(b)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 15.2, 213.1, 220.2 and 224.1(b)
Case law cited: No UPC decision is cited.

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: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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

claimantSyngenta Limited16 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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 application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): L'action au fond est engagée par le dépôt du mémoire dans le CMS, la règle 15.2 exigeant seulement le paiement et non la réception de la taxe. Le refus de révoquer les mesures provisoires est confirmé.
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 2 152 073 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`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) · Sumi Agro Europe v Syngenta (CoA, 23 June 2025) · Syngenta v Sumi Agro (CFI, 14 April 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

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.