Syngenta v Sumi Agro (CFI, 12 December 2024)

Date	12 December 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic Order
Registry reference	ORD_65555/2024
Parties	Syngenta Limited v. Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe 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 an order of 12 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_201/2024, ORD_65555/2024), the presiding judge of panel 1 of the Munich Local Division, acting as judge-rapporteur, dismissed Syngenta Limited’s application to revoke order ORD 47657/2024 made in favour of Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited (EP 2 152 073) for failure to start proceedings on the merits in time. Proceedings on the merits are started by filing the statement of claim in the CMS. Receipt of the fee by the Court is not required.

Question

Are proceedings on the merits started within the time limit of Rule 213.1 where the statement of claim is filed in time but the fee is received by the Court only after the deadline?

Decision

According to Syngenta, the periods of 20 working days and 31 calendar days expired on 24 and 27 September 2024, the statement of claim having been uploaded on 27 September and the fee received on 30 September. The judge-rapporteur rejected that reading: Rule 15.2 makes lodging of the statement of claim conditional on payment of the fees, not on their receipt by the Court, in all three language versions. Rule 213.1 only requires the applicant to start proceedings on the merits, which means filing the statement of claim in the CMS. As Sumi Agro had started the main proceedings and paid the fee in time, the application was dismissed with costs against Syngenta.

Key points for practice

For the Rule 213.1 time limit, what counts is the date of payment and filing, not the date the funds reach the Court.
Practical point: a party that has obtained provisional measures must file and pay within the time limit and keep proof of the payment date.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 15.2, 102.2, 198, 213.1 and 333

Related decisions

Sumi Agro Europe v Syngenta, 27 August 2024, provisional measures order.

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
defendantSumi Agro Limited8 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantSumi Agro Europe Limited12 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 Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le juge rapporteur rejette la demande de levée des mesures provisoires : l'action au fond est engagée par le dépôt du mémoire dans le CMS, la réception de la taxe par la Juridiction n'étant pas requise.
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

Syngenta v Sumi Agro (CFI, 27 August 2024) cited in this record

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) · Syngenta v Sumi Agro (CFI, 11 March 2025) · Sumi Agro Europe v Syngenta (CoA, 4 March 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.