Alexion v Amgen & Alexion v Samsung Bioepis (UPC_CoA_405/2024 & UPC_CoA_402/2024)
Decision date:
19 June 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- Alexion made an application to the Court of Appeal for a rehearing on the basis that the Court of Appeal's previous decision rejecting Alexion's appeal of the Hamburg LD's decision to dismiss its request for provisional measures was made by means of fundamental procedural errors. It contended that the Court of Appeal (i) applied a completely new standard for claim interpretation without providing proper opportunity for Alexion to be heard, and (ii) based its decision on incorrect facts.
- The Court of Appeal rejected Alexion's application. The requirements set out in Article 81(1) UPCA and Rule 247 RoP had not been complied with and the existence of a fundamental procedural defect had not been established. It continued that the literal wording of Article 81(1) UPCA makes it clear that a rehearing may exceptionally be granted only if the decision suffers from one of the serious deficiencies. A rehearing is not a regular appeal proceeding and it is not intended that mere errors of any kind can be a ground for an application for rehearing.
- The court stated: "[i]n order to qualify as a ground for rehearing, a procedural defect must be so fundamental that it is intolerable for the legal system and overriding the principle that proceedings which have led to a final decision should not be re-opened in the interest of legal certainty".
- It is for the court to assess the arguments put forward by parties and to evaluate the evidence presented by the parties. The court may make its own assessment of the weight that expert opinions and witness statements carry. It is for the court to assess the relevance to the subject-matter of the dispute and the need to examine witnesses named and requested to be heard. However, the court is not in general under an obligation to hear any of the experts whose written opinions have been submitted as evidence by a party.
- The court explained that interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law. It is for the court to establish "what the skilled person’s understanding is of the terms used in the patent claim in the context of the patent claim as a whole and considering the description and drawings. In doing so, it shall consider and weigh the arguments and facts brought forward by the parties, including any expert opinions, freely and independently, however, without being bound by it." The court is free to make findings on points of law.
- The court stated that Alexion in essence did not agree with the conclusions drawn by the Court of Appeal. However, mere disagreement with the reasoning and considerations of the Court of Appeal and the outcome of the case was not a ground for a rehearing.
- The decision relating to the second defendant in the joint action is available in full here.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.