Syngenta v Sumi Agro & Anor (UPC_CFI_566/2024 & UPC_CFI_39/2025)
Decision date:
14 April 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- Syngenta requested leave to amend its claim to include the territories of Poland, the Czech Republic, and the UK under Rule 263 RoP.
- Syngenta argued that the amendment was only possible following the CJEU decision in BSH v Electrolux as it clarified various jurisdiction issues.
- Sumi Agro contended Syngenta could have made the amendment earlier with reasonable diligence.
- The court allowed Syngenta's application, finding that it could not have been expected to include the non-UPC territories in its original statement of claim in the main proceedings according to the established case law prior to BSH v Electrolux.
- Syngenta was not obliged to include the territories in question already in its original statement of claim on the basis of the Advocate General's Opinion in BSH v Electrolux as it was not binding and therefore did not create legal certainty on the issue.
- See our Insight for more detail on this decision.
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.