The German Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main has dismissed an application to set aside a partial final ICC award in <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Docket No 32 Sch 5/25</span>. The dispute arose between PharmaEssentia, a Taiwanese biopharmaceutical company and AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals, an Austrian pharmaceutical company. The parties had entered into a 2009 licence agreement concerning the development and marketing of a blood cancer treatment.
The dispute developed into multibillion-euro arbitration proceedings. A first ICC arbitration resulted in an award in 2020. In December 2021, the German Federal Court of Justice partially set aside that award, including on the basis of a deficiency in the tribunal’s reasoning concerning the element of intent on the part of PharmaEssentia.
A second ICC arbitration was then conducted with its seat in Frankfurt. In those proceedings, the parties expanded their claims, with damages and payment claims exceeding EUR 9.5 billion in total. On 10 February 2025, the tribunal issued a partial final award. It dismissed more than EUR 5 billion of PharmaEssentia’s claims and more than EUR 3.2 billion of AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals’ counterclaims. The tribunal also awarded AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals EUR 1.56 million and reserved decisions on quantum for certain further claims.
PharmaEssentia sought partial annulment of the partial final award. It raised numerous objections, arguing that the award involved a significant disparity in the treatment of the parties and breached the principle of procedural equality of arms. Among other things, PharmaEssentia alleged that:
The Frankfurt Court considered each objection individually and rejected them all. In doing so, the Court repeatedly emphasised that PharmaEssentia’s complaints were, in reality, challenges to the substantive correctness of the award. Such challenges are not permissible in set-aside proceedings. The Court reiterated the principle of révision au fond, namely that courts may not review the merits of an arbitral tribunal’s decision under the guise of annulment proceedings. The applicant’s objections were treated as matters of substantive law, falling outside the Court’s limited scope of review.
The decision confirms the settled approach of the German courts. A party may not disguise merits-based criticism of an arbitral award as procedural objections in order to obtain judicial reconsideration of the tribunal’s reasoning or conclusions.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Docket No 32 Sch 5/25</span>, German Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main, 24 April 2026, German language.
