UPC CFI 927/2025
25. Sept. 2025·EP3592333 Einheitspatent · A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION COMPRISING RACECADOTRIL AND PROCESS FOR PREPARING THE SAME
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusInterim PhaseVerfahrensartNichtigkeitKategorieHauptnichtigkeitsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- La Siddhi Consultancy LimitedSonstige / unbekannt
Beklagte- Athena Pharmaceutiques SASUnternehmen
- SubstipharmUnternehmen
Vertreter- Jegannath Korukottu-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
- Division
- Milan CD
- Technologie
- ChemistryPharmaceuticals
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 13. März 2026
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 19. Mai 2026
| Patent nichtig | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Milan CD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Andrea Postiglione | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Anna-Lena Klein | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Michael Alt | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: La Siddhi Consultancy Limited (2 Verfahren)·Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS (2 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 1 weitere Verfahren
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
- 2026-05-19Revocation ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Court partially granted the claimant's application for a confidentiality order under R. 262a RoP in respect of exhibit MW21. The claimant's primary request for an 'external eyes only' regime was rejected; the auxiliary request was granted with modifications, restricting access to defendants' external representatives and two named natural persons (Head of Legal of Defendant 1 and one Indian external counsel). The defendants' request for access by experts/consultants without naming specific persons was also rejected.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (6)
- Confidentiality protection under R. 262a RoP and Art. 58 UPCA
- Scope of 'confidentiality club' membership — whether 'external eyes only' regime is permissible
- Right of defendants to have at least one natural person access confidential evidence (Art. 9.3 Enforcement Directive, R. 262A.6 RoP)
- Access for non-UPC-representative external legal advisers (Indian counsel) to confidential club
- Standing under Art. 47.6 UPCA — 'concern by the patent' threshold
- Inclusion of unnamed experts/consultants in confidentiality regime
- 2026-03-13Revocation ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Milan Central Division (full panel: Postiglione, Klein, Alt) ordered La Siddhi Consultancy Ltd. to provide security for legal costs of EUR 112,000 in favour of the defendants (Athena Pharmaceutiques and Substipharm) in the revocation action concerning EP 3 592 333. The Court found that La Siddhi's financial situation (thin equity margin of approximately GBP 27,000) gave rise to a legitimate concern that any costs order would not be recoverable. La Siddhi's claim to SME status was found unsubstantiated. Security may be provided by bank deposit or EU-licensed bank guarantee within six weeks.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Security for costs (R. 158 RoP)
- Financial means of claimant
- SME / micro-enterprise status (R. 370.8 RoP; Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC)
- Art. 69.1 UPCA equity considerations
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Anordnung | 2026-10-13 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Order | 2026-10-13 | Öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-10-09 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-09 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Submission Defendant | 2026-10-09 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Mitteilung | 2026-10-04 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Anordnung | 2026-10-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Order | 2026-10-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Other Documents | 2026-09-11 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Zwischenverfahren eröffnet | 2026-09-10 | Nicht öffentlich |
Defendants are entitled to have at least one natural person (Head of Legal) admitted to the confidentiality club; excluding all natural persons from defendants would violate their right to an effective remedy and fair trial
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 262A.6 RoP; Art. 9.3 Enforcement Directive; UPC_CoA 755/2025 (Sun v Vivo)One Indian external counsel already engaged in the matter should be admitted to the confidentiality club because the defendants demonstrated that Indian counsel is part of the instruction chain for these proceedings
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: UPC_CoA_621/2024 (Daedalus v Xiaomi); UPC_CoA_169/2024Auxiliary request limiting access to one named natural person per defendant who is not involved in competitive decision-making is proportionate
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 262A RoP; Art. 58 UPCA
Primary request for 'external eyes only' / 'attorneys eyes only' regime — claimant failed to show exceptional circumstances justifying exclusion of all natural persons from defendants
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 262A.6 RoP; Art. 58 UPCAConfidential nature of MW21 and risk of conclusions being drawn are sufficient to justify external eyes only regime
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 58 UPCADocument only serves a 'limited procedural purpose' — defendants should not need natural person access
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 47.6 UPCATwo Indian counsel should be admitted to the confidentiality club
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 262A RoPExperts, consultants and advisers should be granted access to unredacted MW21 upon request without naming specific persons in advance
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 262A RoPClaimant itself and the Registry should be expressly named in the confidentiality order — claimant showed no legitimate interest in restricting its own access
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 262A RoPPersons admitted to confidentiality club must return or destroy copies at end of proceedings
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 262A RoPDefendants should bear costs of the R. 262a application proceedings
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: No legal basis for cost decision in R. 262A RoP proceedings