UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CoA 48/2026

27. März 2026·EP3592333 +1 more: A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION COMPRISING RACECADOTRIL AND PROCESS FOR PREPARING THE SAME

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed
Verfahrensart
Berufung
Kategorie
Hauptberufung
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Christian Meyer (Maiwald GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany)
Beklagte
Vertreter: Jegannath Korukottu (Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB, München, Germany)
Division
Court of Appeal
Richter
Technology
Pharmaceutical & Medical
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
14. Apr. 2026
Letzte Entscheidung
1. Juni 2026
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-06-01
    Nur KostenBerufungsentscheidungAppeal RoP220.2

    The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant's appeal against the Central Division Milan's order requiring it to provide security for legal costs of €75,000. The Court upheld that SME status alone does not exempt a party from the obligation to provide security for costs under R. 158 RoP, and that the €75,000 amount (approximately 60% of the applicable €112,000 ceiling) was a reasonable and proportionate exercise of discretion.

    Rechtsfragen:Whether SME status exempts a party from providing security for costs under R. 158 RoPBurden of proof for security for costs applications under Art. 69(4) UPCAAdmissibility of new evidence on appeal under R. 222.2 RoPCorrect methodology for setting the amount of security for costs by reference to Annex A cost ceilingApplication of R. 171.2 RoP to treat undisputed financial evidence as established factScope of Court of Appeal review of first instance discretionary decisions on security for costs
  • 2026-04-14
    Nur prozessualProzessualApplication Rop 223

    The Court of Appeal rejected the Applicant's application for suspensive effect of the Central Division Milan's order requiring provision of €75,000 security for costs. The Court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate manifest errors in the impugned order, failed to evidence inability to comply with the security order, and failed to show that the appeal would become devoid of purpose absent suspensive effect.

    Rechtsfragen:Suspensive effect of appeal against security for costs order (R. 223 RoP / Art. 74 UPCA)Security for costs under R. 158 RoP / Art. 69(4) UPCABurden of proof in security for costs applicationsSME status as factor in security for costs assessmentRight to effective judicial protection under Art. 47 Charter of Fundamental RightsConflict between UPCA Art. 74 and R. 223.5 RoP on suspensive effect
Dokumente
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-06-01Nicht öffentlich
action.issueDecision.decision2026-06-01Nicht öffentlich
Final Order2026-06-01Öffentlich
action.phaseChange.writtenPhaseClose2026-05-27Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-05-14Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-14Nicht öffentlich
Submission Respondent2026-05-14Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-05-13Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-13Nicht öffentlich
Submission Appellant2026-05-13Nicht öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-05-07Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-05-07Öffentlich
Receipt2026-04-14Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-04-14Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Response2026-04-14Nicht öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-04-14Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-04-14Öffentlich
Receipt2026-04-07Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-04-07Nicht öffentlich
Document Respondent2026-04-07Nicht öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-31Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-03-31Öffentlich
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-03-31Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-03-27Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-27Nicht öffentlich
Fee2026-03-27Nicht öffentlich
Proof of entitlement to 50% reduction in court fees2026-03-27Nicht öffentlich
Proof of payment2026-03-27Nicht öffentlich
Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal2026-03-27Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • The Applicant failed to demonstrate manifest errors or violation of procedural fundamental rights in the impugned security for costs order

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 74(1) UPCA; R. 223 RoP

  • The mere reference to SME status is insufficient on its own to demonstrate manifest error or inability to comply with security for costs order

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 158 RoP; Art. 69(4) UPCA

  • The appeal would not become devoid of purpose absent suspensive effect because a deposit can be reimbursed or a guarantee lifted if the impugned order is overturned

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 74(1) UPCA; R. 223 RoP
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • The Court of First Instance applied an incorrect legal standard under Art. 69(4) UPCA and R. 158 RoP by accepting unsubstantiated assertions, shifting the burden of proof, and not providing opportunity to supplement the file

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69(4) UPCA; R. 158 RoP

  • Denying suspensive effect would violate effective judicial protection under Art. 47 Charter of Fundamental Rights by rendering the right to pursue the claim excessively difficult or illusory

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 47 Charter of Fundamental Rights

  • The Applicant faces immediate risk of being prevented from continuing proceedings if security is not suspended

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 74(1) UPCA; R. 223 RoP