View all cases
UPC APP 9038/2025
Feb 28, 2025·EP2501384 · METHOD OF TREATING PROLIFERATIVE DISORDERS AND OTHER PATHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS MEDIATED BY BCR-ABL, C-KIT, DDR1, DDR2 OR PDGF-R KINASE ACTIVITY
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Claim dismissed)ActionGenericCategoryGeneric
- Parties
- Claimants
- Zentiva, k.s.Operating co.
- ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDAOperating co.
Representatives- Marc Lauzeral-Schertenleib
Respondents- Accord Healthcare B.V.Operating co.
- Accord Healthcare S.L.U.Operating co.
- ACCORD HEALTHCARE LIMITEDOperating co.
- Novartis AGOperating co.
Representatives- Wim Maas-Taylor Wessing
- Gregory Bacon-Bristows
- Rutger Kleemans-Freshfields
- Daniela Ampollin-Trevisan & Cuonzo
- Allard van Duijn-Freshfields
- Brian Cordery-Bristows
- Nina Bayerl-Freshfields
- Division
- Milan CD
- Technology
- ChemistryOrganic fine chemistry · Pharmaceuticals
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Mar 21, 2025
- EPO Opposition
- Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbHAdmissible2016-11-14
- Hamm&Wittkopp Patentanwälte PartmbBAdmissible2016-11-17
- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries LtdAdmissible2016-11-17
- Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.Admissible2016-11-17
- Generics (U.K.) LimitedAdmissible2016-11-17
- TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.Admissible2016-11-17
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
| Milan CD | Locked |
| Judge Andrea Postiglione | Locked |
| Judge Marije Knijff | Locked |
| Judge Oliver Werner | Locked |
At the UPC: Zentiva Group (15 cases)·Accord Group (8 cases)
Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patentThis dispute contains 1 other proceedings
Decisions
- 2025-03-21Application RoP313Public
Summary: The Milan Central Division dismissed Zentiva K.S. and Zentiva Portugal's application to intervene under Rule 313 RoP in infringement proceedings between Accord Healthcare and Novartis concerning EP 2 501 384. The court held that parallelism between cases or the potential impact of one judgment on another does not establish the legal interest required for intervention, and that the intervening party's requested remedies must be non-contradictory to those of the supported party.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Third party intervention under Rule 313 RoP
- Legal interest in intervention
- Res judicata and inter partes effects of UPC judgments
- Art. 33 UPCA case connections and bifurcation
Documents
Show all 77 documents| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-03-27 | Not public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-03-27 | Not public |
| ORDER 27 MARCH 2025 | 2025-03-27 | Public |
| Written submission on request to intervene by Zentiva | 2025-03-17 | Not public |
| PRELIMINARY ORDER 1st MARCH | 2025-03-01 | Not public |
| Template-Order | 2025-03-01 | Not public |
| Exhibit007 Marketing Authorization Estonian 200 mg | 2025-02-28 | Not public |
| Exhibit029 Swarco v Strabag UPC Court of First Instance Vienna Judgment of 30 July 2024 Case No UPC CFI 33 2024 | 2025-02-28 | Not public |
| Exhibit008 Marketing Authorization Portugese 200 mg | 2025-02-28 | Not public |
| Exhibit001 EP 2 501 384 B2 | 2025-02-28 | Not public |