UPC_APP_9038/2025

METHOD OF TREATING PROLIFERATIVE DISORDERS AND OTHER PATHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS MEDIATED BY BCR-ABL, C-KIT, DDR1, DDR2 OR PDGF-R KINASE ACTIVITY

Procedural & sub-applicationsInterventionMilan CDApplication Rop313—

This case cites

Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
UPC_CFI_380/2024	intervention — distinction of direct vs indirect interest	Persuasive	see UPC_CFI_380/2024 Order no. ORD_52068/2024 CD Milan and in UPC_CFI_153/24 CD Munich) a distinction must be made between prospective interveners who have a direct interest in the outcome
UPC_CFI_153/2024	intervention — distinction of direct vs indirect interest	Persuasive	see UPC_CFI_380/2024 Order no. ORD_52068/2024 CD Milan and in UPC_CFI_153/24 CD Munich) a distinction must be made between prospective interveners who have a direct interest in the outcome
UPC_CFI_380/2024	costs in intervention sub-proceedings	Persuasive	see CD Milan Order no. ORD_59988/2024 in UPC_CFI_380/2024 Application No. 39640/2024) that intervention pursuant to Art. 313 RoP is a sub-proceeding governed by rule of law

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
313	intervention — legal interest requirement	Binding	Parallelism between two cases or the allegation that the outcome of a judgment has a direct impact on another does not establish a legal interest to intervention pursuant to RoP 313.
313.2	intervention — non-contradiction of remedies	Binding	The expression 'made in support … of a claim, order or relief sought by one of the parties' in Rule 313.2 RoP: intervening party's remedies must be non-contradictory to those of the party supported

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
Art. 67 ZPO	intervention — non-contradiction principle	Persuasive	the intervening party's remedies must be non-contradictory to those of the party who has been supported, and therefore in accordance with art. 67 ZPO and art. 105 It. CPC
art. 105 It. CPC	intervention — non-contradiction principle	Persuasive	in accordance with art. 67 ZPO and art. 105 It. CPC, and not in the sense of a partial identity.

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
33	jurisdiction and case connections	Background	Article 33 of the UPCA regulates numerous hypotheses of case connections on the same patent, providing for separate adjudications (bifurcation) as well as the stay of proceedings or joint decisions.

Cited by

Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.

Not yet cited in another decision in our corpus.