UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 1587/2025

Nov 14, 2025·EP4223296 Unitary patent · NALMEFENE FOR REDUCTION OF ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN SPECIFIC TARGET POPULATIONS

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent upheld as amended)
Action
Revocation
Category
Main revocation action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Milan CD
Judges
Technology
  • Chemistry
    Pharmaceuticals
Language
English
First decided
Oct 9, 2026
EPO Opposition
  • Alfred E. Tiefenbacher (GmbH & Co. KG)Admissible2025-10-27
  • BIOGARANAdmissible2025-10-29
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Patent revokedMedian days to first decision
All UPC37% (34/91)124
Milan CDLockedLocked
Judge Andrea PostiglioneLockedLocked
Judge Anna-Lena KleinLockedLocked
Judge Eric EnderlinLockedLocked

At the UPC: BIOGARAN (2 cases)·H. Lundbeck A/S (2 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 1 other proceedings

UPC CFI 903/2026

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Milan CD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-10-09
    RevocationPublic

    Summary: The Milan central division dismissed Biogaran's revocation action of EP 4223296 in so far as the patent is maintained in the amended form (Lundbeck's unconditional Auxiliary Request 4, deleting dependent claims 7 and 9). The added matter, sufficiency and inventive step attacks were held unfounded. Biogaran bears Lundbeck's costs, with an interim award of EUR 100,000, and the value of proceedings is set at EUR 2 million.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Added matter (Art. 123(2) EPC / Art. 138(1)(c) EPC) in a divisional
    • Sufficiency of disclosure for a patient-subgroup medical use
    • Inventive step and ex post facto analysis
    • Admissibility of late attacks and unconditional amendment (AR4, R. 30 RoP)
    • Interim award of costs (R. 119 RoP)
Documents
Show all 223 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Publication of decision2026-10-09Not public
Case closed2026-10-09Not public
Decision2026-10-09Not public
Decision2026-10-09Public
Communication2026-10-08Not public
Other Documents2026-09-15Not public
Receipt2026-09-14Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-14Not public
Document2026-09-14Not public
Oral procedure opened2026-09-02Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Added matter requires a specific comparison with the original disclosure; numerous embodiments alone do not show extension

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 123(2) and 138(1)(c) EPC

  • Skilled person can select a safe and effective dose without undue burden, so the dosage need not be in the independent claim

    RespondentLegal basis: Sufficiency of disclosure

  • The obviousness attack is an ex post facto mosaic with no pointer to combine the documents

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Patent is invalid for added matter, insufficiency and lack of inventive step

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 138(1) UPCA, EPC

  • Late additional attacks based on EPO opposition arguments in the Rejoinder

    ClaimantLegal basis: Recital 5 Preamble RoP