UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 1968/2026

Jun 3, 2026·EP3854403: USE OF SUBSTITUTED AMINOPROPIONATE COMPOUNDS IN TREATMENT OF SARS-COV-2 INFECTION

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Other
Category
Other Procedural
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Christine Kanz (Hoyng Rokh Monegier, Steinstraße 20, Düsseldorf)
Respondents
Reps: Camille Pecnard (Lavoix, N. 2 Place d'Estienne d'Orves, 75009 Paris); Pierre Emmanuel Meynard (Lavoix, N. 2 Place d'Estienne d'Orves, 75009 Paris); Charlotte Cluny (Lavoix, N. 2 Place d'Estienne d'Orves, 75009 Paris)
Division
Milan CD
Judges
Technology
Organic Chemistry
Language
English
First decided
Jul 10, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-07-10
    Costs onlymotionName.otherOther

    The Milan Central Division ordered AMMS (Academy of Military Medical Sciences) to pay Gilead Sciences EUR 800,000 as recoverable legal costs incurred in the underlying revocation proceedings UPC_CFI_552/25. AMMS's requests for a stay of the cost proceedings (pending appeal on the merits) and for payment by instalments were both rejected. Gilead's request for interest was rejected as late-filed.

    Legal issues:Recoverability of legal costs following successful revocation proceedings (R. 150 RoP)Whether automatic suspensive effect under Art. 74(2) UPCA extends to separate cost proceedingsWhether pendency of appeal on the merits justifies a stay of cost proceedings under R. 295 RoPRequest for payment of costs by instalmentsLate-filed request for interest on costs
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-07-10Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2026-07-10Not public
Final Order2026-07-10Public
Receipt2026-07-07Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-07Not public
Document2026-07-07Not public
Receipt2026-07-06Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-06Not public
Document2026-07-06Not public
action.communication.general2026-07-01Not public
Receipt2026-06-26Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-26Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-26Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-26Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-26Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-26Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-26Not public
Application Respondent2026-06-26Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-06-12Not public
action.communication.general2026-06-08Not public
Other Documents2026-06-08Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-06-03Not public
Order2026-06-03Not public
Receipt2026-06-03Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-03Not public
Application document Applicant2026-06-03Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Cost proceedings are separate and independent from appeal proceedings on the merits; the automatic suspensive effect of Art. 74(2) UPCA does not extend to subsequent cost determination

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 74(1) and 74(2) UPCA; R. 150 et seq. RoP; Art. 69 UPCA; Art. 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC

  • AMMS did not contest the amount of EUR 800,000 in costs claimed by Gilead

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 150 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Stay of cost proceedings pending outcome of appeal on the merits, relying on Art. 74(2) UPCA

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 74(2) UPCA

  • Stay of cost proceedings under R. 295 RoP on basis of pending appeal and AMMS's alleged status as a State entity with financial difficulties

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 295 RoP

  • Payment of costs by instalments in absence of party agreement

    Respondent

  • Interest on top of the EUR 800,000 costs amount

    Claimant