UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 1968/2026

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

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Other
Category
Other procedural
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Milan CD
Judges
Technology
  • Chemistry
    Pharmaceuticals
Language
English
First decided
Jul 10, 2026
EPO Opposition
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Milan CDLocked
Judge Andrea PostiglioneLocked
Judge Marije KnijffLocked
Judge Xavier Dorland-GalliotLocked

At the UPC: Gilead Sciences, Inc. (5 cases)·Academy of Military Medical Sciences (5 cases)

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

This dispute contains 4 other proceedings

UPC CoA 121/2026·UPC CoA 103/2026·UPC CFI 552/2025·UPC APP 34350/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Milan CD·2026

Decisions
  • 2026-07-10
    OtherPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Recoverability of legal costs following successful revocation proceedings (R. 150 RoP)
    • Whether automatic suspensive effect under Art. 74(2) UPCA extends to separate cost proceedings
    • Whether pendency of appeal on the merits justifies a stay of cost proceedings under R. 295 RoP
    • Request for payment of costs by instalments
    • Late-filed request for interest on costs
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-07-10Not public
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
Communication2026-07-01Not 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
Publication2026-06-12Not public
Communication2026-06-08Not public
Other Documents2026-06-08Not public
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