UPC CFI 858/2025

At the UPC: BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH (3 cases)·Zentiva Group (15 cases)

• 2026-04-10
  Infringement ActionPublic

  Summary: The Court disposed of the infringement action pursuant to R. 360 RoP, finding it devoid of purpose following the expiry of patent EP1830843 on 21 December 2025. The Claimant had not claimed a declaration of infringement, and its remaining requests were contingent on the patent being in force, rendering a successful outcome irrelevant. Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Disposal of action devoid of purpose under R. 360 RoP following patent expiry
  • Whether action remains purposeful when patent has expired and no infringement declaration was claimed
  • Applicability of R. 213 RoP and R. 354.2 RoP to compensation for provisional measures in context of R. 360 disposal
  • Cost allocation under Art. 69 UPCA where action becomes moot due to objective circumstances
  • Compliance with R. 213 RoP obligation to file merits action following grant of preliminary injunction
• 2025-11-17
  Infringement ActionPublic

  Summary: The Lisbon Local Division (judge-rapporteur Rute Lopes) rejected Zentiva Portugal's preliminary objection challenging UPC jurisdiction over Boehringer Ingelheim's infringement action concerning EP 1 830 843 (nintedanib for treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis). The Court held that the action is an Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA infringement action based on an administrative notice (INFARMED No. 0689/2024) creating a threat of infringement, and UPC jurisdiction is properly established. Zentiva's additional argument (no demonstrated acts of manufacture etc.) was held to be a substantive merits defence outside the scope of R. 19 RoP.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Preliminary objection to UPC jurisdiction (R. 19.1(a) RoP)
  • Threat of infringement based on marketing authorisation notice
  • Exhaustive nature of preliminary objection grounds