UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 858/2025

Sep 12, 2025·EP1830843 +1 more: INDOLIDONE DERIVATIVES FOR THE TREATMENT OR PREVENTION OF FIBROTIC DISEASES

Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Infringement
Category
Main Infringement Action
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Joana Catarina Piriquito Santos (NLP - NAZARÉ, LIMA, PIRIQUITO SANTOS & ASSOCIADOS SOCIEDADE DE ADVOGADOS); Sara Nazaré (NLP - NAZARÉ, LIMA, PIRIQUITO SANTOS & ASSOCIADOS SOCIEDADE DE ADVOGADOS); Beatriz Lima (NLP - NAZARÉ, LIMA, PIRIQUITO SANTOS & ASSOCIADOS SOCIEDADE DE ADVOGADOS)
Respondents
Reps: Patrícia Paias (Antas da Cunha Ecija); Daniela Guimarães (Antas da Cunha Ecija)
Division
Lisbon LD
Judges
Technology
Pharmaceuticals · Small Molecule · Organic Chemistry
Language
English
First decided
Nov 17, 2025
Last decision
Apr 10, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-04-10
    Infringement Action

    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.

    Legal issues:Disposal of action devoid of purpose under R. 360 RoP following patent expiryWhether action remains purposeful when patent has expired and no infringement declaration was claimedApplicability of R. 213 RoP and R. 354.2 RoP to compensation for provisional measures in context of R. 360 disposalCost allocation under Art. 69 UPCA where action becomes moot due to objective circumstancesCompliance with R. 213 RoP obligation to file merits action following grant of preliminary injunction
  • 2025-11-17
    Infringement Action

    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.

    Legal issues:Preliminary objection to UPC jurisdiction (R. 19.1(a) RoP)Threat of infringement based on marketing authorisation noticeExhaustive nature of preliminary objection grounds
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.publishOrderDecision.order2026-05-25Not public
action.communication.general2026-05-18Not public
Receipt2026-05-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-13Not public
Submission Defendant2026-05-13Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-05-08Not public
Order2026-05-08Not public
Receipt2026-04-24Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-24Not public
Document Claimant2026-04-24Not public
action.communication.general2026-04-21Not public
Receipt2026-04-17Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-17Not public
Further pleadings2026-04-17Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2026-04-10Not public
Final Order2026-04-10Public
Receipt2026-04-01Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-01Not public
Further pleadings2026-04-01Not public
Receipt2026-03-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-27Not public
Application document Claimant2026-03-27Not public
Receipt2026-03-23Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-23Not public
Statement of rejoinder2026-03-23Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-23Not public
Receipt2026-02-23Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-23Not public
Statement of reply2026-02-23Not public
Receipt2026-01-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-27Not public
Other document Defendant2026-01-27Not public
Receipt2026-01-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-27Not public
Other document Claimant2026-01-27Not public
action.communication.general2026-01-22Not public
Receipt2025-12-22Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-22Not public
Statement of defence2025-12-22Not public
action.issueOrder.order2025-11-17Not public
Order2025-11-17Public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2025-11-13Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-05Not public
Further pleadings2025-11-05Not public
Receipt2025-11-05Not public
action.communication.general2025-10-28Not public
Cover sheet2025-10-24Not public
Exhibit2025-10-24Not public
Exhibit2025-10-24Not public
Exhibit2025-10-24Not public
Exhibit2025-10-24Not public
Exhibit2025-10-24Not public
Application2025-10-24Not public
Receipt2025-10-24Not public
Cover sheet2025-10-22Not public
Application2025-10-22Not public
Exhibit2025-10-22Not public
Receipt2025-10-22Not public
Service Receipt/Service Document2025-10-01Not public
EPO_Communication_check_Outcome2025-09-18Not public
Document from EPO2025-09-18Not public
Document from EPO2025-09-18Not public
Panel-Appointment2025-09-17Not public
EPO-Request-for-case-pending2025-09-15Not public
Receipt2025-09-15Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-09-15Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 202025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 162025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 192025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 252025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 212025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 222025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 32025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 112025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 152025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 82025-09-12Not public
Statement of Claims2025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 102025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 172025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 52025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 232025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 212025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 142025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 12025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 142025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 92025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 132025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 112025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 242025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 162025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 42025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 122025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 232025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 22025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 182025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 72025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 172025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 182025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 202025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 102025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 62025-09-12Not public
Exhibit 192025-09-12Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The action is devoid of purpose because the patent expired on 21 December 2025 and all substantive requests were contingent on the patent being in force; no infringement declaration was ever claimed

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 360 RoP

  • Both parties should bear their own costs because the action became moot due to patent expiry, an objective circumstance not attributable to either party's conduct

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 UPCA; equity exception
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The action is not devoid of purpose because dismissal would prevent the Defendant from seeking compensation under R. 213 or R. 354 RoP for injury caused by the provisional measures

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 213.2 RoP; R. 354.2 RoP