UPC CFI 927/2025
Sep 25, 2025·EP3592333 Unitary patent · A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION COMPRISING RACECADOTRIL AND PROCESS FOR PREPARING THE SAME
- Case details
- StatusInterim PhaseActionRevocationCategoryMain revocation action
- Parties
- Claimants
- La Siddhi Consultancy LimitedOther / unknown
Respondents- Athena Pharmaceutiques SASOperating co.
- SubstipharmOperating co.
Representatives- Jegannath Korukottu-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
- Division
- Milan CD
- Technology
- ChemistryPharmaceuticals
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Mar 13, 2026
- Last decision
- May 19, 2026
| Patent revoked | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Milan CD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Andrea Postiglione | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Anna-Lena Klein | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Michael Alt | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: La Siddhi Consultancy Limited (2 cases)·Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS (2 cases)
This dispute contains 1 other proceedings
- 2026-05-19Revocation ActionPublic
Summary: The Court partially granted the claimant's application for a confidentiality order under R. 262a RoP in respect of exhibit MW21. The claimant's primary request for an 'external eyes only' regime was rejected; the auxiliary request was granted with modifications, restricting access to defendants' external representatives and two named natural persons (Head of Legal of Defendant 1 and one Indian external counsel). The defendants' request for access by experts/consultants without naming specific persons was also rejected.
Show the legal issues (6)
- Confidentiality protection under R. 262a RoP and Art. 58 UPCA
- Scope of 'confidentiality club' membership — whether 'external eyes only' regime is permissible
- Right of defendants to have at least one natural person access confidential evidence (Art. 9.3 Enforcement Directive, R. 262A.6 RoP)
- Access for non-UPC-representative external legal advisers (Indian counsel) to confidential club
- Standing under Art. 47.6 UPCA — 'concern by the patent' threshold
- Inclusion of unnamed experts/consultants in confidentiality regime
- 2026-03-13Revocation ActionPublic
Summary: The Milan Central Division (full panel: Postiglione, Klein, Alt) ordered La Siddhi Consultancy Ltd. to provide security for legal costs of EUR 112,000 in favour of the defendants (Athena Pharmaceutiques and Substipharm) in the revocation action concerning EP 3 592 333. The Court found that La Siddhi's financial situation (thin equity margin of approximately GBP 27,000) gave rise to a legitimate concern that any costs order would not be recoverable. La Siddhi's claim to SME status was found unsubstantiated. Security may be provided by bank deposit or EU-licensed bank guarantee within six weeks.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Security for costs (R. 158 RoP)
- Financial means of claimant
- SME / micro-enterprise status (R. 370.8 RoP; Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC)
- Art. 69.1 UPCA equity considerations
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Order | 2026-10-13 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-10-13 | Public |
| Receipt | 2026-10-09 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-09 | Not public |
| Submission Defendant | 2026-10-09 | Not public |
| Communication | 2026-10-04 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-10-02 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-10-02 | Not public |
| Other Documents | 2026-09-11 | Not public |
| Interim procedure opened | 2026-09-10 | Not public |
Defendants are entitled to have at least one natural person (Head of Legal) admitted to the confidentiality club; excluding all natural persons from defendants would violate their right to an effective remedy and fair trial
RespondentLegal basis: R. 262A.6 RoP; Art. 9.3 Enforcement Directive; UPC_CoA 755/2025 (Sun v Vivo)One Indian external counsel already engaged in the matter should be admitted to the confidentiality club because the defendants demonstrated that Indian counsel is part of the instruction chain for these proceedings
RespondentLegal basis: UPC_CoA_621/2024 (Daedalus v Xiaomi); UPC_CoA_169/2024Auxiliary request limiting access to one named natural person per defendant who is not involved in competitive decision-making is proportionate
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 262A RoP; Art. 58 UPCA
Primary request for 'external eyes only' / 'attorneys eyes only' regime — claimant failed to show exceptional circumstances justifying exclusion of all natural persons from defendants
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 262A.6 RoP; Art. 58 UPCAConfidential nature of MW21 and risk of conclusions being drawn are sufficient to justify external eyes only regime
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 58 UPCADocument only serves a 'limited procedural purpose' — defendants should not need natural person access
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 47.6 UPCATwo Indian counsel should be admitted to the confidentiality club
RespondentLegal basis: R. 262A RoPExperts, consultants and advisers should be granted access to unredacted MW21 upon request without naming specific persons in advance
RespondentLegal basis: R. 262A RoPClaimant itself and the Registry should be expressly named in the confidentiality order — claimant showed no legitimate interest in restricting its own access
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 262A RoPPersons admitted to confidentiality club must return or destroy copies at end of proceedings
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 262A RoPDefendants should bear costs of the R. 262a application proceedings
ClaimantLegal basis: No legal basis for cost decision in R. 262A RoP proceedings