UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 927/2025

Sep 25, 2025·EP3592333 +1 more: A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION COMPRISING RACECADOTRIL AND PROCESS FOR PREPARING THE SAME

Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Revocation
Category
Main Revocation Action
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Christian Meyer (Maiwald); Holger Glas (Maiwald GmbH, München); Felix Schröter (Maiwald GmbH, München)
Respondents
Reps: Jegannath Korukottu (Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB, München)
Division
Milan CD
Judges
Technology
Pharmaceuticals · Small Molecule · Pharmaceutical & Medical
Language
English
First decided
Mar 13, 2026
Last decision
May 19, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-05-19
    Revocation Action

    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.

    Legal issues:Confidentiality protection under R. 262a RoP and Art. 58 UPCAScope of 'confidentiality club' membership — whether 'external eyes only' regime is permissibleRight 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 clubStanding under Art. 47.6 UPCA — 'concern by the patent' thresholdInclusion of unnamed experts/consultants in confidentiality regime
  • 2026-03-13
    Revocation Action

    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.

    Legal issues:Security for costs (R. 158 RoP)Financial means of claimantSME / micro-enterprise status (R. 370.8 RoP; Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC)Art. 69.1 UPCA equity considerations
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Order2026-05-20Public
action.issueOrder.order2026-05-19Not public
Order2026-05-19Not public
Receipt2026-04-23Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-23Not public
Submission Claimant2026-04-23Not public
Document Claimant2026-04-23Not public
Receipt2026-04-23Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-23Not public
Document Claimant2026-04-23Not public
Receipt2026-04-23Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-23Not public
Document Claimant2026-04-23Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-04-21Not public
Order2026-04-21Not public
Receipt2026-04-20Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-20Not public
Document Defendant2026-04-20Not public
Note2026-04-13Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-04-13Not public
Order2026-04-13Not public
Receipt2026-04-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-13Not public
Receipt2026-04-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-13Not public
Receipt2026-04-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-13Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-04-12Not public
Application document Claimant2026-04-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-04-12Not public
Statement of rejoinder2026-04-12Not public
Application document Claimant2026-04-12Not public
Receipt2026-03-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-13Not public
Statement of rejoinder2026-03-13Not public
Statement of rejoinder2026-03-13Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-13Not public
Order2026-03-13Public
action.summons.interimHearing2026-02-20Not public
Summons2026-02-20Not public
Receipt2026-02-19Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-19Not public
Document Defendant2026-02-19Not public
Receipt2026-02-19Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-19Not public
Document2026-02-19Not public
Receipt2026-02-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-13Not public
Statement of reply2026-02-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-02-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-02-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-02-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-02-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-02-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-02-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-02-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-02-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-02-13Not public
Application to Amend Patent Defence2026-02-13Not public
Receipt2026-02-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-02-13Not public
Statement of reply2026-02-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-02-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-02-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-02-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-02-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-02-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-02-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-02-13Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-02-13Not public
action.communication.general2026-02-13Not public
action.summons.oralHearing2026-02-13Not public
Summons2026-02-13Not public
Receipt2026-02-11Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-11Not public
Document2026-02-11Not public
Receipt2026-02-09Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-09Not public
Other document Defendant2026-02-09Not public
Note2026-02-05Not public
Other Documents2026-02-05Not public
Other Documents2026-02-05Not public
Other Documents2026-02-05Not public
action.communication.general2026-02-04Not public
Note2026-02-03Not public
Receipt2026-02-03Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-03Not public
Other document Defendant2026-02-03Not public
action.communication.general2026-02-03Not public
Receipt2026-02-02Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-02Not public
Other document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
action.communication.general2026-01-27Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-16Not public
Statement of defence2025-12-16Not public
Statement of defence2025-12-16Not public
Application to Amend Patent2025-12-16Not public
Application to Amend Patent2025-12-16Not public
Further pleadings2025-12-16Not public
Further pleadings2025-12-16Not public
Receipt2025-12-16Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-03Not public
Other document Defendant2025-12-03Not public
Receipt2025-12-03Not public
action.communication.general2025-12-02Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-02Not public
Other document Defendant2025-12-02Not public
Receipt2025-12-02Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2025-10-31Not public
Service Receipt/Service Document2025-10-22Not public
Service Receipt/Service Document2025-10-14Not public
Cover sheet2025-09-25Not public
Fee2025-09-25Not public
Proof of entitlement to 40% reduction in court fees2025-09-25Not public
Exhibit2025-09-25Not public
Exhibit2025-09-25Not public
Exhibit2025-09-25Not public
Exhibit2025-09-25Not public
Exhibit2025-09-25Not public
Exhibit2025-09-25Not public
Exhibit2025-09-25Not public
Exhibit2025-09-25Not public
Exhibit2025-09-25Not public
Exhibit2025-09-25Not public
Exhibit2025-09-25Not public
Statement of claim2025-09-25Not public
Proof of payment2025-09-25Not public
Receipt2025-09-25Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 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_169/2024

  • Auxiliary 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
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • 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 UPCA

  • Confidential nature of MW21 and risk of conclusions being drawn are sufficient to justify external eyes only regime

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 58 UPCA

  • Document only serves a 'limited procedural purpose' — defendants should not need natural person access

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 47.6 UPCA

  • Two Indian counsel should be admitted to the confidentiality club

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 262A RoP

  • Experts, consultants and advisers should be granted access to unredacted MW21 upon request without naming specific persons in advance

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 262A RoP

  • Claimant 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 RoP

  • Persons admitted to confidentiality club must return or destroy copies at end of proceedings

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 262A RoP

  • Defendants should bear costs of the R. 262a application proceedings

    ClaimantLegal basis: No legal basis for cost decision in R. 262A RoP proceedings