UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CoA 48/2026

Mar 27, 2026·EP3592333 +1 more: A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION COMPRISING RACECADOTRIL AND PROCESS FOR PREPARING THE SAME

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main Appeal
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Christian Meyer (Maiwald GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany)
Respondents
Reps: Jegannath Korukottu (Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB, München, Germany)
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
Pharmaceutical & Medical
Language
English
First decided
Apr 14, 2026
Last decision
Jun 1, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-06-01
    Costs onlyAppeal decisionAppeal RoP220.2

    The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant's appeal against the Central Division Milan's order requiring it to provide security for legal costs of €75,000. The Court upheld that SME status alone does not exempt a party from the obligation to provide security for costs under R. 158 RoP, and that the €75,000 amount (approximately 60% of the applicable €112,000 ceiling) was a reasonable and proportionate exercise of discretion.

    Legal issues:Whether SME status exempts a party from providing security for costs under R. 158 RoPBurden of proof for security for costs applications under Art. 69(4) UPCAAdmissibility of new evidence on appeal under R. 222.2 RoPCorrect methodology for setting the amount of security for costs by reference to Annex A cost ceilingApplication of R. 171.2 RoP to treat undisputed financial evidence as established factScope of Court of Appeal review of first instance discretionary decisions on security for costs
  • 2026-04-14
    Procedural onlyProceduralApplication Rop 223

    The Court of Appeal rejected the Applicant's application for suspensive effect of the Central Division Milan's order requiring provision of €75,000 security for costs. The Court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate manifest errors in the impugned order, failed to evidence inability to comply with the security order, and failed to show that the appeal would become devoid of purpose absent suspensive effect.

    Legal issues:Suspensive effect of appeal against security for costs order (R. 223 RoP / Art. 74 UPCA)Security for costs under R. 158 RoP / Art. 69(4) UPCABurden of proof in security for costs applicationsSME status as factor in security for costs assessmentRight to effective judicial protection under Art. 47 Charter of Fundamental RightsConflict between UPCA Art. 74 and R. 223.5 RoP on suspensive effect
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-06-01Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2026-06-01Not public
Final Order2026-06-01Public
action.phaseChange.writtenPhaseClose2026-05-27Not public
Receipt2026-05-14Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-14Not public
Submission Respondent2026-05-14Not public
Receipt2026-05-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-13Not public
Submission Appellant2026-05-13Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-05-07Not public
Order2026-05-07Public
Receipt2026-04-14Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-14Not public
Statement of Response2026-04-14Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-04-14Not public
Order2026-04-14Public
Receipt2026-04-07Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-07Not public
Document Respondent2026-04-07Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-31Not public
Order2026-03-31Public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-03-31Not public
Receipt2026-03-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-27Not public
Fee2026-03-27Not public
Proof of entitlement to 50% reduction in court fees2026-03-27Not public
Proof of payment2026-03-27Not public
Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal2026-03-27Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The Applicant failed to demonstrate manifest errors or violation of procedural fundamental rights in the impugned security for costs order

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 74(1) UPCA; R. 223 RoP

  • The mere reference to SME status is insufficient on its own to demonstrate manifest error or inability to comply with security for costs order

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 158 RoP; Art. 69(4) UPCA

  • The appeal would not become devoid of purpose absent suspensive effect because a deposit can be reimbursed or a guarantee lifted if the impugned order is overturned

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 74(1) UPCA; R. 223 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The Court of First Instance applied an incorrect legal standard under Art. 69(4) UPCA and R. 158 RoP by accepting unsubstantiated assertions, shifting the burden of proof, and not providing opportunity to supplement the file

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69(4) UPCA; R. 158 RoP

  • Denying suspensive effect would violate effective judicial protection under Art. 47 Charter of Fundamental Rights by rendering the right to pursue the claim excessively difficult or illusory

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 47 Charter of Fundamental Rights

  • The Applicant faces immediate risk of being prevented from continuing proceedings if security is not suspended

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 74(1) UPCA; R. 223 RoP