Executive Summary
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural appeal concerning the admissibility of exhibits and submissions during infringement proceedings related to a pharmaceutical SPC. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, ruling that it had become devoid of purpose because the underlying matter—the provisional measures application—had already been decided in favor of the appellant (Viatris). This highlights the importance of assessing legal interest when determining whether an action warrants adjudication under UPC rules.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
An appeal is deemed devoid of purpose if the appellant no longer has a legal interest in bringing the proceedings, meaning success would not procure an advantage. Since the Paris Local Division had already ruled favorably for Viatris on provisional measures, the subsequent procedural appeal became moot.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Viatris Santé vs Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Network System Technologies LLC.vsVolkswagen AG
In a procedural ruling concerning an appeal against a security for costs decision, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Volkswagen AG's request to expedite the proceedings. The court found that the arguments presented were too vague and lacked sufficient substantiation to justify shortening any deadlines under R.9.3(b). This order highlights the strict requirements parties must meet when seeking procedural acceleration within the UPC framework.
ILME GmbH Elektronische HandelsgesellschaftvsIndustria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
This UPC appeal case involved ILME GmbH seeking to suspend the main infringement and revocation proceedings before the Local Division Munich while its preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court was being heard on appeal. The court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing the need for procedural efficiency and timely resolution. This decision reinforces the principle that jurisdictional challenges should be addressed within the UPC framework without unduly delaying substantive litigation.
DexCom, Inc.vsAbbott Laboratories and associated companies (jointly referred to as 'the Abbott companies')
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted DexCom, Inc. to withdraw its infringement action against Abbott Laboratories and its subsidiaries. Concurrently, the Abbott companies agreed to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. This mutual withdrawal resulted in the closure of the proceedings, meaning the patent EP 3 435 866 remains fully in force across all relevant territories. The decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC regarding withdrawals during appeal.
Prinoth S.p.A.vsXelom S.R.L.
Prinoth S.p.A., a global leader in snow grooming vehicles, successfully obtained an urgent provisional measures order from the UPC CFI against Xelom S.R.L. The court authorized inspection of premises and seizure of the disputed electric snow groomer ('Snow Cat'). This decision is significant as it allows patent holders to secure evidence early in litigation when infringement is suspected but not yet proven.
Dexcom International LimitedvsAbbott Diabetes Care Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., the UPC granted Dexcom International Limited leave to amend its counter claim. The amendment sought a declaration that the G7-System and G7-Receiver fall outside the scope of protection of EP 4070727 B1. The court found that Dexcom's timing was reasonable, as they were responding to Abbott's subsequent withdrawal of claims against those specific products, setting a precedent for procedural flexibility in UPC litigation.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.