2026-03-13 - CD Milan - Neurocrine Biosciences v. Spruce Biosciences - UPC_CFI_722/2025

ENGLISH: 1. Since the patent definitively and in its entirety has been revoked by the Opposition Division (ab initio), the claim for revocation of the patent has become devoid of purpose and there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it. 2. A request to only declare the revocation action devoid of purpose under the condition that the defendant makes the non-confidential undertaking that it will not enforce any divi-sional of the patent against the claimant, is outside the scope of R. 360 RoP. The claimant has not argued that a decision of the Court on the claim for revocation of the patent still serves any purpose. The revocation action is solely directed to the (now revoked) patent and not to any other claim scope. The mere fact that the patent has been revoked does not mean that every (within the rules applied for and granted) divisional will suffer the same fate. 3. The ceiling of recoverable costs is in principle based on a full procedure with a written phase, an interim phase and an oral phase. Given that claimant has already filed its written submissions and that most legal costs are front-loaded in this system, the Court will award claimant, as the successful party, 80% of the maximum recoverable costs.

Milan CD disposes of revocation action under R. 360 RoP after the EPO Opposition Division revoked the patent in its entirety (decision became final when patentee declared it would not appeal). Claimant's conditional request (disposal only if defendant undertakes not to enforce divisionals) rejected — outside the scope of R. 360. The patent's revocation does not mean divisionals will share the same fate. Costs allocated to defendant (Spruce) as unsuccessful party: EUR 480,000 (80% of EUR 600,000 ceiling — front-loaded costs already incurred through written phase). Expert costs denied — insufficient detail showing attribution solely to UPC proceedings.