2026-09-18 - CoA - Academy of Military Medical Sciences v. Gilead Sciences - UPC-COA-0000121/2026

(i) Under Art. 74(2) UPCA, an appeal against a decision on actions or counterclaims for revocation has automatic suspensive effect, without the need for a decision by the Court of Appeal. It reflects the specific nature and effects of validity decisions, which apply erga omnes and are not confined to the legal relationship between the parties to the proceedings, and preserves the legal status of the patent while the decision on its validity remains subject to an appeal proceeding. By contrast, under Art. 74(1) UPCA, suspensive effect may be granted by the Court of Appeal, upon a motivated request, where the circumstances of the case justify a departure from the general rule. (ii) As an exception to a general rule, Art. 74(2) UPCA shall be given an application limited to its purpose and may not extend beyond its scope, from which it follows that, in case of an appeal against a decision on actions or counterclaims for revocation, the suspensive effect shall be limited to said decision. (iii) A decision on actions or counterclaims for revocation pursuant to Art. 74(2) UPCA refers to the substantive ruling by the Court on the issue of validity and its decision to revoke, or not, a patent. Although such a decision of the CFI may be part of a broader decision deciding other matters in the same case, the automatic suspensive effect of an appeal pursuant to Art. 74(2) UPCA remains limited to the part of the decision deciding on the validity of the patent and, if so ordered, its revocation. (iv) A decision on costs pursuant to Art. 69 UPCA and R. 150 ff RoP may not benefit from the automatic suspensive effect provided for under Art. 74(2) UPCA, even where the cost decision relates to proceedings in a claim for revocation of a patent. (v) When exercising its discretionary power to stay proceedings pursuant to R. 295 RoP, the Court shall consider the balance of interests of the parties and the specific circumstances of the case. When doing so in the context of a (counter)claim for revocation, the Court may, subject to the circumstances of the case, take into account the suspensive effect in the revocation proceedings.

The Court of Appeal, deciding through the standing judge under R. 221.4 RoP without an oral hearing, settled the scope of the automatic suspensive effect of Art. 74(2) UPCA. Because Art. 74(2) UPCA is an exception to the general rule of Art. 74(1) UPCA, it must be applied no further than its purpose reaches: the suspensive effect attaches only to the part of a first-instance decision that rules on validity and, where ordered, revocation, even where that ruling sits inside a broader decision. A cost decision under Art. 69 UPCA and R. 150 ff RoP is a separate decision in separate proceedings and therefore never benefits from that automatic effect, even when the costs arise from a revocation action. The Court further held that a stay under R. 295 RoP remains discretionary, that the suspensive effect in the revocation proceedings is one factor the first instance may weigh, and that appellate review is limited to whether the first instance exceeded its discretion. The appellant showed no such excess, either on the stay or on its alternative request for payment by instalments under R. 156.3 RoP.