2026-10-22 - CD Milan - Sandoz v. Novo Nordisk - UPC-CFI-0002221/2026
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC-CFI-0002221/2026
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Central Division- Section
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Sandoz AG v. Novo Nordisk A/S
Kernaussage: 1.
2026-10-22 - CD Milan - Sandoz
v.
Novo Nordisk - UPC-CFI-0002221/2026
1. The UPC has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim seeking a declaration that a composition, independently of a specific
patent right, was obvious at a given priority date.
2. The UPC has jurisdiction to ensure the effectiveness of the judicial protection entrusted to it. That jurisdiction extends
to conduct designed to circumvent its exercise, including the abusive use of divisional applications. In revocation
proceedings or actions for a declaration of non-infringement, that jurisdiction may be exercised, in particular, by
declining to dispose of the action under Rule 360 RoP and by determining that a patent lack(ed) inventive step,
notwithstanding its withdrawal at the proprietor’s initiative.
3. The UPC Central Division has an autonomous jurisdiction to grant provisional and protective measures in matters
entrusted to it by the UPCA which includes the power, where necessary, to preserve the effectiveness of pending
revocation proceedings, to restrain a party from withdrawing its approval of the text of the patent under Art. 113(2)
EPC
landmark
On a preliminary objection in a revocation action, the Milan Central Division held that the UPC's competence under Art. 32(1) UPCA, read in the light of the object and purpose of the UPCA, Art. 42(2) UPCA and Art. 47 of the Charter, includes the powers implicitly necessary to make its conferred heads of jurisdiction effective, including against an abusive 'divisional game'. It declined jurisdiction over a request for an abstract declaration that a composition was obvious at the priority date, because the request was not tied to an identified right or to a defined product of the claimant and could affect unheard third parties. It accepted jurisdiction over an Arrow-type request that any same-family claim covering the subject-matter of the patent would lack inventive step, construing it as a way to preserve the effectiveness of the revocation action: if the proprietor withdraws the patent under Art. 113(2) EPC, the Court may refuse to dispose of the action under R. 360 RoP and rule on validity where the claimant remains concerned under Art. 47(6) UPCA. It also held that the Central Division has autonomous power to grant interim measures that preserve its own revocation proceedings, including restraining a party from withdrawing approval of the text, while reserving whether such an order should issue. Art. 24 UPCA was held not to be a source of jurisdiction.