The Unified Patent Court (UPC), having recently celebrated its second anniversary and soon to reach the milestone of 1,000 cases, has demonstrated a high level of acceptance among participants in the intellectual property field. It is widely acknowledged that the UPC has already reshaped the European litigation landscape.
Since the commencement of its operations, the UPC’s caseload indicates that the majority of patents in dispute are situated predominantly in the field of electronics, i.e. within IPC main class H. By contrast, pharmaceutical companies have, until recently, shown reluctance to initiate infringement proceedings before the UPC. Thus, patent proprietors active in this field have generally tended to opt out.
However, there is a growing tendency among stakeholders within the pharmaceutical industry to turn to the UPC as a forum for resolving patent disputes.
Recent developments at the UPC
In August 2025, Gilead Sciences filed a revocation action at the Milan section of the Central Division against a patent held by the Chinese Academy of Military Medical Sciences, relating to the use of substituted aminopropionate compounds in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infections. The patent may pose an obstacle to Gilead’s interests regarding its drug remdesivir. Notably, the revocation action is pursued in parallel with an opposition before the European Patent Office (EPO).
Additionally, Merz initiated a preliminary action against Viatris at the Paris local division, which appears to be the very first supplementary protection certificate (SPC) case before the UPC. Notably, the opt-out was revoked to allow this action. The SPC in question, set to expire in May 2026, relates to a composition containing 4-aminopyridine, a medication for multiple sclerosis available under the brand name Fampyra.
GlaxoSmithKline has also recently commenced multiple lawsuits at the Hague local division against Moderna, BioNTech, and Pfizer, all of which pertain to mRNA patents. Arbutus Biopharma and Genevant Sciences have likewise launched similar proceedings against Moderna in the Hague in spring 2025. Remarkably, the Hague local decision is currently adjudicating six cases concerning mRNA patents, thereby solidifying its position as the principal venue for disputes involving this technology at the UPC.
Furthermore, the UPC Court of Appeal recently overturned a decision of the Lisbon local division and granted the patent proprietor, Boehringer Ingelheim, a preliminary injunction against the generic drug manufacturer, Zentiva. The patent protects Ofev, a marketed drug for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and will reach the end of its term in December 2025.
Will the trend continue?
We expect the number of pharmaceutical cases being filed before the UPC to continue rising, as this development is only now gaining momentum. The reasons for this delayed emergence remain uncertain. One plausible explanation is that the pharmaceutical sector may have chosen to observe the evolution of the UPC and its operational framework before actively engaging, considering the significant investments and risks associated with bringing new products to market. The rising number of cases brought before the UPC by pharmaceutical companies, together with the UPC’s efficient handling and timely delivery of high-quality decisions, is likely further to strengthen the industry’s confidence in the new system. In view of some of the aforementioned cases, it may be inferred that one of the underlying motivations for selecting the UPC was the limited remaining lifespan of the relevant intellectual property right, along with the expectation of obtaining a swift court decision.
