LD Paris, July 30, 2026, Order Concerning A Preliminary Objection, UPC-CFI-1901/2026

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.

Explore Firm Details

The Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed critical jurisdictional questions regarding the interplay between UPC proceedings for provisional measures and parallel national French actions involving supplementary protection certificates. The court examined whether it was "first seized" under Brussels I recast regulations and whether related national proceedings warranted staying the UPC case or declining jurisdiction.

France Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Article Insights

Nobuchika Mamine’s articles from Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
in European Union
in European Union

Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Technology topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

Re lis pendens (Art. 29 Brussels I recast):

Here, the UPC was not “the court first seized” based on the date on which the application for provisional measures was filed before the UPC.
The earlier application for provisional measures before the UPC and the later filed national French action for revocation of the SPC, for a declaration of non-infringement, and for a compulsory licence do not have the “same cause of action”.

Re related cases and may stay (Art. 30 Brussels I recast):

The need to stay the later filed UPC proceedings on the merits or to decline jurisdiction in favor of the earlier filed national French proceedings must be assessed by evaluating the facts of the case.
Here, the stay is denied in view of limited consequences of conflicting decisions, progress in proceedings, and strict time limit regime of UPC.

The application for provisional measures and the action on the merits are two distinct proceedings, each governed by specific rules and each pursuing a different objective. In the present case, the action for provisional measures was meanwhile closed. Moreover, an application for provisional measures is not necessarily followed by the filing of an action on the merits. The action for provisional measures cannot be equated with an application for legal aid in order to bring the action on the merits before court. (p. 6, para. 1).

The likelihood that the final decision of the UPC will be handed down prior to the decision of the national court is relevant. In general, the timeline before the national court depends on the parties’ conduct during the proceedings, whereas the UPC rules establish a strict and mandatory time limit regime (the UPC aims to deliver decisions within 12 months). Based on the present circumstances, the Court considers that the UPC’s decision will likely be handed down before the national court will issue its decision. Even if the UPC issued an injunction and the SPC is subsequently revoked by the national court, the necessary conclusions can be drawn: The injunction would no longer have any effect due to the invalidation of the SPC (“one bullet kills”).

2. Division

Local Division Paris

3. UPC number

UPC-CFI-1901/2026

4. Type of proceedings

Preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP)

5. Parties

Applicant (Defendant in the main proceedings):

Viatris Sante

Respondents (Claimants in the main proceedings):

Merz Pharma France, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC

6. Patent(s)

French SPC No. 13C0033EP2377536 based on EP 2 377 536

7. Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 19 RoP, Art. 29, 30 Brussels Reg I Recast.

To view the full article please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]