Academy of Military Medical Sciences v Gilead Sciences (CoA, 4 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 4 August 2026 (UPC_CoA_121/2026), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal grants the Academy of Military Medical Sciences leave to appeal the Milan Central Division’s order of 10 July 2026, which had ordered it to pay Gilead Sciences, Inc. EUR 800,000 in recoverable costs following revocation of EP 3 854 403, but rejects its application for suspensive effect. Leave is granted because a question remains open before the Court: does the automatic suspensive effect that Art. 74(2) UPCA attaches to an appeal against a revocation decision extend to the costs decision?

Question

Should leave to appeal be granted against a costs decision following revocation of a patent, and does such an appeal have suspensive effect?

Decision

Art. 74(1) UPCA rules out suspensive effect as a principle, while Art. 74(2) always provides for it in an appeal against a revocation decision (paragraph 12). As the Court of Appeal has not yet decided whether that rule covers the costs decision, leave to appeal is granted (paragraphs 13 and 14). Suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP is granted only exceptionally, where the appellant’s interest in maintaining the status quo prevails, for example where the order is manifestly erroneous or the appeal would become devoid of purpose without it (paragraphs 16 and 17). The Academy, which merely refers to its grounds of appeal, shows no exceptional circumstances and no prevailing interest in not paying pending the appeal. Whether the order is wrong is a matter for the merits (paragraphs 18 to 20).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party ordered to pay costs that claims the benefit of Art. 74(2) UPCA must, pending the appeal, show exceptional circumstances to avoid payment (paragraphs 17 to 20).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 32(1), 73(1) and (2) and 74(1) and (2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 156.3, 157, 221, 223 and 295(c) and (m)

Case law cited

Sibio v Abbott, Court of Appeal, 19 August 2024, Bhagat v Oerlikon, Court of Appeal, 16 January 2025, Suinno v Microsoft, Court of Appeal, 24 November 2025, Chint v Jingao, Court of Appeal, 20 May 2025 (UPC_CoA_430/2025)

Related decisions

• Gilead Sciences v Academy of Military Medical Sciences, 4 May 2026, decision revoking the patent.
• Gilead Sciences v Academy of Military Medical Sciences, 10 July 2026, the costs order for which leave to appeal was sought.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.