Academy of Military Medical Sciences v Gilead Sciences (CoA, 18 September 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 18 September 2026 (UPC_CoA_121/2026), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought by the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS) against the costs decision of the Milan Central Division of 10 July 2026, which ordered it to pay EUR 800,000 in recoverable costs within four weeks. The automatic suspensive effect that Art. 74(2) UPCA gives to an appeal against a revocation decision covers the ruling on validity only, not a costs decision made in separate proceedings. For practitioners, an appeal on the merits against revocation of the patent does not relieve the losing party of the obligation to pay the costs as fixed.

Question

Does a costs decision following a revocation action benefit from the automatic suspensive effect of the appeal, and should the division have stayed the costs proceedings or allowed payment in instalments?

Decision

Art. 74(2) UPCA is an exception to the rule in Art. 74(1) that appeals have no suspensive effect and must be construed narrowly: it covers the ruling on validity and, where ordered, revocation (paragraphs 13 to 17). Proceedings for a costs decision under Rules 150 et seq. RoP are separate proceedings, even where the costs decision appears in the same document (paragraphs 18 and 19). The refusal of a stay under Rule 295 RoP is reviewed only for whether the Court of First Instance exceeded its discretion, which AMMS failed to show, the amount being uncontested (paragraphs 20 to 23). The same applies to the four-week period for payment, since the alleged payment difficulties were not demonstrated (paragraphs 24 to 31).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party whose patent has been revoked should plan for payment of the costs as fixed, since an appeal on the merits does not suspend them, a stay or instalments require properly substantiated evidence of the interests at stake.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 69, 74(1) and 74(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.5, 150 et seq., 221 and 295

Case law cited

ICPillar v ARM, Court of Appeal, 19 June 2024, Hanshow v VusionGroup, Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_618/2024.

Related decisions

• Academy of Military Medical Sciences v Gilead Sciences, 4 August 2026, order granting leave to appeal and refusing suspensive effect.

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.