Boehringer Ingelheim Internati v Zentiva Portugal (CFI, 17 November 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 17 November 2025 (UPC_CFI_858/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Lisbon Local Division rejected Zentiva Portugal’s preliminary objection in the infringement action brought by Boehringer Ingelheim International on the basis of EP 1 830 843 (nintedanib). The order confirms that the UPC hears an action based on a threat of infringement disclosed by a national administrative act, without reviewing that act.

Question

Does the dispute belong to the Portuguese administrative courts because the alleged threat of infringement rests on INFARMED Communication No. 0689/2024, and can the absence of proven infringing acts support a preliminary objection?

Decision

The objection, lodged within one month of service, concerns jurisdiction and falls within Rule 19 (paragraph 6). The UPC has exclusive jurisdiction over actions for actual or threatened infringement of a European patent that has not been opted out (Art. 32(1)(a) and Art. 83(3) UPCA, Arts 71a and 71b of the Brussels I Recast Regulation), provided that the claimant alleges infringement or a threat of it (paragraphs 7 to 9). The dispute is between two private competitors: the Communication is the ground for the alleged threat, not the threat itself, and its legality need not be assessed (paragraphs 10 to 13). The argument that no infringing acts were shown goes to the merits and lies outside the exhaustive grounds of Rule 19 (paragraph 14). The objection was rejected and the proceedings continue (paragraph 15 and order).

Key points for practice

• A national administrative authorisation or notice may ground a threat of infringement without moving the dispute to the national administrative courts.
• Whether infringing acts actually occurred is a merits issue, not a matter for a preliminary objection.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 31, Art. 32(1)(a) and Art. 83(3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19, 20.1, 21.1 and 220.2

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 1(1) and Arts 71, 71a and 71b

Case law cited

Aylo Freesites v Dish, Court of Appeal, 3 September 2024

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.