Gilead Sciences v Academy of Military Medical Sciences (CFI, 10 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 10 July 2026 (UPC_CFI_1968/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Central Division orders the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS), proprietor of EP 3 854 403, to pay Gilead Sciences EUR 800,000 in recoverable costs within four weeks of service, following revocation action UPC_CFI_552/2025 won by Gilead. As the amount was not disputed, the issue was a stay: the decision refuses to stay the cost proceedings pending the appeal on the merits and rejects payment by instalments.

Question

Does an appeal against a revocation decision, which has suspensive effect under Art. 74(2) UPCA, justify staying the cost proceedings or allowing payment by instalments?

Decision

No. Art. 74(2) UPCA does not reverse the general rule that an appeal has no suspensive effect for every consequence of a revocation decision, and does not extend to the separate determination of costs under Rules 150 et seq. (paragraphs 4 to 7). Under Rule 295, the mere pendency of the appeal on the merits does not justify a stay. AMMS, which relied on its status as a State entity, gave no concrete information on its financial capacity (paragraphs 9 to 11). Payment by instalments cannot be imposed without the parties’ agreement (paragraph 12). The request for interest, filed late, is inadmissible (paragraph 13).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party ordered to pay costs that seeks a stay must show particular circumstances, in particular a genuine inability to pay, the appeal on the merits is not enough.
• Payment terms, including instalments, are a matter for agreement between the parties and are best settled in the agreement on the amount of costs.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 32, 69 and 74

Rules of Procedure

Rules 150, 157 and 295

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 14

Case law cited

Koninklijke Philips v Belkin, Court of Appeal, 29 October 2024, ALPINA Coffee Systems v CUP&CINO, Court of Appeal, 24 March 2026, Roche Diabetes Care v Tandem Diabetes Care, Paris Central Division, 29 April 2025, NUC Electronics v Hurom, Court of Appeal, 6 June 2025, Carrier v Bitzer Electronics, Court of Appeal, 28 May 2024, bioMérieux v Labrador Diagnostics, Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_937/2025)

Related decisions

• Gilead Sciences v Academy of Military Medical Sciences, 4 May 2026, decision on the merits in the revocation action.

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.