La Siddhi Consultancy v Athena Pharmaceutiques (CFI, 19 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 19 May 2026 (UPC_CFI_927/2025), the panel of the Milan Central Division ruled on the confidentiality application by La Siddhi Consultancy, claimant in the revocation action against unitary patent EP 3 592 333 brought against Athena Pharmaceutiques and Substipharm, concerning exhibit MW21, a non-public agreement with a third party filed to show that the claimant is « concerned » by the patent under Art. 47(6) UPCA. It refused an external-representatives-only regime and admitted, on the defendants’ side, their head of legal and one Indian counsel.

Question

Can a party obtain that access to a confidential exhibit be limited to the other side’s external representatives only, and who may be admitted to the confidentiality club?

Decision

In line with the Court of Appeal’s case law (Sun v Vivo), the party concerned must be able to designate at least one natural person, employment by the party being no ground for exclusion. An « external eyes only » regime requires exceptional circumstances, not shown here, the exhibit going to an admissibility issue the defendants are entitled to address (paragraphs 18 and 22 to 30). The auxiliary request is granted: access is limited to the external representatives, the head of legal of the first defendant and a single Indian counsel already involved in the case, a second person not being justified (paragraphs 31 to 41). Experts must be named in a reasoned application (paragraphs 42 to 44). Leave to appeal is granted to both sides.

Key points for practice

• The confidentiality club may include a foreign lawyer involved in conducting the UPC case, even if not a representative (paragraphs 38 and 39).
• Practical point: a party filing an agreement to establish its standing should expect at least one in-house lawyer on the other side to see it, only exceptional circumstances can prevent this.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 47(6), 54 and 58

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262, 262A and 220.2

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 9(3)

Case law cited

Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi, Court of Appeal, 12 February 2025, NST v Qualcomm, Court of Appeal, 3 July 2025, Sun Patent Trust v Vivo, Court of Appeal, 26 January 2026, Ericsson v Asustek, Milan Local Division, 28 April 2025

Related decisions

• La Siddhi Consultancy v Athena Pharmaceutiques, 13 March 2026, order on security for costs.

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.