Merz Pharmaceuticals v Viatris Santé (CoA, 26 January 2026)
| Date | 26 January 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Application RoP262.2 |
| Registry reference | UPC-CoA-0000917/2025 |
| Parties | Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France v. Viatris Santé |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
In the appeal brought by Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH and Merz Pharma France against the order of the Paris Local Division of 21 November 2025 (UPC_CFI_697/2025), which had refused their application for provisional measures against Viatris Santé based on French supplementary protection certificate No. 13C0033 (EP 2 377 536), the Court of Appeal defers its decision on the confidentiality request concerning Exhibit 823 and confirms that a document may not be lodged under the “HC” code without an application under Rule 262A RoP.
Question
Does a request under Art. 58 UPCA and Rule 262.2 RoP justify making an exhibit inaccessible to the other party by lodging it under the “HC” code?
Decision
A request under Rule 262.2 RoP gives no protection, even provisionally, against disclosure by the other party. It concerns future public access and is generally decided only once a reasoned request under Rule 262.1(b) RoP is lodged (paragraph 7). A Rule 262A RoP application must be made when the document is lodged (paragraph 8). Absent a simultaneous application or a statement of earlier protection, pleadings and evidence are accessible to the other party without restriction (paragraphs 9 and 10). Lodging under the “HC” code has no legal basis and conflicts with the other party’s legitimate interest in immediate access. The Court will therefore change the code to “M” (paragraphs 11 and 12). It does not decide the request concerning public access at this stage.
Key points for practice
- To withhold an exhibit from the other party, a Rule 262A RoP application must be filed when lodging it. The “HC” code alone is not enough (paragraphs 8 and 11).
- A Rule 262.2 RoP request concerns public access only and may remain undecided until a third party seeks access (paragraph 7).
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 58
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 211.4, 262.1(b), 262.2 and 262A
- Case law cited
- Strabag v Swarco, Court of Appeal, 1 August 2025, UPC_CoA_70/2025.
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.
Decisions in the same proceedings
Going further
Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal, Supplementary protection certificate (SPC), Biosimilar medicinal product, Launch at risk.
Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show, Pharmaceutical patents and the UPC: is the Court hostile to them?.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: The Launch Letter: How Generics and Biosimilars Should Write to Avoid UPC Urgency (Kluwer Patent Blog).
Source and translations
- Official source
- Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
- Original language
- not recorded
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
Follow this case
Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.
Proceedings
UPC_CFI_697/2025Parties
- claimantMerz Pharma France7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantMerz Therapeutics GmbH7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantMerz Pharmaceuticals LLC8 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantViatris Santé7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application RoP262.2
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La cour d’appel sursoit à statuer sur la demande de confidentialité à l’égard du public et juge que le dépôt d’une pièce sous code « HC » sans demande au titre de la règle 262A est dépourvu de base légale.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal (first instance cited: UPC_CFI_697/2025).
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Patents mentioned
EP 2 377 536mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Merz Pharmaceuticals v Viatris Santé (CoA, 27 April 2026) cited in this record
- EOFlow v Insulet (CoA, 29 January 2026) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 377 536Methods of Using Sustained Release Aminopyridine Compositions recorded proprietor: Acorda Therapeutics Inc | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): Merz Pharma France v Viatris Santé (CFI, 30 July 2026) · Merz Pharmaceuticals v Viatris Santé (CoA, 27 April 2026) · Gowling WLG v Merz Therapeutics (CFI, 19 February 2026) · Viatris Santé v Merz Pharmaceuticals (CoA, 19 December 2025) · Merz Therapeutics v Viatris Santé (CFI, 17 September 2025) · Merz Pharma France v Viatris Santé (CFI, 15 October 2026) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
Receive an alert
Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.