Opens in a new tab

Merz Pharmaceuticals v Viatris Santé (CoA, 26 January 2026)

Date26 January 2026
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionApplication RoP262.2
Registry referenceUPC-CoA-0000917/2025
PartiesMerz 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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

No case number recorded in this record.
First instance cited in the decision: UPC_CFI_697/2025

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 377 536
Methods 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · 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
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.