Neurocrine Biosciences v Spruce Biosciences (CFI, 13 March 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 13 March 2026 (UPC_CFI_722/2025), the Milan Central Division found that Neurocrine Biosciences’ revocation action against Spruce Biosciences’ unitary patent EP 3 784 233 had become devoid of purpose following the final revocation of the patent by the EPO, and disposed of the action under Rule 360 RoP. Spruce was ordered to pay costs capped at EUR 488,000, i.e. 80% of the EUR 600,000 ceiling for representation plus the non-refundable part of the court fees. The order is useful for assessing costs where proceedings end after the written phase.

Question

Has the revocation action become devoid of purpose after the EPO revoked the patent, and how should costs be allocated and quantified?

Decision

As the patent was revoked ab initio, the action is devoid of purpose. Neurocrine’s request to make disposal conditional on Spruce undertaking not to assert any divisional goes beyond Rule 360 RoP (paragraphs 22 and 23). Neurocrine succeeded and the rule in Art. 69(1) UPCA applies, Spruce’s complaints of unnecessary costs not justifying a departure (paragraphs 25 to 32). From a ceiling of EUR 600,000, the Division awarded 80%, given the costs concentrated in the completed written phase (paragraph 41), expert costs, insufficiently detailed, were excluded (paragraph 44). 60% of the court fees is reimbursed to Neurocrine (paragraph 48). Cost amounts are not confidential, but three financial exhibits are protected (paragraphs 50 to 54).

Key points for practice

• Final revocation by the EPO renders the UPC revocation action devoid of purpose, and disposal cannot be made subject to undertakings concerning divisionals.
• Practical point: where proceedings end after the written phase, a substantial share of the ceiling (here 80%) may be awarded if the statement of costs is detailed.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 33(10), 45, 58 and 69(1) and (3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 150 to 153, 157, 220.1(a), 221, 262.1, 262.2, 295, 360, 363.2 and 370.9(b)(i)

Case law cited

Stäubli Tec-Systems, Court of Appeal, 26 March 2025, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences, Munich Local Division, 19 December 2023, Ballinno v Kinexon, Court of Appeal, 12 May 2025 (UPC_CoA_328/2024), Milan Central Division, 5 June 2025 (UPC_CFI_477/2025), Brussels Local Division, 16 February 2026 (UPC_CFI_1357/2025)

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.