STADAPHARM v Novartis (CFI, 3 February 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 3 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_698/2024, ORD_68703/2024), the Milan Central Division (Judges Postiglione, presiding and rapporteur, Knijff and Werner) dismissed the request by STADAPHARM, a non-party, for access to the file in the action for a declaration of non-infringement brought by Accord Healthcare against Novartis on EP 2 501 384. Novartis had obtained provisional measures in Germany against STADAPHARM on the same patent, which were under appeal. The order matters for competitors in parallel litigation: access under Rule 262.1(b) cannot be used as a tactical tool against the proprietor.

Question

Can a competitor engaged in parallel national litigation obtain access to the pleadings in a UPC non-infringement action, and are written pleadings without an electronic signature valid?

Decision

Novartis’s pleadings were valid: Rule 4.1 does not require an electronic signature where the filing is unequivocally traceable to the lawyer (paragraph 6). Access was refused: only Accord’s documents were on file at the date of the request, and STADAPHARM itself described them as of no use (paragraph 7). Balancing against the integrity of proceedings weighed against access sought to expose Novartis’s defence and influence the German appeal (paragraphs 8 to 14). There was no risk of irreconcilable decisions between a non-infringement ruling and provisional measures (paragraph 15). Absent a decision on the merits, no costs order was made under Rule 150 (paragraph 16).

Key points for practice

• A request for access covers only the documents on file at the date it is made.
• Practical point: a non-party in parallel litigation with the proprietor must show an interest distinct from its own dispute, seeking a tactical advantage defeats access.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 10, 44, 45 and 73(2)(b)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 4.1, 150, 220.2, 224.1(b), 262, 262A and 264

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024, Ocado v AutoStore (UPC_CoA_404/2023), Court of Appeal, Abbott v Sibio (UPC_CoA_480/2024 and UPC_CoA_481/2024), Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (UPC_CFI_8/2023), Milan Central Division (UPC_CFI_380/2024), Paris Central Division (UPC_CFI_412/2023)

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.