STADAPHARM v ACCORD HEALTHCARE (CoA, 14 April 2025)

Date	14 April 2025
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Appeal RoP220.2
Registry reference	APL_8326/2025 · ORD_16530/2025
Parties	STADAPHARM GmbH v. ACCORD HEALTHCARE S.L.U., ACCORD HEALTHCARE LIMITED,, Novartis AG, ACCORD HEALTHCARE B.V.

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

By decision of 14 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_150/2025, APL_8326/2025), the Court of Appeal (Judges Kalden, presiding and judge-rapporteur, Simonsson and Rombach) reversed the order of the Milan Central Division of 3 February 2025 and granted Stadapharm access to Accord Healthcare’s statement of claim for a declaration of non-infringement against Novartis (EP 2 501 384) and its Annexes TW01 to TW36, redacted of personal data. The first instance had refused access because no interest had been shown while the main proceedings were pending.

Question

Should a third party be granted access to the file under Rule 262.1(b) once the main proceedings have ended and the parties no longer object?

Decision

After the appeal was lodged, Accord withdrew its action, and the withdrawal was allowed on 1 April 2025. Novartis then withdrew its objection and stated that no part of Accord’s pleadings and exhibits required confidentiality, save for redaction of the personal data of employees and counsel (paragraph 9). As the main proceedings had ended, Accord did not object and Novartis agreed, there was no reason to deny access (paragraph 10). Access was granted to the documents redacted in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (paragraph 11).

Key points for practice

Practical point: a refusal of access based on pending proceedings may be revisited on appeal if the proceedings end in the meantime.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rule 262.1(b)
Other provisions: Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Case law cited: No UPC decision is cited.

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.

Going further

Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

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.

Parties

defendantNovartis AG11 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantSTADAPHARM GmbH3 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantACCORD HEALTHCARE S.L.U3 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantACCORD HEALTHCARE LIMITED5 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantACCORD HEALTHCARE B.V.4 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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: Appeal RoP220.2
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): L'ordonnance de refus est infirmée et l'accès accordé à la demande d'Accord et à ses annexes, caviardées des données personnelles.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

EP 2 501 384 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 501 384`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): Novartis v ZENTIVA PORTUGAL (CFI, 31 July 2025) · Accord Healthcare v Novartis (CFI, 10 April 2025) · ZENTIVA K.S. v NOVARTIS (CFI, 21 March 2025) · STADAPHARM v Novartis (CFI, 3 February 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked 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.