Key takeaways
Suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA and R. 223.2 RoP is granted only exceptionally, where the applicant proves its interest in maintaining the status quo until the decision on its appeal exceptionally outweighs the respondent’s interest.
Relying on its own case law, the Court of Appeal confirmed that an exception may apply if the impugned order is manifestly erroneous or the appeal would become devoid of purpose absent suspensive effect. The burden of proof lies with the applicant.
Whether the impugned order is based on incorrect conclusions and contradictory reasoning is a matter for the Court of Appeal to decide in its order in the appeal proceedings.
In the case at hand, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that his interest in not paying the costs until the appeal on the impugned order is ruled upon exceptionally outweighs respondent’s interest.
Division
Court of Appeal, Luxembourg
UPC number
UPC_CoA_121/2026 (first instance: UPC_CFI_1968/2026 cost proceedings; UPC_CFI_552/2025 revocation action)
Type of proceedings
Application for leave to appeal against a cost decision and application for suspensive effect
Parties
Applicant (Defendant in the revocation proceedings): Academy of Military Medical Sciences (“AMMS”)
vs.
Respondent (Claimant in the revocation proceedings): Gilead Sciences, Inc. (“Gilead”)
Patent(s)
EP 3 854 403
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 74(1) UPCA
Art. 74(2) UPCA
R. 156.3 RoP
R. 157 RoP
R. 221 RoP
R. 223.2 RoP
R. 295(c) RoP
R. 295(m) RoP
