The order concerned AMMS’s application for leave to appeal against a cost decision and its application for suspensive effect, with Gilead as respondent. Gilead had brought a revocation action against EP 3 854 403, which the Central Division Milan revoked in its entirety, and the parties had agreed that the first-instance costs were EUR 800,000. The Central Division Milan then ordered AMMS to pay Gilead EUR 800,000 in recoverable costs within four weeks and held that the automatic suspensive effect under Art. 74(2) UPCA did not extend to the subsequent and separate determination of costs.

AMMS sought leave to appeal and argued that Art. 74(2) UPCA covered the entire decision on the revocation claim, including the dependent cost provisions. The Court of Appeal stated that an appeal against a decision on actions or counterclaims for revocation and on actions based on Article 32(1)(i) UPCA shall always have suspensive effect, and that whether this effect extends to related costs decisions had not already been resolved. It therefore granted leave to appeal without deciding that scope question.

For discretionary suspensive effect, the Court stated that the circumstances had to justify an exception to the principle that an appeal has no suspensive effect, and that AMMS’s interest in maintaining the status quo had to exceptionally outweigh Gilead’s interest. The Court found that AMMS had not evidenced exceptional circumstances and had not shown that its interest in not paying the costs pending the appeal exceptionally outweighed Gilead’s interest.

The application for suspensive effect was therefore rejected.

","multilingual_admin_summary",{"_83":379,"_81":380},"ai_translation_metadata",{"_361":362,"_363":364,"_365":366},"apports",[169,170,171,172,173],"detail_page_url","https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/183949","source_version","4.0.0-enhanced","last_updated_at","2026-09-13T20:24:14.275000Z",{"_118":174,"_175":335,"_177":178,"_179":180,"_181":182,"_183":184,"_185":336,"_15":337,"_188":338,"_17":339,"_191":340,"_193":-5,"_194":341,"_196":197,"_198":283,"_200":342,"_202":203,"_204":285,"_206":343,"_208":344,"_210":211,"_212":345},{"_118":174,"_175":305,"_177":306,"_179":180,"_181":182,"_183":184,"_185":307,"_15":308,"_188":309,"_17":310,"_191":311,"_193":312,"_194":313,"_196":197,"_198":283,"_200":314,"_202":203,"_204":285,"_206":315,"_208":316,"_210":211,"_212":317},{"_118":272,"_175":273,"_177":274,"_179":275,"_181":276,"_183":184,"_185":277,"_15":278,"_188":279,"_17":280,"_191":281,"_193":-5,"_194":282,"_196":197,"_198":283,"_200":284,"_202":203,"_204":285,"_206":286,"_208":287,"_210":211,"_212":288},{"_118":174,"_175":246,"_177":178,"_179":180,"_181":182,"_183":184,"_185":247,"_15":248,"_188":249,"_17":250,"_191":251,"_193":-5,"_194":252,"_196":197,"_198":253,"_200":254,"_202":203,"_204":205,"_206":207,"_208":255,"_210":256,"_212":257},{"_118":174,"_175":176,"_177":178,"_179":180,"_181":182,"_183":184,"_185":186,"_15":187,"_188":189,"_17":190,"_191":192,"_193":-5,"_194":195,"_196":197,"_198":199,"_200":201,"_202":203,"_204":205,"_206":207,"_208":209,"_210":211,"_212":213},"0e92a576-9f03-52d5-a917-7646433421a8","instance_id","286cef70-84fa-50fb-b761-8ba90b173340","article_number","Article 74(1)","regulation","UPCA","document_type","upc_agreement","anchor_status","linked","legal_links",[239],"The applicant must establish the exceptional circumstances relied upon to obtain suspensive effect.","citation","Page 4: 18. The requirement of exceptional circumstances has to be established by the applicant. In its application, AMMS has not evidenced the existence of exceptional circumstances which would justify why the lodging of the appeal shall have suspensive effect but has merely referred to the reasons for hearing the appeal (part 3 of the application) and to the reasons for setting aside the impugned order (part 4 of the application).","The Court of Appeal stated that the requirement of exceptional circumstances has to be established by the applicant. It then found that AMMS had not evidenced such circumstances and had merely referred to the reasons for hearing the appeal and for setting aside the impugned order.","translations",{"_10":229,"_83":230,"_81":231},"impact_sentence","source_extract","18. The requirement of exceptional circumstances has to be established by the applicant. In its application, AMMS has not evidenced the existence of exceptional circumstances which would justify why the lodging of the appeal shall have suspensive effect but has merely referred to the reasons for hearing the appeal (part 3 of the application) and to the reasons for setting aside the impugned order (part 4 of the application).","source_extract_language","unk","source_location","Page 4","source_evidence",[215],"grounding_status","verified","support_status","unverified","support_reason","Référence juridique absente du passage cité : Article 74(1) UPCA","legal_anchor",[214],"confidence",0.99,"content_sha256","a3332ddbfdd005f987b341203e8b9d5524b6b2e446c0310db6ef20a88552ff10","Article 74(1) UPCA",{"_216":217,"_218":219,"_220":108,"_221":222,"_223":195,"_224":225,"_226":227,"_228":219},"block_id","p0004-b005","page",4,"start_char","end_char",428,"quote","verification","verbatim","end_block_id","p0004-b006","page_end",{"_194":195,"_233":195,"_15":187,"_17":190,"_193":-5},{"_194":236,"_233":195,"_15":237,"_17":238,"_193":-5},{"_194":232,"_233":195,"_15":234,"_17":235,"_193":-5},"18. Das Erfordernis außergewöhnlicher Umstände muss vom Antragsteller nachgewiesen werden. AMMS hat in seinem Antrag das Vorliegen außergewöhnlicher Umstände, die rechtfertigen würden, weshalb die Einlegung der Berufung aufschiebende Wirkung haben soll, nicht nachgewiesen, sondern lediglich auf die Gründe für die Verhandlung der Berufung (Teil 3 des Antrags) und auf die Gründe für die Aufhebung der angefochtenen Anordnung (Teil 4 des Antrags) verwiesen.","source_extract_original","Der Antragsteller muss die außergewöhnlichen Umstände darlegen, auf die er sich zur Erlangung der aufschiebenden Wirkung beruft.","Das Berufungsgericht stellte fest, dass der Antragsteller das Vorliegen außergewöhnlicher Umstände nachweisen muss. Es stellte anschließend fest, dass AMMS solche Umstände nicht nachgewiesen, sondern lediglich auf die Gründe für die Verhandlung der Berufung und für die Aufhebung der angefochtenen Anordnung verwiesen hatte.","18. L’exigence de circonstances exceptionnelles doit être établie par le demandeur. Dans sa demande, AMMS n’a pas établi l’existence de circonstances exceptionnelles qui justifieraient que l’introduction de l’appel ait un effet suspensif, mais s’est simplement référée aux motifs justifiant l’examen de l’appel (partie 3 de la demande) et aux motifs justifiant l’annulation de l’ordonnance attaquée (partie 4 de la demande).","Le demandeur doit établir les circonstances exceptionnelles invoquées pour obtenir l’effet suspensif.","La Cour d’appel a déclaré que l’exigence de circonstances exceptionnelles devait être établie par le demandeur. Elle a ensuite constaté qu’AMMS n’avait pas établi l’existence de telles circonstances et s’était bornée à se référer aux motifs justifiant l’examen de l’appel et à ceux justifiant l’annulation de l’ordonnance attaquée.",{"_118":174,"_181":182,"_240":180,"_177":178,"_241":242,"_243":244,"_245":214,"_179":180},"document_label","node_number","ARTICLE 74","node_name","Effects of an appeal","anchor_text","3be0a2ae-b374-5243-a24d-548dbf67999b",[271],"Suspensive effect may be granted only where the circumstances justify an exception to the principle that an appeal has no suspensive effect, assessed by weighing the appellant’s interest in maintaining the status quo against the respondent’s interest.","Pages 3, 4: 16. An appeal shall not have suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise at the motivated request of one of the parties (Article 74.1 UPCA). According to R. 223.2 RoP, the application for suspensive effect shall set out (a) the reasons why the lodging of the appeal shall have suspensive effect and (b) the facts, evidence and arguments relied on. 17. The Court of Appeal can grant the application only if the circumstances of the case justify an exception to the principle that the appeal has no suspensive effect (UPC_CoA_388/2024, APL_39884/2024, 19 August 2024, Sibio v Abbott; UPC UPC_CoA_12/2025 APL_366/2025 App_1182/2025, 16 January 2025, Bhagat v Oerlikon). It must be examined whether, on the basis of these circumstances, the appellant's interest in maintaining the status quo until the decision on its appeal exceptionally outweighs the respondent's interest. An exception to the principle that an appeal has no suspensive effect may apply, for instance, if the appealed order or decision is manifestly erroneous, or if the appeal becomes devoid of purpose in the absence of suspensive effect (Court of Appeal 24 November 2025, UPC_CoA_911/2025, Suinno v Microsoft; Court of Appeal 20 May 2025, UPC_CoA_430/2025 APL_23093/2025 App_23094/2025, Chint v. Jingao).","The Court of Appeal stated that it can grant the application only if the circumstances justify an exception to the principle that an appeal has no suspensive effect. It stated that the appellant’s interest in maintaining the status quo until the appeal is decided must exceptionally outweigh the respondent’s interest, and gave as examples a manifestly erroneous appealed order or decision and an appeal becoming devoid of purpose without suspensive effect.",{"_10":262,"_83":263,"_81":264},"16. An appeal shall not have suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise at the motivated request of one of the parties (Article 74.1 UPCA). According to R. 223.2 RoP, the application for suspensive effect shall set out (a) the reasons why the lodging of the appeal shall have suspensive effect and (b) the facts, evidence and arguments relied on. 17. The Court of Appeal can grant the application only if the circumstances of the case justify an exception to the principle that the appeal has no suspensive effect (UPC_CoA_388/2024, APL_39884/2024, 19 August 2024, Sibio v Abbott; UPC UPC_CoA_12/2025 APL_366/2025 App_1182/2025, 16 January 2025, Bhagat v Oerlikon). It must be examined whether, on the basis of these circumstances, the appellant's interest in maintaining the status quo until the decision on its appeal exceptionally outweighs the respondent's interest. An exception to the principle that an appeal has no suspensive effect may apply, for instance, if the appealed order or decision is manifestly erroneous, or if the appeal becomes devoid of purpose in the absence of suspensive effect (Court of Appeal 24 November 2025, UPC_CoA_911/2025, Suinno v Microsoft; Court of Appeal 20 May 2025, UPC_CoA_430/2025 APL_23093/2025 App_23094/2025, Chint v. Jingao).","Pages 3, 4",[258],[214],0.98,"a67f4b88b572f4c66d36bbeb4384fb8ecf84d5bec6cab4ca760150db9b32a948",{"_216":259,"_218":47,"_220":108,"_221":260,"_223":252,"_224":225,"_226":261,"_228":219},"p0003-b010",1291,"p0004-b004",{"_194":252,"_233":252,"_15":248,"_17":250,"_193":-5},{"_194":268,"_233":252,"_15":269,"_17":270,"_193":-5},{"_194":265,"_233":252,"_15":266,"_17":267,"_193":-5},"16. Eine Berufung hat keine aufschiebende Wirkung, sofern das Berufungsgericht nicht auf begründeten Antrag einer der Parteien etwas anderes entscheidet (Artikel 74.1 EPGÜ). Nach R. 223.2 VerfO muss der Antrag auf aufschiebende Wirkung (a) die Gründe darlegen, weshalb die Einlegung der Berufung aufschiebende Wirkung haben soll, und (b) die angeführten Tatsachen, Beweismittel und Argumente. 17. Das Berufungsgericht kann dem Antrag nur stattgeben, wenn die Umstände des Falls eine Ausnahme von dem Grundsatz rechtfertigen, dass die Berufung keine aufschiebende Wirkung hat (UPC_CoA_388/2024, APL_39884/2024, 19. August 2024, Sibio v Abbott; UPC UPC_CoA_12/2025 APL_366/2025 App_1182/2025, 16. Januar 2025, Bhagat v Oerlikon). Es ist zu prüfen, ob unter Berücksichtigung dieser Umstände das Interesse des Berufungsklägers an der Aufrechterhaltung des status quo bis zur Entscheidung über seine Berufung das Interesse des Berufungsbeklagten ausnahmsweise überwiegt. Eine Ausnahme von dem Grundsatz, dass eine Berufung keine aufschiebende Wirkung hat, kann beispielsweise vorliegen, wenn die angefochtene Anordnung oder Entscheidung offensichtlich fehlerhaft ist oder wenn die Berufung ohne aufschiebende Wirkung gegenstandslos wird (Berufungsgericht 24. November 2025, UPC_CoA_911/2025, Suinno v Microsoft; Berufungsgericht 20. Mai 2025, UPC_CoA_430/2025 APL_23093/2025 App_23094/2025, Chint v. Jingao).","Eine aufschiebende Wirkung kann nur gewährt werden, wenn die Umstände eine Ausnahme von dem Grundsatz rechtfertigen, dass eine Berufung keine aufschiebende Wirkung hat; dabei sind das Interesse des Berufungsklägers an der Aufrechterhaltung des status quo und das Interesse des Berufungsbeklagten gegeneinander abzuwägen.","Das Berufungsgericht stellte fest, dass es dem Antrag nur stattgeben kann, wenn die Umstände des Falls eine Ausnahme von dem Grundsatz rechtfertigen, dass eine Berufung keine aufschiebende Wirkung hat. Es stellte fest, dass das Interesse des Berufungsklägers an der Aufrechterhaltung des status quo bis zur Entscheidung über seine Berufung das Interesse des Berufungsbeklagten ausnahmsweise überwiegen muss, und nannte als Beispiele eine offensichtlich fehlerhafte angefochtene Anordnung oder Entscheidung sowie den Fall, dass die Berufung ohne aufschiebende Wirkung gegenstandslos wird.","16. Un appel n’a pas d’effet suspensif, sauf décision contraire de la Cour d’appel à la demande motivée de l’une des parties (article 74.1 de l’ACUP). Selon la règle 223.2 du règlement de procédure, la demande d’effet suspensif doit exposer (a) les raisons pour lesquelles l’introduction de l’appel devrait avoir un effet suspensif et (b) les faits, éléments de preuve et arguments invoqués. 17. La Cour d’appel ne peut faire droit à la demande que si les circonstances de l’affaire justifient une exception au principe selon lequel l’appel n’a pas d’effet suspensif (UPC_CoA_388/2024, APL_39884/2024, 19 août 2024, Sibio c. Abbott ; UPC UPC_CoA_12/2025 APL_366/2025 App_1182/2025, 16 janvier 2025, Bhagat c. Oerlikon). Il convient d’examiner si, sur la base de ces circonstances, l’intérêt de l’appelant à maintenir le statu quo jusqu’à la décision sur son appel l’emporte exceptionnellement sur l’intérêt de l’intimé. Une exception au principe selon lequel un appel n’a pas d’effet suspensif peut s’appliquer, par exemple, si l’ordonnance ou la décision attaquée est manifestement erronée, ou si l’appel devient dépourvu d’objet en l’absence d’effet suspensif (Cour d’appel, 24 novembre 2025, UPC_CoA_911/2025, Suinno c. Microsoft ; Cour d’appel, 20 mai 2025, UPC_CoA_430/2025 APL_23093/2025 App_23094/2025, Chint c. Jingao).","L’effet suspensif ne peut être accordé que lorsque les circonstances justifient une exception au principe selon lequel un appel n’a pas d’effet suspensif, cette appréciation reposant sur la mise en balance de l’intérêt de l’appelant à maintenir le statu quo et de l’intérêt de l’intimé.","La Cour d’appel a déclaré qu’elle ne peut faire droit à la demande que si les circonstances de l’affaire justifient une exception au principe selon lequel un appel n’a pas d’effet suspensif. Elle a déclaré que l’intérêt de l’appelant à maintenir le statu quo jusqu’à ce qu’il soit statué sur son appel doit exceptionnellement l’emporter sur l’intérêt de l’intimé, et a cité comme exemples une ordonnance ou décision attaquée manifestement erronée et le cas où l’appel deviendrait dépourvu d’objet en l’absence d’effet suspensif.",{"_118":174,"_181":182,"_240":180,"_177":178,"_241":242,"_243":244,"_245":214,"_179":180},"ec7978ee-d257-58fb-ab65-1bda211980f3","2ab4f82b-d49d-57e8-865e-941b526c66de","Rule 223.2","RoP","rules_of_procedure",[302],"An application for suspensive effect must set out the reasons why lodging the appeal should have suspensive effect and the facts, evidence and arguments relied on.","Page 3: 16. An appeal shall not have suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise at the motivated request of one of the parties (Article 74.1 UPCA). According to R. 223.2 RoP, the application for suspensive effect shall set out (a) the reasons why the lodging of the appeal shall have suspensive effect and (b) the facts, evidence and arguments relied on.","The Court of Appeal referred to Rule 223.2 RoP as requiring the application to state both the reasons for seeking suspensive effect and the facts, evidence and arguments relied upon.",{"_10":293,"_83":294,"_81":295},"16. An appeal shall not have suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise at the motivated request of one of the parties (Article 74.1 UPCA). According to R. 223.2 RoP, the application for suspensive effect shall set out (a) the reasons why the lodging of the appeal shall have suspensive effect and (b) the facts, evidence and arguments relied on.","Page 3",[290],"supported","The citation expressly states the two requirements in Rule 223.2 RoP: reasons for suspensive effect and the facts, evidence, and arguments relied upon.",[289],"57d5af594f949988ebe31ccd776d0b8dae28647a2563a6313e8f5c7714ed7bf3","Rule 223.2 RoP",{"_216":259,"_218":47,"_220":108,"_221":291,"_223":282,"_224":225,"_226":292,"_228":47},366,"p0003-b011",{"_194":282,"_233":282,"_15":278,"_17":280,"_193":-5},{"_194":299,"_233":282,"_15":300,"_17":301,"_193":-5},{"_194":296,"_233":282,"_15":297,"_17":298,"_193":-5},"16. Eine Berufung hat keine aufschiebende Wirkung, sofern das Berufungsgericht nicht auf begründeten Antrag einer der Parteien etwas anderes entscheidet (Artikel 74.1 EPGÜ). Nach R. 223.2 VerfO muss der Antrag auf aufschiebende Wirkung (a) die Gründe darlegen, weshalb die Einlegung der Berufung aufschiebende Wirkung haben soll, und (b) die angeführten Tatsachen, Beweismittel und Argumente.","Ein Antrag auf aufschiebende Wirkung muss die Gründe darlegen, weshalb die Einlegung der Berufung aufschiebende Wirkung haben sollte, sowie die angeführten Tatsachen, Beweismittel und Argumente.","Das Berufungsgericht verwies auf Regel 223.2 VerfO, wonach der Antrag sowohl die Gründe für die Beantragung der aufschiebenden Wirkung als auch die angeführten Tatsachen, Beweismittel und Argumente darlegen muss.","16. Un appel n’a pas d’effet suspensif, sauf décision contraire de la Cour d’appel à la demande motivée de l’une des parties (article 74.1 de l’ACUP). Selon la règle 223.2 du règlement de procédure, la demande d’effet suspensif doit exposer (a) les raisons pour lesquelles l’introduction de l’appel devrait avoir un effet suspensif et (b) les faits, éléments de preuve et arguments invoqués.","Une demande d’effet suspensif doit exposer les raisons pour lesquelles l’introduction de l’appel devrait avoir un effet suspensif ainsi que les faits, éléments de preuve et arguments invoqués.","La Cour d’appel s’est référée à la règle 223.2 du règlement de procédure comme exigeant que la demande expose à la fois les raisons pour lesquelles l’effet suspensif est sollicité et les faits, éléments de preuve et arguments invoqués.",{"_118":272,"_181":276,"_240":275,"_177":274,"_241":303,"_243":304,"_245":289,"_179":275},"Rule 223","Application for suspensive effect","78066042-d29d-5e00-a6a8-a79de48bc093","Article 74(2)",[334],"An unresolved question whether Article 74(2) UPCA extends suspensive effect to costs decisions relating to proceedings covered by that provision can justify granting leave to appeal, without resolving the question in the leave order.","Page 3: 13. The question raised by AMMS as to whether the suspensive effect provided for under Art. 74(2) UPCA should extend to costs decisions relating to a decision on actions or counterclaims for revocation and on actions based on Article 32(1)(i) UPCA has not already been resolved by the Court of Appeal. 14. It follows that leave to appeal will be granted.","The Court of Appeal stated that the question whether the suspensive effect under Article 74(2) UPCA should extend to costs decisions relating to decisions on actions or counterclaims for revocation and on actions based on Article 32(1)(i) UPCA had not already been resolved. It stated that leave to appeal followed from that circumstance.",{"_10":323,"_83":324,"_81":325},"The Court of Appeal therefore granted leave to appeal but did not decide whether Article 74(2) UPCA extends to those costs decisions.","13. The question raised by AMMS as to whether the suspensive effect provided for under Art. 74(2) UPCA should extend to costs decisions relating to a decision on actions or counterclaims for revocation and on actions based on Article 32(1)(i) UPCA has not already been resolved by the Court of Appeal. 14. It follows that leave to appeal will be granted.",[319],"The Court stated that the scope question had not previously been resolved and then granted leave to appeal; the cited passage does not resolve that question.",[318],"bfa7becd446cd1a7c5304a84d14f373edf18877358337e8eb936ccdf888b2597","Article 74(2) UPCA",{"_216":320,"_218":47,"_220":108,"_221":321,"_223":313,"_224":225,"_226":322,"_228":47},"p0003-b007",354,"p0003-b008",{"_194":313,"_233":313,"_15":308,"_17":310,"_193":312},{"_194":330,"_233":313,"_15":331,"_17":332,"_193":333},{"_194":326,"_233":313,"_15":327,"_17":328,"_193":329},"13. Die von AMMS aufgeworfene Frage, ob sich die in Art. 74 Abs. 2 EPGÜ vorgesehene aufschiebende Wirkung auf Kostenentscheidungen im Zusammenhang mit einer Entscheidung über Klagen oder Widerklagen auf Widerruf und über Klagen auf der Grundlage von Artikel 32 Absatz 1 Buchstabe i EPGÜ erstrecken sollte, ist vom Berufungsgericht noch nicht geklärt worden. 14. Daraus folgt, dass die Zulassung der Berufung erteilt wird.","Eine ungeklärte Frage, ob sich die aufschiebende Wirkung nach Artikel 74 Absatz 2 EPGÜ auf Kostenentscheidungen im Zusammenhang mit von dieser Bestimmung erfassten Verfahren erstreckt, kann die Zulassung der Berufung rechtfertigen, ohne dass die Frage in der Zulassungsanordnung entschieden wird.","Das Berufungsgericht stellte fest, dass die von AMMS aufgeworfene Frage, ob sich die in Art. 74 Abs. 2 EPGÜ vorgesehene aufschiebende Wirkung auf Kostenentscheidungen im Zusammenhang mit einer Entscheidung über Klagen oder Widerklagen auf Widerruf und über Klagen auf der Grundlage von Artikel 32 Absatz 1 Buchstabe i EPGÜ erstrecken sollte, vom Berufungsgericht noch nicht geklärt worden war. Es stellte fest, dass sich daraus die Zulassung der Berufung ergab.","Das Berufungsgericht ließ die Berufung daher zu, entschied jedoch nicht, ob sich Artikel 74 Absatz 2 EPGÜ auf diese Kostenentscheidungen erstreckt.","13. La question soulevée par AMMS de savoir si l’effet suspensif prévu à l’art. 74(2) de l’ACUP devait s’étendre aux décisions relatives aux frais afférentes à une décision portant sur des actions ou demandes reconventionnelles en révocation et sur des actions fondées sur l’article 32(1)(i) de l’ACUP n’a pas encore été tranchée par la Cour d’appel. 14. Il s’ensuit que l’autorisation de faire appel sera accordée.","Une question non tranchée concernant l’extension de l’effet suspensif prévu à l’article 74(2) de l’ACUP aux décisions relatives aux frais afférentes à des procédures couvertes par cette disposition peut justifier l’octroi de l’autorisation de faire appel, sans que la question soit tranchée dans l’ordonnance accordant cette autorisation.","La Cour d’appel a déclaré que la question de savoir si l’effet suspensif prévu à l’article 74(2) de l’ACUP devait s’étendre aux décisions relatives aux frais afférentes à une décision portant sur des actions ou demandes reconventionnelles en révocation et sur des actions fondées sur l’article 32(1)(i) de l’ACUP n’avait pas encore été tranchée par la Cour d’appel. Elle a déclaré que l’autorisation de faire appel découlait de cette circonstance.","La Cour d’appel a donc accordé l’autorisation de faire appel, mais n’a pas tranché la question de savoir si l’article 74(2) de l’ACUP s’étend à ces décisions relatives aux frais.",{"_118":174,"_181":182,"_240":180,"_177":306,"_241":242,"_243":244,"_245":318,"_179":180},"c25d73d8-e717-503f-a4c6-3ff66e663149",[359,360],"Under Article 74(1) UPCA, an appeal has no suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise at the motivated request of a party, subject to Article 74(2) UPCA.","Page 3: GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER Leave to appeal 12. An appeal shall not have suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise at the motivated request of one of the parties (Art. 74(1) UPCA, first sentence). According to Art. 74(2), notwithstanding paragraph 1, an appeal against a decision on actions or counterclaims for revocation and on actions based on Article 32(1)(i) shall always have suspensive effect.","The Court of Appeal stated that the ordinary rule is the absence of suspensive effect unless it decides otherwise at a party’s motivated request. It also stated that, notwithstanding that rule, an appeal against a decision on actions or counterclaims for revocation and on actions based on Article 32(1)(i) UPCA shall always have suspensive effect.",{"_10":350,"_83":351,"_81":352},"GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER Leave to appeal 12. An appeal shall not have suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise at the motivated request of one of the parties (Art. 74(1) UPCA, first sentence). According to Art. 74(2), notwithstanding paragraph 1, an appeal against a decision on actions or counterclaims for revocation and on actions based on Article 32(1)(i) shall always have suspensive effect.",[346],"The citation states both the general rule under Article 74(1) UPCA and the Article 74(2) exception for appeals concerning revocation actions or counterclaims and Article 32(1)(i) actions.",[214,318],"25a3956c3120b9b61aff3fe04f8d58c86e9406a98377423a6fdbb17b4fe37158",{"_216":347,"_218":47,"_220":108,"_221":348,"_223":341,"_224":225,"_226":349,"_228":47},"p0003-b005",415,"p0003-b006",{"_194":341,"_233":341,"_15":337,"_17":339,"_193":-5},{"_194":356,"_233":341,"_15":357,"_17":358,"_193":-5},{"_194":353,"_233":341,"_15":354,"_17":355,"_193":-5},"GRÜNDE DER ANORDNUNG\nZulassung der Berufung\n12. Eine Berufung hat keine aufschiebende Wirkung, sofern das Berufungsgericht nicht auf begründeten Antrag einer der Parteien etwas anderes entscheidet (Art. 74 Abs. 1 EPGÜ, erster Satz). Nach Art. 74 Abs. 2 hat eine Berufung gegen eine Entscheidung über Klagen oder Widerklagen auf Widerruf und über Klagen auf der Grundlage von Artikel 32 Absatz 1 Buchstabe i ungeachtet Absatz 1 stets aufschiebende Wirkung.","Nach Artikel 74 Absatz 1 EPGÜ hat eine Berufung keine aufschiebende Wirkung, sofern das Berufungsgericht nicht auf begründeten Antrag einer Partei etwas anderes entscheidet, vorbehaltlich Artikel 74 Absatz 2 EPGÜ.","Das Berufungsgericht stellte fest, dass die allgemeine Regel darin besteht, dass eine Berufung keine aufschiebende Wirkung hat, sofern es nicht auf begründeten Antrag einer Partei etwas anderes entscheidet. Es stellte ferner fest, dass ungeachtet dieser Regel eine Berufung gegen eine Entscheidung über Klagen oder Widerklagen auf Widerruf und über Klagen auf der Grundlage von Artikel 32 Absatz 1 Buchstabe i EPGÜ stets aufschiebende Wirkung haben muss.","MOTIFS DE L’ORDONNANCE Autorisation de faire appel 12. Un appel n’a pas d’effet suspensif, sauf décision contraire de la Cour d’appel à la demande motivée de l’une des parties (art. 74(1) de l’ACUP, première phrase). Selon l’art. 74(2), nonobstant le paragraphe 1, un appel contre une décision portant sur des actions ou demandes reconventionnelles en révocation et sur des actions fondées sur l’article 32(1)(i) a toujours un effet suspensif.","En vertu de l’article 74(1) de l’ACUP, un appel n’a pas d’effet suspensif, sauf décision contraire de la Cour d’appel à la demande motivée d’une partie, sous réserve de l’article 74(2) de l’ACUP.","La Cour d’appel a déclaré que la règle ordinaire est l’absence d’effet suspensif, sauf décision contraire de sa part à la demande motivée d’une partie. Elle a également déclaré que, nonobstant cette règle, un appel contre une décision portant sur des actions ou demandes reconventionnelles en révocation et sur des actions fondées sur l’article 32(1)(i) de l’ACUP a toujours un effet suspensif.",{"_118":174,"_181":182,"_240":180,"_177":178,"_241":242,"_243":244,"_245":214,"_179":180},{"_118":174,"_181":182,"_240":180,"_177":306,"_241":242,"_243":244,"_245":318,"_179":180},"fields",{"_155":367,"_161":368},"updated_at","2026-09-13T20:24:14.275852+00:00","run_id","8d7ce9e7-6ff5-5d2f-9075-037168ad3e8f",{"_369":376},{"_369":370},"targets",{"_10":371,"_83":372,"_81":373},{"_374":375,"_363":364,"_365":366},{"_374":375,"_363":364,"_365":366},{"_374":375,"_363":364,"_365":366},"origin","machine",{"_81":377,"_83":378},{"_374":375,"_363":364,"_365":366},{"_374":375,"_363":364,"_365":366},"

L’ordonnance concernait la demande d’autorisation de faire appel d’AMMS contre une décision relative aux frais ainsi que sa demande d’effet suspensif, Gilead étant l’intimée. Gilead avait introduit une action en révocation à l’encontre de l’EP 3 854 403, que la Division centrale de Milan avait révoqué dans son intégralité, et les parties étaient convenues que les frais de première instance s’élevaient à 800 000 EUR. La Division centrale de Milan a ensuite ordonné à AMMS de verser à Gilead 800 000 EUR au titre des frais récupérables dans un délai de quatre semaines et a jugé que l’effet suspensif automatique prévu à l’art. 74(2) de l’ACUP ne s’étendait pas à la détermination ultérieure et distincte des frais.

AMMS a demandé l’autorisation de faire appel et a soutenu que l’art. 74(2) de l’ACUP couvrait l’intégralité de la décision relative à l’action en révocation, y compris les dispositions accessoires relatives aux frais. La Cour d’appel a déclaré qu’un appel contre une décision portant sur des actions ou demandes reconventionnelles en révocation et sur des actions fondées sur l’article 32(1)(i) de l’ACUP a toujours un effet suspensif, et que la question de savoir si cet effet s’étend aux décisions relatives aux frais connexes n’avait pas encore été tranchée. Elle a donc accordé l’autorisation de faire appel sans trancher cette question de portée.

S’agissant de l’effet suspensif discrétionnaire, la Cour a déclaré que les circonstances devaient justifier une exception au principe selon lequel un appel n’a pas d’effet suspensif, et que l’intérêt d’AMMS à maintenir le statu quo devait exceptionnellement l’emporter sur l’intérêt de Gilead. La Cour a constaté qu’AMMS n’avait pas établi l’existence de circonstances exceptionnelles et n’avait pas démontré que son intérêt à ne pas payer les frais dans l’attente de l’appel l’emportait exceptionnellement sur l’intérêt de Gilead.

La demande d’effet suspensif a donc été rejetée.

","

Die Anordnung betraf den Antrag von AMMS auf Zulassung der Berufung gegen eine Kostenentscheidung und seinen Antrag auf aufschiebende Wirkung, wobei Gilead die Antragsgegnerin war. Gilead hatte eine Nichtigkeitsklage gegen das EP 3 854 403 erhoben, das die Zentralkammer Mailand in vollem Umfang widerrief, und die Parteien hatten vereinbart, dass sich die Kosten der ersten Instanz auf 800.000 EUR beliefen. Die Zentralkammer Mailand erlegte AMMS daraufhin auf, Gilead innerhalb von vier Wochen 800.000 EUR an erstattungsfähigen Kosten zu zahlen, und stellte fest, dass sich die automatische aufschiebende Wirkung nach Art. 74 Abs. 2 EPGÜ nicht auf die anschließende und gesonderte Festsetzung der Kosten erstreckte.

AMMS beantragte die Zulassung der Berufung und machte geltend, dass Art. 74 Abs. 2 EPGÜ die gesamte Entscheidung über die Nichtigkeitsklage, einschließlich der davon abhängigen Kostenbestimmungen, erfasse. Das Berufungsgericht stellte fest, dass eine Berufung gegen eine Entscheidung über Klagen oder Widerklagen auf Widerruf und über Klagen auf der Grundlage von Artikel 32 Absatz 1 Buchstabe i EPGÜ stets aufschiebende Wirkung haben muss und dass die Frage, ob sich diese Wirkung auf damit zusammenhängende Kostenentscheidungen erstreckt, noch nicht geklärt war. Es ließ daher die Berufung zu, ohne diese Frage des Umfangs zu entscheiden.

Zur Ermessensentscheidung über die aufschiebende Wirkung stellte das Gericht fest, dass die Umstände eine Ausnahme von dem Grundsatz rechtfertigen mussten, dass eine Berufung keine aufschiebende Wirkung hat, und dass das Interesse von AMMS an der Aufrechterhaltung des status quo das Interesse von Gilead ausnahmsweise überwiegen musste. Das Gericht stellte fest, dass AMMS keine außergewöhnlichen Umstände nachgewiesen und nicht dargelegt hatte, dass sein Interesse, die Kosten bis zum Abschluss der Berufung nicht zu zahlen, das Interesse von Gilead ausnahmsweise überwog.

Der Antrag auf aufschiebende Wirkung wurde daher zurückgewiesen.

",{"_382":156,"_383":384},"summary_html","sentences",[385,386,387,388,389,390,391,392,393],{"_394":54,"_396":419,"_398":399,"_223":420,"_218":54,"_228":54,"_401":-5},{"_394":51,"_396":417,"_398":29,"_223":418,"_218":51,"_228":51,"_401":-5},{"_394":47,"_396":415,"_398":29,"_223":416,"_218":51,"_228":51,"_401":-5},{"_394":219,"_396":413,"_398":399,"_223":414,"_218":51,"_228":51,"_401":-5},{"_394":410,"_396":411,"_398":29,"_223":412,"_218":47,"_228":47,"_401":-5},{"_394":408,"_396":409,"_398":29,"_223":313,"_218":47,"_228":47,"_401":-5},{"_394":405,"_396":406,"_398":399,"_223":407,"_218":219,"_228":219,"_401":-5},{"_394":402,"_396":403,"_398":29,"_223":404,"_218":219,"_228":219,"_401":-5},{"_394":395,"_396":397,"_398":399,"_223":400,"_218":219,"_228":219,"_401":-5},"number",9,"html","The application for suspensive effect was therefore rejected.","paragraph_break_before",true,"20. Furthermore, AMMS has failed to demonstrate that his interest in not paying the costs until the appeal on the impugned order is ruled upon exceptionally outweighs Gilead's interest. ORDER (i) Leave to appeal is granted; (ii) the application for suspensive effect is rejected.","document_url",8,"The Court found that AMMS had not evidenced exceptional circumstances and had not shown that its interest in not paying the costs pending the appeal exceptionally outweighed Gilead’s interest.","18. The requirement of exceptional circumstances has to be established by the applicant. In its application, AMMS has not evidenced the existence of exceptional circumstances which would justify why the lodging of the appeal shall have suspensive effect but has merely referred to the reasons for hearing the appeal (part 3 of the application) and to the reasons for setting aside the impugned order (part 4 of the application). 19. 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 (Court of Appeal 20 May 2025, UPC_CoA_430/2025 APL_23093/2025 App_23094/2025, Chint v. Jingao). 20. Furthermore, AMMS has failed to demonstrate that his interest in not paying the costs until the appeal on the impugned order is ruled upon exceptionally outweighs Gilead's interest.",7,"For discretionary suspensive effect, the Court stated that the circumstances had to justify an exception to the principle that an appeal has no suspensive effect, and that AMMS’s interest in maintaining the status quo had to exceptionally outweigh Gilead’s interest.","17. The Court of Appeal can grant the application only if the circumstances of the case justify an exception to the principle that the appeal has no suspensive effect (UPC_CoA_388/2024, APL_39884/2024, 19 August 2024, Sibio v Abbott; UPC UPC_CoA_12/2025 APL_366/2025 App_1182/2025, 16 January 2025, Bhagat v Oerlikon). It must be examined whether, on the basis of these circumstances, the appellant's interest in maintaining the status quo until the decision on its appeal exceptionally outweighs the respondent's interest.",6,"It therefore granted leave to appeal without deciding that scope question.",5,"The Court of Appeal stated that an appeal against a decision on actions or counterclaims for revocation and on actions based on Article 32(1)(i) UPCA shall always have suspensive effect, and that whether this effect extends to related costs decisions had not already been resolved.","GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER Leave to appeal 12. An appeal shall not have suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise at the motivated request of one of the parties (Art. 74(1) UPCA, first sentence). According to Art. 74(2), notwithstanding paragraph 1, an appeal against a decision on actions or counterclaims for revocation and on actions based on Article 32(1)(i) shall always have suspensive effect. 13. The question raised by AMMS as to whether the suspensive effect provided for under Art. 74(2) UPCA should extend to costs decisions relating to a decision on actions or counterclaims for revocation and on actions based on Article 32(1)(i) UPCA has not already been resolved by the Court of Appeal.","AMMS sought leave to appeal and argued that Art. 74(2) UPCA covered the entire decision on the revocation claim, including the dependent cost provisions.","6. On 23 July 2026, AMMS filed an application for leave to appeal against a cost decision pursuant to R. 157 and R. 221 RoP, requesting the Court of Appeal, pursuant to Art. 73(1), 73(2), and 74(2) UPCA, and R.157, R.221 RoP, to grant leave to appeal against the impugned order. Together with said application, AMMS filed a statement of appeal and statement of grounds of appeal, requesting the Court of Appeal, if leave is granted, to set aside the impugned order, to stay the proceedings for costs until the judge-rapporteur of the CFI is notified that the UPC Court of Appeal has issued a judgment on the merits in the appeal proceedings or until the same dispute is otherwise terminated or, in the alternative, to order payment of the recoverable costs in three instalments, at the latest by 31 December 2026. It also requested, if leave to appeal is granted, that the Court of Appeal order suspensive effect pursuant to R. 223 RoP in the event the standing judge does not rule on the appeal of the impugned order before 10 August 2026. 7. AMMS submits in summary that Art. 74(2) UPCA is not limited to the (counter)claim for revocation and should instead cover the entire decision ruling on the revocation claim, including the dependent provisions regarding costs. Leave for appeal against the impugned order should thus be granted in light of the need to settle the debate about the scope of Art. 74(2) UPCA.","The Central Division Milan then ordered AMMS to pay Gilead EUR 800,000 in recoverable costs within four weeks and held that the automatic suspensive effect under Art. 74(2) UPCA did not extend to the subsequent and separate determination of costs.","5. The CD Milan ordered AMMS to pay Gilead recoverable costs of 800,000 € within 4 weeks of service of the order and dismissed the remainder of the parties’ requests (Order of 10 July 2026, hereinafter “the impugned order”). It held inter alia that Art. 74(2) UPCA concerns appeals against decisions on actions or counterclaims for revocation and on actions based on Art. 32(1)(d), e) and i) UPCA, that the automatic suspensive effect provided for under Art. 74(2) UPCA cannot be extended to the subsequent and separate determination of costs, and that a different conclusion can also not be reached by relying on R. 295 RoP.","Gilead had brought a revocation action against EP 3 854 403, which the Central Division Milan revoked in its entirety, and the parties had agreed that the first-instance costs were EUR 800,000.","FACTS, REQUESTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES 1. On 18 June 2025, Gilead filed a revocation action (UPC_CFI_552/2025) before the Central Division Milan (hereinafter “CD Milan”) against the patent at issue. 2. The CD Milan revoked the patent in its entirety and, following agreement reached by the parties whereby the costs of the first-instance proceedings (and not the value) are mutually set at 800,000 €, ordered AMMS to bear the full amount of the recoverable fees (Decision of 4 May 2026, hereinafter “the revocation decision”).","The order concerned AMMS’s application for leave to appeal against a cost decision and its application for suspensive effect, with Gilead as respondent.","Reference no.: UPC-CoA-121/2026 Order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for leave to appeal against cost decisions (R. 221 RoP) and an application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP) issued on 4 August 2026 APPLICANT (DEFENDANT IN THE REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE) Academy of Military Medical Sciences, no. 27 Taiping Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100850, China (hereinafter \"AMMS\") represented by Mr. Camille PECNARD, attorney-at-law, and other representatives of the firm LAVOIX, Paris RESPONDENT (CLAIMANT IN THE REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE) Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 94404, USA (hereinafter \"Gilead\") represented by Dr Christine KANZ, attorney-at-law, HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER, Düsseldorf PATENT AT ISSUE EP 3 854 403 DECIDING JUDGE Emmanuel Gougé, Legally qualified judge and Standing judge LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE □ Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division Milan, dated 10 July 2026 □ Reference number: UPC-CFI-1968/2026 (proceedings for cost decision) UPC_CFI_552/2025 (revocation action)",{"_118":422,"_423":424,"_15":425,"_65":426,"_9":427,"_428":425,"_429":430,"_431":29,"_432":100,"_433":434,"_435":436,"_437":-5,"_438":-5,"_439":440,"_441":442,"_443":444,"_445":446,"_447":448,"_449":426,"_450":-5,"_451":452,"_453":454,"_455":456,"_457":458,"_459":460},"05baa093-cf94-4be2-8437-529bb6ba2f39","source_document_key","b23d43783a0c35ce9947cca31a6a5f5116f25acb96fd28b6a01959024a22360b","Download Order_R 221 and 223 Application_CoA_121-2026_AMMS v Gilead_2026_08_04_Signed.pdf","https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/2be1bdfb-870b-4ddf-8fb1-9cde8af32cff.pdf","UNK","label","doc_kind","decision_pdf","is_translation","case_id","pdf_hash","a654c1afdb4cb9169a2cec6b3a256662","pdf_filename","2be1bdfb-870b-4ddf-8fb1-9cde8af32cff.pdf","storage_error_code","storage_error_message","storage_status","stored","stored_at","2026-08-19T13:10:45.849000Z","pdf_content_type","application/pdf","pdf_sha256","92241d04e66e908c9254c2cdcc71f1c73ddcb94eec7f630ae2d9bc6ed82b8c96","pdf_size_bytes",337450,"source_final_url","source_http_etag","source_http_last_modified","Tue, 04 Aug 2026 07:34:18 GMT","stored_pdf_asset_id","49b65ea6-d482-4161-8852-b731a4c8d495","stored_pdf_bucket","upc-pdfs","stored_pdf_object_key","case-documents/sha256/92/92241d04e66e908c9254c2cdcc71f1c73ddcb94eec7f630ae2d9bc6ed82b8c96.pdf","stored_pdf_url","/api/assets/49b65ea6-d482-4161-8852-b731a4c8d495","EP 3 854 403","Academy of Military Medical Sciences","Gilead Sciences, Inc."]

UPC-COA-0000121/2026

Summary by Casalonga

Key Takeaways

Under Article 74(1) UPCA, an appeal has no suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise at the motivated request of a party, subject to Article 74(2) UPCA.

An unresolved question whether Article 74(2) UPCA extends suspensive effect to costs decisions relating to proceedings covered by that provision can justify granting leave to appeal, without resolving the question in the leave order.

An application for suspensive effect must set out the reasons why lodging the appeal should have suspensive effect and the facts, evidence and arguments relied on.

Suspensive effect may be granted only where the circumstances justify an exception to the principle that an appeal has no suspensive effect, assessed by weighing the appellant’s interest in maintaining the status quo against the respondent’s interest.

The applicant must establish the exceptional circumstances relied upon to obtain suspensive effect.

Personal Notes