The Milan seat of the Unified Patent Court's Central Division ruled on 22 October in Sandoz v Novo Nordisk (UPC_CFI_2221/2026) that, if a patentee withdraws a patent during revocation proceedings while pursuing substantially the same protection through a divisional application, the court may refuse to close the case and still decide whether the patent lacked inventive step. Where necessary, it may also order the patentee not to withdraw its approval of the patent text at the EPO.
On 30 October the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a USD 9,151,133 attorney-fee award that the District of Delaware had granted to Elysium Health under 35 U.S.C. § 285 in ChromaDex v. Elysium (No. 2025-1227). The panel held that ChromaDex's losing patent-eligibility position was not exceptionally meritless, so the case was not "exceptional". The decision is nonprecedential and deals only with fees: the claims already held ineligible stay invalid.
Enanta Pharmaceuticals told the US Securities and Exchange Commission in a Form 8-K filed on 29 October that the Unified Patent Court (UPC) had released a decision that day holding its European Patent EP 4 051 265 invalid. In light of that finding, the court also held Enanta's infringement action against Pfizer's Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir tablets; ritonavir tablets) unfounded. The action covered the 18 EU member states that take part in the UPC.
The European Patent Office (EPO) announced on 6 November that it hosted a workshop on patent quality with Medicines for Europe, the association of Europe's generic, biosimilar and value-added medicines industries, in Munich on 28 October. The two first met bilaterally in 2025, and the EPO described the workshop as a further step towards a structured dialogue on issues affecting the medicines sector and the patent grant process.Participants exchanged views on patent quality and harmonisation, divisional applications and the treatment of third-party observations.
