Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 25 AUGUST 2026

CD Milan, August 19, 2026, Central Revocation Action, UPC_CFI_860/2025

Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Contributor
Bardehle Pagenberg

Bardehle Pagenberg

IP practitioners with technical expertise As one of Europe’s leading IP law firms, BARDEHLE...

View firm profile
Explore more from Bardehle Pagenberg

The concept of being concerned by a patent, as laid down in Article 47(6) UPCA for revocation actions, is to be interpreted broadly. A distinction must be drawn between private and commercial acts, as Article 27(a) UPCA makes clear.

ItalyIntellectual Property

Key takeaways

Legal persons are, as a rule, always “concerned” within the meaning of Art. 47.6 UPCA when bringing a revocation action.

The concept of being concerned by a patent, as laid down in Article 47(6) UPCA for revocation actions, is to be interpreted broadly. A distinction must be drawn between private and commercial acts, as Article 27(a) UPCA makes clear. Since legal persons cannot act “privately”, their acts must always be classified as commercial. As a general rule, legal persons are always to be regarded as being “concerned” within the meaning of Article 47(6) UPCA. They have, as a matter of principle, an interest in ensuring that patents which should not have been granted because a ground for revocation exists are not maintained. This applies irrespective of whether they are already active in a relevant industry.

Art. 47.6 UPCA applies as a general/residual provision to revocation actions and is not displaced by Art. 65.1 UPCA as lex specialis.

The subject-matter of a revocation action is determined not only by the invoked grounds under Art. 138(1) EPC, but also by the specific prior art documents and arguments relied upon.

This follows from Art. 76.1 and 76.2 UPCA, which confine the court’s decision to what has been requested and argued, since the UPCA provides for no ex officio investigation (unlike, e.g., Art. 114 EPC).

As a result, a parallel revocation action based on different prior art will generally not be barred by lis pendens, even where the same patent and parties are involved.

A minority shareholding of a claimant’s authorized representative does not, without more, disqualify that representative under Art. 48 UPCA.

Applying the lex societatis (here German company law) under Art. 24.1(e) UPCA, a 40% shareholding cannot secure majority control and therefore does not confer the administrative or financial dominance required to bar representation.

Division

Central Division Milan

UPC number

UPC_CFI_860/2025

Type of proceedings

Central Revocation action

Parties

Claimant: LS9 GmbH

Defendant: Bellissa HAAS GmbH

Patent(s)

EP 2 223 589

Jurisdictions

Germany, Austria, Luxembourg

Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 47.6 UPCA, Art. 27(a) UPCA, Art. 65.1 UPCA, Art. 76.1, 76.2 UPCA, Art. 33.4 UPCA, Art. 48 UPCA, Art. 24.1(e) UPCA, Art. 31 UPCA, Art. 69.1, 69.2 UPCA

2026-08-19-CD-Milan-UPC-CFI-860-2025

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from