CD Milan, October 23, 2025, Revocation Action, UPC_CFI_497/2024

1. Key takeaways

The Court may limit its review to the "most promising" attacks

A high number of undifferentiated attacks suggests a lack of strategy, and the Court is not required to remedy this by choosing one that suggests greater or lesser success of the attack. Nor is the Court required to establish a hierarchical or conceptual order in the parties' defenses. The Court may require to indicate which attacks are considered most promising. This would limit the examination and discussion at the oral hearing to these alone, based on the assumption that if the attacks the party considers most likely to succeed fail, those considered less effective would also fail. The panel considered that an assessment based on (a maximum of) two different documents to challenge the novelty and three different starting points to argue for non-inventiveness was appropriate.