Go back to News
NEWS
GA_P advises Hawk Infinity on the acquisition of FBA Indaga Soft
10 of July, 2025
Gómez-Acebo & Pombo has advised Hawk Infinity, a Norwegian investment company specialising in technology and business growth, on the acquisition of 100% of the share capital of FBA Indaga Soft S.L., a Spanish market leader in solutions for the healthcare sector and quality management.
The transaction, which includes, among other aspects, the sellers’ reinvestment of part of the purchase price into Hawk Infinity AS, strengthens Hawk Infinity’s commitment to the health tech sector and consolidates its position as one of the most active funds in acquiring and developing technology companies in Europe.
The GA_P team was led by Mónica Weimann, Cristina Sánchez Weickgenannt, Marta Andía Jiménez and Guillermo Menéndez, partner and associates in the Corporate/M&A team, with additional support from María García de la Concha and Pilar Pérez Muriedas, partner and associate at the Vigo office, respectively.
Lawyer mentioned
Monica Weimann – Partner
Cristina Sánchez Weickgenannt – Senior associate
See all lawyers
See less lawyers
Tipology
Deal
Press contact
Director of Business Development, Marketing and Communications
Director of Business Development, Marketing and Communications
More information about
Gómez-Acebo & Pombo
23 Feb, 2026 
PUBLICATION
03 Mar, 2026
Legal doctrine of the UPC’s Court of Appeal on the patent invalidity defence: is the way in which the ‘long arm’ is applied compatible with the UPC's own Rules of Procedure?
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court has ruled that a patent invalidity defence cannot be raised before the Unified Patent Court, with only a counterclaim being possible. This calls into question the way in which the ‘long arm’ is being applied with regard to European patents validated in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA), whether or not they are members of the European Union, since no counterclaim for revocation or plea of invalidity as a defence can be filed or raised with regard to such patents. This raises significant doubts about the compatibility of how the ‘long arm’ is applied in the Unified Patent Court system, given its own Rules of Procedure.
03 Mar, 2026 
PUBLICATION
26 Feb, 2026
Pharma & Healthcare No. 47
The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.
26 Feb, 2026
PUBLICATION
09 Feb, 2026
Notarial enforcement of pledges. Is Article 1872 of the Civil Code mandatory? In what sense?
The clause agreed upon must comply, for greater certainty, with the provisions of the new judicial enforcement procedure. It will be necessary to agree on an appraised value, which is not required in Article 1872 CC, because otherwise the award would be similar to a ‘forfeiture proviso’ (pactum commissorium), which the Civil Code neutralised with the drastic imposition of extinguishment of the debt in its entirety.
09 Feb, 2026
PUBLICATION
06 Feb, 2026
Automotive and Sustainable Mobility No. 29
Summary of legislative and jurisprudential developments relating to the automotive sector.
06 Feb, 2026
PUBLICATION
27 Jan, 2026
Jurisdiction of national courts of States party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court in respect of actions relating to classic European patents during the transitional period
During the transitional period of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, national courts retain jurisdiction to hear cases concerning classic European patents, without the need for the proprietor to have exercised the opt-out option, i.e. without the need to have excluded the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court over such patents. However, the Venice Court ruling discussed here considers that national courts may only be used if the opt-out has been exercised, contradicting the provisions of Article 83 of the Agreement.
27 Jan, 2026
PUBLICATION
21 Jan, 2026
Incompatibility between practising a healthcare profession and having a pecuniary interest in the manufacture or sale of medicinal products or medical devices
Royal Legislative Decree 1/2015, of 24 July, approving the recast version of the Medicinal Products and Medical Devices (Guarantees and Rational Use) Act, prohibits healthcare professionals with prescribing powers from having a direct pecuniary interest in activities related to medicines. This prohibition does not extend to indirect interests, as distinguished in Article 4 of said legislative decree. Judgment no. 483/2025 of the High Court of Justice of the Basque Country concludes that mere membership of a group of companies does not entail incompatibility if each entity retains real autonomy.
21 Jan, 2026
PUBLICATION
15 Jan, 2026
Excessive extension of the Bolar clause in the 'pharmaceutical legislative package'
The Bolar clause allows studies and trials necessary to obtain marketing authorisations for medicinal products to be carried out without infringing patents. Its scope has grown during the passage of the pharmaceutical legislative package, incorporating more actors and more activities, to include participation in public tenders before the patent expires. This extension raises questions about compatibility with the TRIPS Agreement, which only allows limited exceptions to patent rights. Participation in tenders could be considered an offer to sell, thus violating the limits set by that agreement.
15 Jan, 2026
PUBLICATION
18 Dec, 2025
Prepared for the 2026 Mobile World Congress?
The protocol, agreed jointly by the Courts of Barcelona and Alicante, provides for priority handling of applications for pre-trial examination and fact-finding orders, as well as applications for interim measures —with or without a hearing— in matters relating to patents and technological innovations, industrial designs, trademarks and copyright, as well as antitrust, unfair competition and unlawful advertising, when linked to products or presentation, display, promotion, offering or sale activities connected to MWC 2026.
18 Dec, 2025
PUBLICATION
15 Dec, 2025
Direct harm due to de facto expulsion: Article 241 of the Companies Act (Supreme Court Judgment, First Chamber, 22 October 2025)
This paper analyses the subject matter scope of application of a ‘director liability to shareholder claim’ (claim for payment of damages filed by a shareholder against a company director). Although, as a general rule, shareholders cannot claim compensation for the harm caused to their share in a company’s estate, compensation for de facto expulsions or harm to liquidating dividends may be awarded through a director liability to shareholder claim.
15 Dec, 2025