GA_P advises PAI Partners on the acquisition of Nuzoa from Abac Capital

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.

The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.

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.

Summary of legislative and jurisprudential developments relating to the automotive sector.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The universal standing of consumer associations has no legal basis and creates perverse effects.