Bodycap v EPO (UPC_CFI_628/2025)

• This was a rare appeal against a refusal by the EPO to grant unitary effect to the applicants' patent concerning an ingestible biotelemetry device.
• The UPC hears appeals against tasks undertaken by the EPO in relation to unitary effect (that is, granting unitary patents), under Article 9 of Regulation 1257/2012 and Article 32(1)(i) UPCA. The tasks are essentially formal in nature, so the need for appeal is rare.
• In this case, the applicants for the unitary patent were Bodycap, the French National Centre for Scientific Research and the University of Rennes. The EPO refused unitary effect after the applicants had supplied an incorrect address for the University. This was identified by the EPO, but the applicants subsequently failed to correct it within the 30-day period granted to do so by the EPO.
• The applicants appealed to the UPC, requesting that the EPO's decision be annulled under Rule  97 RoP. They argued that the address information was sufficient to identify the University of Rennes and that, in any case, they missed the deadline to correct by a "negligible" period of 4 days.
• The Milan CD rejected the appeal. Unitary patent holders' addresses are required to guarantee the rights of third parties and for legal certainty. The address supplied for the University was "simply inaccurate". It was irrelevant that the address had only recently changed. The system allows for the correction of formal errors  the period of 30 days allowed was "perfectly reasonable", and there is no provision in the relevant regulations for this period to be extended. It is the responsibility of patent holders to comply with the deadlines allowed, and granting an extension would violate the principle of legal certainty and the coherent and uniform interpretation of the rules.

This analysis is based on a machine translation of a decision not available in English.