In a decisive victory for U.S. Pharmaceutical giant Gilead Sciences, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Milan has completely revoked a patent held by the Chinese Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS) concerning the use of remdesivir to treat COVID-19. The ruling effectively removes a significant legal cloud that had threatened the commercial stability of Veklury, the brand-name version of the antiviral drug.
The dispute centered on European patent EP 3 854 403, which sought to protect the discovery that remdesivir could be used to treat infections caused by SARS-CoV-2. While the Academy of Military Medical Sciences was among the first to identify the drug’s efficacy against the coronavirus, the court found the patent unsustainable, rejecting all attempts by the Chinese institute to amend the filing to save it.
For clinicians and public health officials, remdesivir represents a critical tool in the antiviral arsenal. As a nucleotide analog, the drug works by mimicking the building blocks of viral RNA, effectively tricking the virus’s polymerase enzyme into incorporating the drug into its genetic chain, which then halts viral replication. While most widely known for its role in treating COVID-19, the drug is a broad-spectrum antiviral with proven applications against the Ebola and Marburg viruses, making its patent status a matter of global health interest.
A Strategic Strike in the Milan Central Division
The speed of the litigation underscores the evolving power of the Unified Patent Court. Gilead Sciences acted with surgical precision, filing its revocation action in the Milan central division on June 18, 2025—the very same day the patent was granted. This immediate challenge was designed to pre-empt an infringement dispute that could have jeopardized Gilead’s ability to market Veklury across participating EU member states.
The legal battle moved quickly through several phases of contestation. AMMS initially attempted to defend the patent by lodging a defense and applying for amendments on August 1, 2025. However, these efforts were short-lived; the court dismissed further proposed changes by March 16, 2026. By the time the parties reached the oral hearing on April 16, 2026, the path toward revocation was largely set.
Industry observers note that the UPC’s efficiency in this case stands in stark contrast to the slower proceedings typically associated with the European Patent Office (EPO). While the EPO is still managing deadlines for comments on a separate appeal regarding the same patent, the UPC has already delivered a final blow to the AMMS claim.
Case Timeline and Legal Milestones
| Date | Event | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| June 18, 2025 | Patent EP 3 854 403 granted | Gilead filed revocation action immediately |
| August 1, 2025 | AMMS Defense Filed | Application to amend the patent submitted |
| March 16, 2026 | Court Order | Proposed patent amendments dismissed |
| April 16, 2026 | Oral Hearing | Parties agreed on first-instance proceeding costs |
Financial Implications and the Cost of Defeat
While the theoretical value of the patent dispute was estimated at €20 million, the actual financial fallout for the Chinese Academy of Military Medical Sciences was significantly mitigated. Following its defeat, AMMS is required to pay €800,000 in costs—a figure previously agreed upon between the two parties.
This settlement suggests a pragmatic approach to the litigation, allowing both sides to resolve the financial aspects of the first-instance proceedings without a protracted battle over damages. For Gilead, the €800,000 is a negligible sum compared to the security of maintaining an unencumbered market for Veklury.
The legal heavy lifting for Gilead was managed by a multinational team from Hoyng ROKH Monegier, including partners Christine Kanz, Amandine Métier, and Peter van Schijndel. They were supported by Chris Hoggett of Carpmaels & Ransford, who handled the parallel opposition at the EPO. AMMS was represented by the Paris-based firm Lavoix, led by Camille Pecnard.
Why This Ruling Matters for Global Health
The revocation of this patent is more than a corporate win; it clarifies the intellectual property landscape for one of the most important antivirals of the pandemic era. When patents are overly broad or granted for discoveries that lack sufficient novelty or inventive step, they can create “patent thickets” that discourage further research or complicate the distribution of life-saving medications.
By stripping away the AMMS patent, the court has ensured that the use of remdesivir for COVID-19 remains free from the threat of secondary patent claims from this specific institute. This provides a more stable environment for healthcare providers and insurers who rely on the continued availability of Veklury for high-risk patients.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or medical advice. For legal inquiries regarding patent law, consult a licensed attorney; for medical treatment, consult a healthcare provider.
The focus now shifts to the European Patent Office, where the opposition proceedings continue. While the UPC ruling provides immediate relief in several jurisdictions, the final resolution of the EPO appeal will determine the patent’s status across the broader European landscape. The next official checkpoint will be the EPO’s response to the current deadline for appeal comments.
Do you think the speed of the new Unified Patent Court is a benefit to pharmaceutical innovation or a risk to smaller research institutes? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
