UPC Revokes Remdesivir Unitary Patent

Unified Patent Court Revokes Controversial Remdesivir Patent

In a significant legal victory for the developers of the COVID-19 antiviral drug Veklury, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has revoked a unitary patent held by a Chinese research institute. The decision, handed down on May 4, 2026, removes a legal hurdle that had threatened the commercial operations of Gilead Sciences.

The ruling marks a critical moment in the ongoing management of intellectual property related to pandemic-era treatments, emphasizing the strict standards required for “second medical use” patents.

The Ruling: Milan Central Division Intervenes

The dispute centered on patent EP 3854403, which claimed the use of remdesivir specifically for the treatment of COVID-19. This patent had been granted on June 18, 2025, creating an immediate conflict with Gilead Sciences, the original developers of the compound.

Gilead initiated a revocation action on the extremely day the patent was granted. After reviewing the case, the UPC’s Milan central division decided to revoke the patent completely. The court did not accept any of the limitations or amendments proposed by the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS) to save the patent from cancellation.

The Legal Battle: Gilead Sciences vs. AMMS

The conflict highlights a race for intellectual property that occurred during the early stages of the pandemic. Gilead had already established patents for the remdesivir compound and its use in treating coronavirus infections as early as 2016—years before SARS-CoV-2 was identified.

However, AMMS managed to file an application for the “second medical use” of the drug for the newly identified SARS-CoV-2 virus shortly before clinical trials began in China in early 2020. This created a legal overlap where a research institute claimed a specific application for a drug developed by another company.

Understanding “Second Medical Use”

In pharmaceutical law, a “second medical use” claim occurs when a known substance is discovered to be effective for a new, different therapeutic indication. While the European Patent Office (EPO) often accepts narrow second medical use claims—even if a broader class of the disease was previously disclosed—these claims must still meet rigorous standards of inventiveness.

Why the Patent Was Revoked

The UPC’s decision to revoke the AMMS patent rested on two primary legal failures: lack of inventiveness and lack of sufficiency.

• Lack of Inventiveness: The court determined that applying remdesivir to treat COVID-19 was not a sufficiently inventive step, given the drug’s known properties and previous research into other coronaviruses like SARS and MERS.
• Lack of Sufficiency: The patent failed to provide enough evidence or a clear enough roadmap to prove that the claimed use was consistently achievable and effective as described.

Remdesivir works as a prodrug that is metabolized into a nucleotide analogue. This analogue mimics adenosine to disable the RNA polymerase enzyme, effectively halting the replication of RNA viruses. Because this mechanism was already understood, the court found the specific claim for COVID-19 lacked the necessary originality.

Future Implications for Pharmaceutical IP

This ruling reinforces the difficulty of securing patents for the specific application of existing drugs to new viral outbreaks unless a truly novel and non-obvious breakthrough is demonstrated. For Gilead Sciences, the revocation secures the commercial path for Veklury without the threat of infringing on the AMMS unitary patent.

While the UPC has reached its verdict, a parallel opposition at the EPO remains undecided. However, the UPC’s comprehensive revocation provides a strong precedent for how the court handles contentious pandemic-related intellectual property.

Frequently Asked Questions