UPC Defines Jurisdiction Boundaries in Sandoz v. Novo Nordisk Order

WISECODE Take

On October 22, 2026, the UPC Milan Central Division marked the boundary of its jurisdiction in Sandoz v. Novo Nordisk (UPC_CFI_2221/2026). The essence of this ruling is that the UPC is not an omnipotent court and its authority is strictly limited by statute. The plaintiff sought an abstract declaration of obviousness for the technology component at the priority date alongside its revocation claim against EP 3 689 365. The court rejected this under Article 32(1) of the UPC Agreement, ruling it cannot issue declarations untethered from specific patent rights. Much like sports referees who can only rule on fouls during a match, the court cannot ban a strategy abstractly. This means competitors cannot launch unbounded abstract attacks at the UPC, and businesses without European Unitary Patents remain unaffected. Zhidian's patent portfolio health check helps businesses assess European patent risks. Businesses should follow two principles: first, focus patent invalidation attacks tightly on specific claims; second, address opponents' divisional strategies through EPO opposition procedures. With the UPC's jurisdiction clearly demarcated, IP defense must ultimately rely on the substantive validity of individual patents.