UPC’s CD Milan revokes Flexicare nasal cannula patent, says one novelty-destroying prior art mapping is enough

Context: In May 2025, Fisher and Paykel Healthcare filed a revocation action against Flexicare’s EP4185356 (“Nasal Cannula”). The patent covers a nasal cannula that has a swiveled connection to enhance comfort in the process of oxygen therapy. Since the patent was given unitary effect, the Milan seat of the UPC’s Central Division (CD Milan) was able to rule on the validity of the patent for all UPC contracting member states. This case was heard in February of 2026 in Milan. Belated auxiliary requests to amend the patent were not accepted (January 16, 2026 ip fray article).

What’s new: On April 10, 2026, CD Milan revoked the patent. The court held that, in determining novelty, it had to compare the prior art document as a whole with the patent claim. In case any of the methods of mapping the prior art onto the claim demonstrate the invention is not new, the patent has to be revoked. The court concluded that in one prior art document all features of claim 1 were disclosed. The first auxiliary request was admissible and allowable, but equally non-novel. Other auxiliary requests lacked clarity.

Direct impact: An appeal is probable at this point. There are several potential grounds of appeal from claim construction to the admissibility of auxiliary requests at a late stage, any single one of which could salvage the patent.

Wider ramifications: The ruling conveys a clear message that UPC judges might adopt a practical stance on novelty. A patent holder cannot preserve a claim merely by suggesting an alternative reasonable interpretation of prior art if one reasonable interpretation clearly undermines novelty. The decision further supports the UPC’s wider perspective on interpreting claims: designations in prior art hold less significance than technical function, and purpose language typically does not restrict a claim unless it alters the invention’s structure. This aligns with a different UPC division’s prior reasoning in Brita v. Aquashield (August 22, 2025 ip fray article).