Opioid antagonists

Lundbeck and Biogaran fight in Milan and Paris over drug for alcohol dependence

Nalmefene treats alcohol dependence, a major public health concern in the EU. At the UPC a battle over two patents related to the drug is now unfolding between Danish pharma company Lundbeck and French competitor Biogaran.

7 April 2026 by Konstanze Richter

nalmefene, alcohol, Lundbeck, Biogaran The drug nalmefene reduces the craving to drink alcohol in people suffering from alcohol dependence. ©Einero25/peopleimages.com/ADOBE Stock

Nalmefene is an opioid antagonist used in the EU to reduce alcohol dependence. The active ingredient works by antagonising those receptors in the brain responsible for producing the body’s feel-good chemical, dopamine. This prevents the alcohol-induced release of this chemical, resulting in reduced desire to continue drinking.

The drug is sold by Lundbeck under the brand name Selincro, which the European Medicines Agency approved for alcohol-related disorders in 2013. Previously, nalmefene had been approved in the US in 1995 for the treatment of opioid overdose and was sold under the brand name Revex.

According to the World Health Organization, an estimated 400 million people, or 7% of the world’s population aged 15 years and older, live with alcohol use disorders. Of these, 209 million people live with alcohol dependence. The WHO states that alcohol consumption contributes to 2.6 million deaths each year globally as well as to the disabilities and the poor health of millions of people. Overall, harmful use of alcohol is responsible for 4.7% of the global burden of disease.

Data from the OECD shows alcohol consumption in Europe is highest in Spain, Portugal, Romania, Bulgaria, Austria, Czechia, Lithuania, and Latvia, with more than 11 litres of pure alcohol consumed per capita yearly. Germany, France, Ireland, Poland, Hungary, and Estonia follow with over ten litres.

Thus the economic value of a drug helping to fight alcohol addiction is high.

UPC and EPO

This March, Lundbeck filed an application for preliminary measures against Biogaran at the Paris local division over its two patents EP 3 345 604 and EP 4 223 296 (case ID: UPC-CFI-0000903/2026). Both cover “nalmefene for reduction of alcohol consumption in specific target populations”. French pharma company Biogaran and German-based Alfred Tiefenbacher (now Tiefenbacher Group) have filed oppositions against both patents.

The panel around presiding judge Camille Lignières includes Carine Gillet and Anna-Lena Klein. The latter is also judge rapporteur in parallel revocation proceedings.

Last November, Biogaran attacked Lundbeck’s EP 296 with a revocation action at the central division Milan (case ID: UPC-CFI-0001587/2025). According to the court calendar, the panel consisting of presiding judge Andrea Postiglione, judge rapporteur Anna-Lena Klein and technically qualified judge Eric Enderlin will hear the case on 3 December 2026.

The EPO Boards of Appeal revoked another of Lundbeck’s nalmefene patents, EP 3 138 564, in February 2024 (case ID: T 0963/20).

Hoyng ROKH for Lundbeck

A team from Hoyng ROKH Monegier represents the Danish pharma company Lundbeck in the revocation case and the application for preliminary measures at the UPC. Paris-based partners Amandine Métier and Benoît Strowel are in the lead, working with associate Alix Fourmaux. They worked closely with patent attorneys Ben Hoffmann and Andreas Lauge of British mixed firm Potter Clarkson, who filed the patents-in-suit and represent Lundbeck in the opposition proceedings at the EPO.

Biogaran once more relied on its go-to advisors at French mixed firm Casalonga. Paris-based partner Marianne Gabriel filed the revocation case for the client and also represents the French pharma company in the proceedings concerning preliminary measures. The firm is also active for Biogaran in the parallel opposition at the EPO. Partner Jean-Baptiste Lecoeur leads the latter. He is dual qualified as a lawyer and patent attorney.

German patent attorney firm Hamm&Wittkopp filed the EPO opposition for Tiefenbacher Group. The firm also represented the client in the opposition against the now-revoked EP 564.