UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

ACT 40442/2024

—·EP4201327: FLUID DELIVERY DEVICE WITH TRANSCUTANEOUS ACCESS TOOL, INSERTION MECHANISM AND BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING FOR USE THEREWITH

Verfahrensdetails
Status
—
Verfahrensart
Einstweilige Verfügung
Kategorie
Einstweilige Maßnahmen
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter:
Division
Milan LD
Richter
Technology
Packaging & Conveying
Sprache
—
Erste Entscheidung
22. Nov. 2024
Entscheidungen
  • 2024-11-22
    PI abgelehntEinstweilige VerfügungApplication for provisional measures

    The Milan Local Division dismissed Insulet Corporation's application for provisional measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. concerning EP4201327 (insulin pump technology), finding the application inadmissible as the auxiliary requests to amend the patent are not permissible in provisional measures proceedings, and also dismissing Menarini's request for security for costs.

    Rechtsfragen:Provisional measures (R.206, R.209.1 RoP)Inadmissibility of patent amendment requests in PI proceedings (R.30.2 RoP)Amendment of case in PI proceedings (R.263.2-3 RoP)Requirements for provisional measures (R.211.2-3 RoP)Security for costs (Art. 69(4) UPCA, R.158 RoP)
Dokumente
  • 42923986C15406AB1ED827111B5AB2F1_en.pdf2024-11-22EN
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Insulet Corporation applied for provisional measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics before the Milan Local Division for alleged infringement of EP 4 201 327 (insulin pump technology). The court dismissed the application as inadmissible because Insulet sought to amend the patent via auxiliary requests, which are not permissible in provisional measures proceedings and can only be pursued in main proceedings; Menarini's request for EUR 200,000 security for costs was also rejected for lack of evidence of Insulet's insolvency risk.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Auxiliary requests to amend the patent under R. 30.2 RoP are inadmissible in provisional measures proceedings

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 30.2 RoP; R. 50.2 RoP; R. 263.2 RoP

    Hinweis: Court agreed with Menarini that patent amendments under R. 30.2 RoP can only be lodged in main proceedings before the court with jurisdiction to issue a final validity decision.

  • Security for costs is not granted merely because the applicant is a US company, absent specific evidence of insolvency risk or insufficient assets

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69.4 UPCA; R. 158 RoP

    Hinweis: Court rejected Menarini's security-for-costs request, finding no substantiated allegation of alarming financial situation on Insulet's part.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Application for provisional measures for infringement of EP 4 201 327 relating to insulin pump technology

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.2 RoP; R. 211.3 RoP; R. 30.2 RoP

    Begründung: Application was dismissed as inadmissible because Insulet sought to rely on auxiliary requests to amend the patent, which are not permissible in provisional measures proceedings; absence of one required condition (valid main request scope) is sufficient for dismissal.

  • Security for costs in the amount of EUR 200,000 due to risk of inability to enforce cost judgment against a US company

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69.4 UPCA; R. 158 RoP

    Begründung: Menarini failed to allege or prove circumstances indicating alarming financial situation; security for costs is not primarily intended to protect against difficulties of enforcing abroad.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Patent amendment auxiliary requests (R. 30.2 RoP) are inadmissible in provisional measures proceedingsIn provisional measures: cumulative requirements of standing, validity, infringement or imminent infringement, and balance of interests must all be metRule 263.2 RoP 'amend its case' refers to modification of the case by new claim or substitution, not to patent amendment applicationsSecurity for costs requires substantiated evidence of insolvency risk or lack of sufficient assets — non-EU incorporation alone insufficient

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Herangezogener Stand der Technik
Zitierte Schriften und die Rolle, die sie gespielt haben.
  • US 994Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The proceeding concerned EP 4 201 327 relating to a fluid delivery device with transcutaneous access tool (insulin pump). The court did not reach substantive claim construction because the application was dismissed on procedural grounds relating to the inadmissibility of patent amendment requests in provisional measures proceedings.