ACT_56003/2024

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

NichtigkeitHauptnichtigkeitsklageMilan CDRevocation Action—

Übersicht Entscheidungen Begründung Zitate Dokumente Zeitverlauf

Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Insulet Corporation obtained a default infringement judgment against EOFLOW Co. Ltd. (maker of the EOPatch insulin pump) at the Milan Central Division concerning EP 4 201 327, a wearable fluid delivery device patent. EOFLOW failed to defend the proceedings. The court confirmed infringement and granted an injunction, recall, information order, and damages from 19 June 2024. EOFLOW's own revocation action was dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Angenommene Argumente

Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

Default judgment warranted after verification of sufficient, precise and consistent evidence
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Rule 355.2 RoP
Hinweis: Milan Central Division confirmed it must verify adequacy of evidence before issuing a default decision; a procedural violation alone is insufficient basis for default judgment.
Patent terms must be interpreted according to their principal functional meaning without result-oriented avoidance of infringement
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC
Hinweis: Court applied straightforward reading of claims and drawings in interpreting the wearable insulin delivery device patent, finding infringement by the EOPatch product.
Costs cap applies per court instance regardless of number of parties or patents
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 1(3) Administrative Committee decision of 24 March 2023
Hinweis: Where infringing manufacturer and distributor are in separate parallel proceedings concerning same patent and same act, a unitary approach to the costs cap is warranted to avoid violation of the cap.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente

Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

Keine zurückgewiesenen Argumente erfasst.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze

In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.

Default judgment requires verification of sufficient, precise and consistent evidence (R. 355.2 RoP)Patent lexicon — terms interpreted by principal functional meaning Claims and drawings read without result-oriented avoidance of infringement finding Costs cap applies per instance regardless of number of parties or patents (Art. 1(3) AC Decision 24 March 2023)

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The Milan Central Division applied a 'patent lexicon' approach, holding that patent terms carry their own meaning derived from the patent itself. Claims are to be interpreted following a straightforward reading of claims and drawings without looking, in a result-oriented manner, for a way out of a possible infringement; terms must be interpreted according to their principal functional meaning.