CC_65201/2024
FLUID DELIVERY DEVICE WITH TRANSCUTANEOUS ACCESS TOOL, INSERTION MECHANISM AND BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING FOR USE THEREWITH
Insulet Corporation brought a counterclaim for infringement of EP 4 201 327 (a fluid delivery device/insulin pump patent) against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. before the Milan Central Division, which also heard EOFLOW's revocation action. EOFLOW failed to defend, and the court issued a default judgment finding infringement of EP 4 201 327 across all UPC contracting member states, ordering cessation of infringing acts, recall, removal from commerce, destruction, and full disclosure. The revocation action was dismissed for insufficient grounds, and the court applied a unitary cost cap across two parallel proceedings involving the same patent.
Decision by default requires sufficient, precise, and consistent evidence on the merits, not merely procedural default
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 355.2 RoPHinweis: The Milan Central Division applied R. 355.2 and verified there was sufficient evidence to issue the default judgment on infringement rather than relying solely on EOFLOW's failure to defend.
Patent terms must be interpreted according to their principal functional meaning, based on the patent's own lexicon and without result-oriented avoidance of infringement findings
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC; Art. 25 UPCAHinweis: The court stated that patent terms must be interpreted following a straightforward reading of claims and drawings, bearing in mind the language used in the patent, without looking for a way out of a possible infringement.
Unitary cost cap approach applies where parallel proceedings involve the same patent and same act of infringement
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 1(3) of Administrative Committee Decision of 24 March 2023Hinweis: When an infringing manufacturer and distributor are involved in two separate but parallel proceedings concerning the same patent and the same acts, a unitary approach to the cost cap is warranted to avoid violating Art. 1(3).
Patent EP 4 201 327 should be revoked (revocation action by EOFLOW)
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCABegründung: The court found insufficient grounds for revocation and rejected the revocation action by default, accepting Insulet's evidence that the patent is valid.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
The court stated that patent terms should be interpreted according to their principal functional meaning, based on the language used in the patent itself, without result-oriented avoidance of infringement findings. No specific disputed claim terms are identified in the available excerpt.