UPC CFI 1230/2026
—·EP4201327: FLUID DELIVERY DEVICE WITH TRANSCUTANEOUS ACCESS TOOL, INSERTION MECHANISM AND BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING FOR USE THEREWITH
- Verfahrensdetails
- Status—VerfahrensartVerfahrensantragKategorieSonstige prozessuale
- Parteien
- KlägerVertreter: Marc Grunwald (Peterreins Schley); Frank Peterreins (Peterreins Schley); Maximilian Gross (Peterreins Schley)
- Division
- —
- Richter
- Andrea Postiglione · rapporteur
- Technology
- Packaging & Conveying
- Sprache
- —
- Erste Entscheidung
- 12. Juni 2026
- 2026-06-12Nur KostenGeneric application
The Milan Central Division ordered EOFLOW Co. Ltd to pay INSULET Corporation EUR 14,000 as reasonable and proportionate legal costs covering proceedings related to EOFLOW's application for leave to appeal (EUR 4,000) and the appellate proceedings before the Court of Appeal regarding EOFLOW's appeal against a penalty order (EUR 10,000). The confidentiality requests under Rules 262A and 262.2 RoP were dismissed.
Rechtsfragen:Timeliness of costs application under Rule 151.1 RoPScope of prior costs award of EUR 10,000 from 4 December 2025 orderReasonableness and proportionality of legal costs under Rule 150 RoPConfidentiality of cost narratives and invoices under Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP and Article 58 UPCARecoverability of costs for confidentiality applicationsApplicable costs ceiling based on case value
- GDPR-checked_1230-26%20INSULET.pdf2026-06-12EN
Cost application was filed on time under Rule 151.1 RoP
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Rule 151.1 RoPCosts claimed were not covered by the earlier EUR 10,000 award
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Rule 150 et seq. RoPINSULET as successful party is entitled to recover costs of defending the appeal and responding to the leave-to-appeal application
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Rule 150 RoP
Application was out of time under Rule 151.1 RoP because the appeal had already been rejected by the CoA in February 2026
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Rule 151.1 RoPCosts relating to leave-to-appeal proceedings either belonged exclusively to the appellate phase or had already been absorbed by the earlier EUR 10,000 award
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Rule 150 RoPSums claimed were disproportionate and the case value for recoverable costs was overstated
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Rule 150 RoPCost narratives and invoices are entitled to confidentiality protection under Rules 262A and 262.2 RoP
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP; Article 58 UPCA