UPC CFI 380/2024
3. Juli 2024·EP4201327 Einheitspatent · FLUID DELIVERY DEVICE WITH TRANSCUTANEOUS ACCESS TOOL, INSERTION MECHANISM AND BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING FOR USE THEREWITH
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase ClosedIn der Berufung aufgehoben, 1. Mai 2025VerfahrensartEinstweilige VerfügungKategorieEinstweilige Maßnahmen
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Insulet CorporationUnternehmen
Vertreter- Marc Grunwald-Peterreins Schley
- Frank Peterreins-Peterreins Schley
- Division
- Milan CD
- Technologie
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 1. Okt. 2024
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 22. Nov. 2024
- EPA-Einspruch
- EOFlow Co., Ltd.Zurückgenommen2025-03-18
- KELLER SCHNEIDER PATENTANWALTS GMBHZulässig2025-03-19
- Inspicos P/SZurückgenommen2025-03-19
- Berufung
- Aufgehoben durch UPC CoA 768/2024 · 1. Mai 2025
| Einstweilige Verfügung erlassen | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| Milan CD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Andrea Postiglione | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Anna-Lena Klein | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Uwe Schwengelbeck | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Insulet Corporation (25 Verfahren)·EOFLOW Co., Ltd. (19 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 18 weitere Verfahren
UPC CFI 1230/2026·UPC CoA 34/2026·UPC CoA 930/2025·UPC CFI 1167/2025·UPC CFI 773/2025 und 13 weitere
3 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
- 2024-11-22Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Milan Central Division rejected Insulet Corporation's application for a preliminary injunction against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of EP 4 201 327 (insulin pump). The Court held that the applicant had not established with sufficient certainty that the patent was valid (particularly claim 1 which appeared to lack novelty or inventive step over the prior art). The auxiliary request to amend the patent under R. 30.2 RoP was inadmissible in provisional measures proceedings given the requirement for expediency and the adversarial principle. Insulet was ordered to bear the costs; value in dispute EUR 2,500,000; cost ceiling EUR 400,000.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Provisional measures (R. 206 RoP; Art. 62 UPCA)
- Validity of patent in provisional measures proceedings
- Admissibility of patent amendment in provisional measures (R. 30.2 RoP)
- Claim interpretation (R. 263.2 RoP)
- 2024-10-01
Zusammenfassung: Milan Central Division procedural order in provisional measures proceedings by Insulet Corporation against EOFlow Co. Ltd. concerning EP 4 201 327 (insulin pump). A. Menarini Diagnostics (exclusive distributor of EOFlow) applied to intervene. The Court rejected the intervention request, reasoning that interim injunction proceedings should not be burdened with interventions that could slow down the accelerated procedure, and Menarini could pursue its interests in subsequent merits proceedings.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Intervention in provisional measures proceedings (R. 313 RoP)
- Third-party intervention by distributor
- Insulin pump / wearable medical device technology
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Case Closure Formal Check | 2025-05-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-02-15 | Nicht öffentlich |
| ORDER 11 February 2025 | 2025-02-15 | Öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2025-01-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Rejoinder Cost Fixation Proceedings | 2025-01-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Rejoinder Cost Fixation Proceedings | 2025-01-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit PS C-6 | 2025-01-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| ORDER | 2024-11-27 | Öffentlich |
| ORDER | 2024-11-27 | Öffentlich |
| ORDER | 2024-11-27 | Nicht öffentlich |
Insulet Corporation (US), maker of OmniPod insulin pumps, applied for a preliminary injunction against EOFLOW Co. Ltd (South Korea) based on EP 4 201 327 (a patent for a fluid delivery device used in insulin pumps). The Milan Central Division denied the PI, finding that prior art US'994 disclosed all features of claim 1 with sufficient certainty to cast serious doubt on the patent's validity. Insulet's auxiliary request to amend the patent in PI proceedings was held inadmissible, and Insulet was ordered to bear costs.
Patent EP 4 201 327 claim 1 is likely not novel in view of prior art US'994
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54 EPCHinweis: Court found that US'994 discloses all features of claim 1 of the patent at issue (fluid delivery device with rotating nut/clutch mechanism), negating validity with sufficient certainty to deny the PI.
Auxiliary request to amend patent under R. 30.2 RoP is inadmissible in provisional measures proceedings
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 30.2 RoP; R. 263.2 RoPHinweis: Court held that the expedient nature of PI proceedings, combined with adversarial principle and right of defence, makes patent amendments under R. 30 inadmissible; 'amend its case' in R. 263.2 refers only to pleadings, not patent claims.
US'994 contains unworkable embodiments and should not be read to disclose all features of claim 1
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54 EPC; general principles of claim interpretationBegründung: Court applied the principle that patent descriptions must be interpreted to make the invention workable; US'994 Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 disclose two distinct workable embodiments, and the keyhole feature does not render the device non-functional.
Court should permit patent amendment as auxiliary request to cure any validity defect
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 30.2 RoP; R. 263.2 RoPBegründung: Patent amendment under R. 30.2 RoP is inadmissible in PI proceedings; R. 263.2 RoP's 'amend its case' refers only to pleadings amendments.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
- US'994 (US patent cited as prior art against EP 4 201 327 claim 1)Neuheitsschädlich
The court construed claim 1 of EP 4 201 327 as covering a fluid delivery device with a drive mechanism comprising a drive wheel, lead screw, plunger, threadable nut, and clutch configured to allow the nut to pass through when disengaged and grip the nut when engaged so the drive wheel rotates the nut to advance the plunger. The court found US'994 discloses two embodiments (Figs. 4 and 5) that between them cover all these features.