UPC CFI 597/2024
14. Okt. 2024·EP4201327 Einheitspatent · FLUID DELIVERY DEVICE WITH TRANSCUTANEOUS ACCESS TOOL, INSERTION MECHANISM AND BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING FOR USE THEREWITH
Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 56003/2024
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent wie erteilt aufrechterhalten)VerfahrensartNichtigkeitKategorieHauptnichtigkeitsklage
- Parteien
- Division
- Milan CD
- Technologie
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 11. Apr. 2025
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 22. Juli 2025
- EPA-Einspruch
- EOFlow Co., Ltd.Zurückgenommen2025-03-18
- KELLER SCHNEIDER PATENTANWALTS GMBHZulässig2025-03-19
- Inspicos P/SZurückgenommen2025-03-19
| Patent nichtig | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Milan CD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Andrea Postiglione | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Anna-Lena Klein | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Uwe Schwengelbeck | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: EOFLOW Co., Ltd. (19 Verfahren)·Insulet Corporation (25 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.
- 2025-04-11Revocation ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Procedural order declining EOFLOW's request to file additional written submissions in the revocation action against Insulet's patent EP 4 201 327. The court noted the stage of proceedings and that the Court of Appeal's PI decision was already known to the court.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- Request for additional written submissions (Rule 36 RoP)
- Revocation action procedure
- —infringement counterclaim
Zusammenfassung: • The application for revocation of EP4201327 filed by EOFLOW is dismissed by default. • An interim award of damages in favour of INSULET has been set at EUR 230,000.00 under Rule 119 RoP. ... a) The Court orders EOFLOW to refrain from making, offering, placing on the market, using or possessing, for the purposes mentioned, as well as from importing or storing a fluid delivery device
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| ORDER | 2025-07-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Template-Order | 2025-07-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2025-07-25 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Notice of Intention to Enforce | 2025-07-24 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit PS E1 - Letter re Instructions for Enforcement | 2025-07-24 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-07-22 | Nicht öffentlich |
| DECISION | 2025-07-22 | Öffentlich |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-07-22 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-07-22 | Nicht öffentlich |
| DECISION | 2025-07-22 | Öffentlich |
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.
Default judgment warranted after verification of sufficient, precise and consistent evidence
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Rule 355.2 RoPHinweis: 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 EPCHinweis: 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 2023Hinweis: 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.
Keine zurückgewiesenen Argumente erfasst.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
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.