| 2025-12-04 | UPC_CFI_1167/2025 | Milan CD | Application RoP262A | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Milan Central Division addressed Insulet's application for penalty payments against EOFlow for alleged non-compliance with injunctions from both the Court of Appeal's preliminary injunction order (30 April 2025) and the Central Division Milan's decision on the merits (22 July 2025) concerning EP 4 201 327. The order also addresses confidentiality of certain information under R. 262 and R. 262A RoP. |
| 2025-10-15 | UPC_CFI_774/2025 | Milan CD | Application For Costs | Kosten | Nur Kosten | The Central Division Milan decided a cost application in the Insulet v. EOFLOW proceedings, ruling that costs incurred after publication of the merits decision and enforcement costs fall outside the scope of R. 151 RoP and are not recoverable in the cost decision. |
| 2025-10-03 | UPC_CoA_19/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | Identical rectification order under R.353 VerfO correcting headnote 7 of the 3 October 2025 decision, corresponding to the Belkin counterclaim for revocation appeal (UPC_CoA_19/2025). Same substance as rectification in UPC_CoA_534/2024 and UPC_CoA_683/2024. |
| 2025-10-03 | UPC_CoA_683/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | Identical rectification order under R.353 VerfO correcting headnote 7 of the 3 October 2025 decision, corresponding to the Philips cross-appeal (UPC_CoA_683/2024). Same substance as rectification in UPC_CoA_534/2024 and UPC_CoA_19/2025. |
| 2025-10-03 | UPC_CoA_534/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Verletzt | Court of Appeal decision on patent infringement and counterclaim for invalidity. Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc. and Belkin Limited were found to infringe Philips' patent EP 2 867 997. The appeal court partially modified the first-instance judgment: it ordered Belkin (GmbH, International, Limited) to recall, permanently remove and destroy the infringing products; excluded acts by Belkin GmbH and Belkin Limited in Germany from the injunction; and set penalty payments of up to EUR 100,000 per day for breach of the cease-and-desist order. Philips' cross-appeal seeking electronic disclosure was rejected. Costs were split 50/50 between Belkin (three entities) and Philips for the infringement action; Belkin bore the invalidity counterclaim costs. The patent was maintained (revocation counterclaim dismissed). |
| 2025-10-03 | UPC_CoA_534/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal issued a rectification order under R.353 VerfO (Rules of Procedure), correcting an obvious error in headnote 7 of its decision of 3 October 2025 in the appeal concerning Philips v. Belkin (infringement action and counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 867 997). The corrected headnote 7 now reads that claimant requests for recall, removal from distribution channels, and destruction must generally specify a deadline for completion, which must already be set in the decision or final order. This is one of three identical rectification orders (also UPC_CoA_19/2025 and UPC_CoA_683/2024), corresponding to the three related appeals. |
| 2025-07-22 | CC_65201/2024 | Milan CD | Counterclaim for infringement | Verletzung (Hauptsache) | Verletzt | The Milan Central Division issued a landmark decision finding infringement of EP 4 201 327 (Insulet Corporation) by EOFLOW Co., Ltd. by default on the counterclaim for infringement, following EOFLOW's failure to defend. The court also decided by default on the revocation action (finding insufficient grounds for revocation) and resolved costs of the preliminary injunction proceedings. The court ordered EOFLOW to cease and desist from infringing activities across all UPC contracting member states, recall products from the market, remove products from channels of commerce, destroy infringing products, and provide full information on the extent of infringement. The court applied a unitary approach to cost caps where two parallel proceedings concerned the same patent and infringement acts. |
| 2025-07-22 | ACT_56003/2024 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Nichtigkeit (Hauptsache) | Verletzt | Milan Central Division decision by default on EOFLOW's revocation action (dismissed) and on Insulet's counterclaim for infringement of a patent for wearable insulin delivery devices (patch pump). EOFLOW failed to defend and the Court verified sufficiency of evidence before issuing the default decision. The Court upheld Insulet's infringement claim and granted an injunction ordering EOFLOW to cease infringing acts, provide information/accounts, recall infringing products, and pay compensation for damages since 19 June 2024. The revocation action by EOFLOW was dismissed for lack of prosecution. Costs borne by EOFLOW. Patent terms interpreted according to principal functional meaning. The cost cap applies per instance regardless of number of parties or patents (Administrative Committee decision of 24 March 2023). |
| 2025-06-05 | UPC_CFI_477/2025 | Milan CD | Application RoP262A | — | Nur prozessual | Procedural order on Insulet Corporation's application for confidentiality (Rule 262A RoP) covering attorneys' fees and expenses in the costs proceedings relating to the preliminary injunction against EOFLOW. The court held that costs of litigation and patent protection may in principle be subject to confidentiality if they reveal the importance a company attaches to its patents and its litigation risk appetite. The order directed proper filing of exhibits in both redacted and unredacted versions. |
| 2025-06-03 | UPC_APP_23569/2025 | Munich LD | Application Rop313 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Munich Local Division granted the application by Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd. to join UPC_CFI_245/2025 (SWARCO FUTURIT v Yunex GmbH, EP 2 643 717) as an intervener (Streithelferin) supporting the defendant. The Court also rejected Yunex's earlier application for intervention given it was superseded. Shenzhen Dianming was given 10 days to submit its intervention brief and to respond to the security for costs application. |
| 2025-05-30 | APL_68523/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur prozessual | The Court of Appeal partially allowed Belkin's appeal and reduced the penalty payment (Zwangsgeld) imposed by the Munich Local Division for non-compliance with a disclosure order to EUR 42,000, while dismissing Philips's cross-appeal regarding disclosure in electronic form, and setting a new costs allocation. |
| 2025-05-30 | APL_68523/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Nur Kosten | The Court of Appeal (Panel 2) ruled on Belkin's appeal and Philips' cross-appeal against the Munich Local Division's order on penalty payments for non-compliance with an information disclosure obligation following the infringement judgment in UPC_CFI_390/2023 (Philips v Belkin, EP patent not specified in excerpt). The CoA modified the first-instance order: a penalty payment of EUR 42,000 was imposed on Belkin for failing to comply with the information disclosure order. The court established key principles on time periods for information disclosure under Art. 67(1) UPCA, the punitive nature of penalty payments even after belated compliance, burden of proof, and the permissibility of paper format for information. Costs were shared proportionally as both parties were partially unsuccessful. |
| 2025-05-30 | UPC_CoA_845/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | Nur prozessual | Rectification order of the Court of Appeal correcting an obvious clerical error in the order of 30 May 2025 (Belkin v Philips, penalty payment proceedings). The phrase 'Local Division Düsseldorf' is replaced by 'Local Division Munich' throughout the operative part. |
| 2025-05-28 | ORD_22456/2025 | Milan CD | Decision By Default | Versäumnisurteil | Verletzt | Decision by Milan Central Division (UPC_CFI_597/2024, 22 July 2025) on EOFLOW's revocation action and Insulet's counterclaim for infringement of EP 4 201 327 (wearable insulin pump / patch pump). The court rejected EOFLOW's revocation action (patent upheld as valid) and found EOFLOW's EOPatch product infringed the patent. The court ordered an injunction across 16 UPC member states, product recall, removal from distribution channels, destruction, and full information obligations. The decision also addressed the decision-by-default procedure, patent lexicon interpretation, and the cap on recoverable costs in parallel proceedings. |
| 2025-04-11 | UPC_CFI_597/2024 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | — | Nur prozessual | 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. |
| 2025-02-15 | UPC_APP_65673/2024 | Milan CD | Generic application | Kosten | Nur Kosten | Procedural order by Milan Central Division (UPC_CFI_380/2024, 15 February 2025) on EOFLOW's application for costs following the rejection of Insulet's preliminary injunction. The court held that costs of PI proceedings must be settled with the final decision on the merits and cannot be parcelled out according to the outcome of individual stages while merits proceedings are ongoing or to follow. |
| 2025-01-16 | UPC_CFI_33/2024 | Vienna LD | Infringement Action | Verletzung (Hauptsache) | Verletzt | Vienna Local Division found that Strabag Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH infringed SWARCO FUTURIT's European Patent EP 2 643 717. The Court granted an injunction, recall of infringing products from distribution channels, provision of information and destruction of infringing products. Damages were referred to a separate assessment procedure. A validity defence was not considered as no counterclaim for revocation was filed. SWARCO's request to publish the judgment was rejected; Strabag and the intervener were ordered to bear costs. |
| 2024-12-30 | UPC_APP_58035/2024 | Milan LD | Generic application | Kosten | Abgewiesen | Milan Local Division dismissed Insulet Corporation's application for a cost decision following the rejection of EOFLOW Co. Ltd.'s intervention request in PI proceedings (EP 4 201 327). The court found the application inadmissible: a cost decision under R. 150 RoP requires a prior decision on costs in principle under R. 118.5 RoP. The order rejecting the intervention (1 October 2024) contained no such costs-in-principle decision, so the cost-determination application lacked the prerequisite under R. 156(e) RoP. Insulet was invited to resubmit once a costs award decision was obtained. |
| 2024-12-23 | UPC_APP_58027/2024 | Milan CD | Generic application | Kosten | Nur Kosten | Milan Central Division costs order in Insulet Corporation v. MENARINI DIAGNOSTICS s.r.l. arising from intervention proceedings (Insulet's application for provisional measures against EOFLOW, EP 4 201 327). The court held: (1) an intervener in sub-proceedings must show a legally qualified interest; (2) intervention under R. 313 RoP is governed by adversarial principle and both intervener applicant and respondent are parties for cost purposes; (3) the successful party preventing or obtaining intervention may claim costs under Art. 69 UPCA; (4) an invoice is not required if the amounts and activities are clear. MENARINI ordered to pay Insulet EUR 1,764 in costs within 15 days. |
| 2024-11-22 | ACT_40442/2024 | Milan LD | Application for provisional measures | Einstweilige Verfügung | PI abgelehnt | The Milan Local Division dismissed Insulet Corporation's application for provisional measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. concerning EP4201327 (insulin pump technology), finding the application inadmissible as the auxiliary requests to amend the patent are not permissible in provisional measures proceedings, and also dismissing Menarini's request for security for costs. |
| 2024-11-22 | UPC_CFI_380/2024 | Milan CD | Application for provisional measures | — | PI abgelehnt | 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. |
| 2024-10-29 | UPC_APP_53031/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Order of the Court of Appeal partially granting a stay of enforcement (suspensive effect) of a first-instance injunction against Belkin Limited and its managing directors in proceedings concerning Koninklijke Philips N.V.'s patent. The stay was granted specifically regarding the injunctive orders against the managing directors (defendants 2-4) and related cost/publication orders, on the basis of a manifest error of law in holding that a managing director of an infringing company is personally liable as a 'middle person' under Art. 63(1) UPCA solely by virtue of their role as managing director. The stay was denied as to the remaining defendants. |
| 2024-10-29 | UPC_APP_53031/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Prozessual | Untersagung abgelehnt | The Court of Appeal partially granted Belkin's application for suspensive effect concerning the Munich Local Division's infringement decision (UPC_CFI_390/2023) in respect of EP 2 867 997. The Court granted suspensive effect specifically in relation to the publication order (Philips was not permitted to publish the impugned decision pending the appeal). However, suspensive effect was denied in all other respects as Belkin failed to demonstrate manifest error or infringement of fundamental procedural rights. The Court also held that a director of a patent-infringing company is not a 'third party intermediary' under Art. 63 UPCA merely by reason of their directorship. Security for enforcement under R.352.1 RoP must be ordered at the time of the decision, not retrospectively. |
| 2024-10-11 | UPC_APP_3393/2024 | Munich LD | Procedural Order | Prozessual | Nur Kosten | The Munich Local Division issued a costs assessment order following provisional measures proceedings, determining recoverable legal costs for Hanshow's four defendant entities, finding a reasonable time expenditure of up to 150 hours per attorney and 40 hours per patent attorney, resulting in total assessed costs of approximately EUR 154,400. |
| 2024-10-01 | UPC_APP_40442/2024 | Milan LD | Procedural Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Milan Local Division denied EOFLOW CO LTD's application to intervene as a third party in Insulet's provisional measures proceedings against Menarini under R.313 RoP, holding that efficiency of the proceedings and other balancing considerations weighed against admitting the intervention. |
| 2024-10-01 | ORD_52068/2024 | Milan CD | Generic Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | 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. |
| 2024-10-01 | UPC_CFI_400/2024 | Milan LD | Application for provisional measures | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Milan Local Division denied EOFLOW CO LTD's application to intervene as a third party in Insulet's provisional measures proceedings against Menarini under R.313 RoP, holding that efficiency of the proceedings and other balancing considerations weighed against admitting the intervention. |
| 2024-09-24 | UPC_APP_50666/2024 | Milan CD | Application Rop 333 | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Milan Central Division (24 September 2024) – R. 333 review panel approved the judge-rapporteur's order of 4 September 2024, which declined to order joinder with the parallel Milan Local Division proceedings and retained the case in the Central Division. The panel confirmed the JR's competence to act in the absence of an assigned full panel. |
| 2024-09-04 | UPC_APP_40442/2024 | Milan LD | Procedural Order | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Milan Local Division issued a confidentiality order determining the composition of the confidentiality club in Insulet's provisional measures proceedings against Menarini, granting access to a US attorney from Goodwin Procter to allow coordination of parallel litigation strategies across jurisdictions. |
| 2024-08-12 | UPC_APP_36807/2024 | Vienna LD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Order on a public-access application (R. 262.1(b) RoP) filed by DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o. seeking access to pleadings and evidence in an ongoing infringement case (SWARCO Futurit v. STRABAG, Vienna Local Division) involving EP 2 643 717. The court held that, for pending proceedings, a third-party applicant must show a legally qualified interest (beyond mere informational or economic interest) to outweigh the interest in protecting the integrity of ongoing proceedings. The application was denied as the proceedings were still pending. |
| 2023-12-20 | UPC_CFI_292/2023 | Munich LD | Application for provisional measures | Einstweilige Verfügung | PI abgelehnt | The Munich Local Division dismissed SES-imagotag's application for provisional measures against Hanshow Technology and related entities concerning electronic shelf label technology, finding that infringement of EP3883277 had not been established with sufficient certainty. The court also ordered SES-imagotag to bear the costs including those of the protective letter filed by the respondents. |