ACT_40442/2024

FLUID DELIVERY DEVICE WITH TRANSCUTANEOUS ACCESS TOOL, INSERTION MECHANISM AND BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING FOR USE THEREWITH

Provisional measuresProvisional MeasuresMilan LDApplication for provisional measures—

Overview Decisions Reasoning Citations Documents Timeline

Plain-English summary

Insulet Corporation applied for provisional measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics before the Milan Local Division for alleged infringement of EP 4 201 327 (insulin pump technology). The court dismissed the application as inadmissible because Insulet sought to amend the patent via auxiliary requests, which are not permissible in provisional measures proceedings and can only be pursued in main proceedings; Menarini's request for EUR 200,000 security for costs was also rejected for lack of evidence of Insulet's insolvency risk.

Accepted arguments

What the court agreed with — by party.

Auxiliary requests to amend the patent under R. 30.2 RoP are inadmissible in provisional measures proceedings
RespondentLegal basis: R. 30.2 RoP; R. 50.2 RoP; R. 263.2 RoP
Note: Court agreed with Menarini that patent amendments under R. 30.2 RoP can only be lodged in main proceedings before the court with jurisdiction to issue a final validity decision.
Security for costs is not granted merely because the applicant is a US company, absent specific evidence of insolvency risk or insufficient assets
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69.4 UPCA; R. 158 RoP
Note: Court rejected Menarini's security-for-costs request, finding no substantiated allegation of alarming financial situation on Insulet's part.

Rejected arguments

What the court did not agree with — and why.

Application for provisional measures for infringement of EP 4 201 327 relating to insulin pump technology
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211.2 RoP; R. 211.3 RoP; R. 30.2 RoP
Reason: Application was dismissed as inadmissible because Insulet sought to rely on auxiliary requests to amend the patent, which are not permissible in provisional measures proceedings; absence of one required condition (valid main request scope) is sufficient for dismissal.
Security for costs in the amount of EUR 200,000 due to risk of inability to enforce cost judgment against a US company
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69.4 UPCA; R. 158 RoP
Reason: Menarini failed to allege or prove circumstances indicating alarming financial situation; security for costs is not primarily intended to protect against difficulties of enforcing abroad.

Key legal principles

Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.

Patent amendment auxiliary requests (R. 30.2 RoP) are inadmissible in provisional measures proceedings In provisional measures: cumulative requirements of standing, validity, infringement or imminent infringement, and balance of interests must all be met Rule 263.2 RoP 'amend its case' refers to modification of the case by new claim or substitution, not to patent amendment applications Security for costs requires substantiated evidence of insolvency risk or lack of sufficient assets — non-EU incorporation alone insufficient

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on

References cited and the role they played.

US 994Obviousness combination

Claim construction notes

The proceeding concerned EP 4 201 327 relating to a fluid delivery device with transcutaneous access tool (insulin pump). The court did not reach substantive claim construction because the application was dismissed on procedural grounds relating to the inadmissibility of patent amendment requests in provisional measures proceedings.