ACT 56003/2024
—·EP4201327: FLUID DELIVERY DEVICE WITH TRANSCUTANEOUS ACCESS TOOL, INSERTION MECHANISM AND BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING FOR USE THEREWITH
- Case details
- Status—ActionRevocationCategoryMain Revocation Action
- Parties
- Division
- Milan CD
- Judges
- Andrea Postiglione · Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur
- Anna-Lena Klein · Legally qualified judge
- Uwe Schwengelbeck · Technically qualified judge
- Technology
- Medical Devices · CGM · Packaging & Conveying
- Language
- —
- First decided
- Apr 11, 2025
- Last decision
- Jul 22, 2025
- 2025-07-22InfringedInjunction grantedRevocation meritsRevocation Action
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).
Legal issues:Decision by default (R. 355.2 RoP)Verification of evidence before default judgmentPatent lexicon / claim interpretationInfringement by patch pump deviceCost cap (Art. 1(3) Administrative Committee decision 24 March 2023)Double litigation / unitary approach to costsDamages: Liability declared, amount deferred
- D36DD947AA2ACC9AC2B9613A3F5A75FF_en.pdf2025-07-22ENGLISH
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
ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 355.2 RoPNote: 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
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPCNote: 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
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 1(3) Administrative Committee decision of 24 March 2023Note: 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.
No rejected arguments captured.
Browse other cases on this principle.
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.