UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: —

ACT_56003/2024

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

RevocationMain Revocation ActionMilan CDRevocation Action—
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Default judgment warranted after verification of sufficient, precise and consistent evidence

    ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 355.2 RoP

    Note: 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 EPC

    Note: 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 2023

    Note: 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.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

No rejected arguments captured.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Default judgment requires verification of sufficient, precise and consistent evidence (R. 355.2 RoP)Patent lexicon — terms interpreted by principal functional meaningClaims and drawings read without result-oriented avoidance of infringement findingCosts cap applies per instance regardless of number of parties or patents (Art. 1(3) AC Decision 24 March 2023)

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

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.