CC 65201/2024
—·EP4201327: FLUID DELIVERY DEVICE WITH TRANSCUTANEOUS ACCESS TOOL, INSERTION MECHANISM AND BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING FOR USE THEREWITH
- Case details
- Status—ActionCounterclaim for infringementCategoryCounter Claim for Infringement
- 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 · Continuous Glucose Monitoring · Packaging & Conveying
- Language
- —
- First decided
- Jul 22, 2025
- 2025-07-22InfringedInjunction grantedInfringement meritsCounterclaim for infringement
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.
Legal issues:Decision by default on failure to defend (R. 355.2 RoP)Sufficiency of evidence required for default judgmentPatent claim interpretation (patent lexicon principle)Unitary injunction across all UPC contracting member statesCost cap per instance regardless of number of parties/patents (Art. 1(3) AC Decision)Costs of preliminary injunction proceedings
- 6B367A528DF365AD114FE21C4200AEE0_en.pdf2025-07-22EN
Insulet Corporation brought a counterclaim for infringement of EP 4 201 327 (a fluid delivery device/insulin pump patent) against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. before the Milan Central Division, which also heard EOFLOW's revocation action. EOFLOW failed to defend, and the court issued a default judgment finding infringement of EP 4 201 327 across all UPC contracting member states, ordering cessation of infringing acts, recall, removal from commerce, destruction, and full disclosure. The revocation action was dismissed for insufficient grounds, and the court applied a unitary cost cap across two parallel proceedings involving the same patent.
Decision by default requires sufficient, precise, and consistent evidence on the merits, not merely procedural default
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 355.2 RoPNote: The Milan Central Division applied R. 355.2 and verified there was sufficient evidence to issue the default judgment on infringement rather than relying solely on EOFLOW's failure to defend.
Patent terms must be interpreted according to their principal functional meaning, based on the patent's own lexicon and without result-oriented avoidance of infringement findings
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC; Art. 25 UPCANote: The court stated that patent terms must be interpreted following a straightforward reading of claims and drawings, bearing in mind the language used in the patent, without looking for a way out of a possible infringement.
Unitary cost cap approach applies where parallel proceedings involve the same patent and same act of infringement
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 1(3) of Administrative Committee Decision of 24 March 2023Note: When an infringing manufacturer and distributor are involved in two separate but parallel proceedings concerning the same patent and the same acts, a unitary approach to the cost cap is warranted to avoid violating Art. 1(3).
Patent EP 4 201 327 should be revoked (revocation action by EOFLOW)
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCAReason: The court found insufficient grounds for revocation and rejected the revocation action by default, accepting Insulet's evidence that the patent is valid.
Browse other cases on this principle.
The court stated that patent terms should be interpreted according to their principal functional meaning, based on the language used in the patent itself, without result-oriented avoidance of infringement findings. No specific disputed claim terms are identified in the available excerpt.