UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: —

CC_65201/2024

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

InfringementCounter Claim for InfringementMilan CDCounterclaim for infringement—
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Decision by default requires sufficient, precise, and consistent evidence on the merits, not merely procedural default

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 355.2 RoP

    Note: 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 UPCA

    Note: 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 2023

    Note: 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).

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

  • Patent EP 4 201 327 should be revoked (revocation action by EOFLOW)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA

    Reason: The court found insufficient grounds for revocation and rejected the revocation action by default, accepting Insulet's evidence that the patent is valid.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
decision by default requires verification of sufficient, precise and consistent evidencepatent lexicon and purposive claim constructionunitary cost cap approach for parallel proceedings involving same patent and infringement actspan-UPC injunctive relief for infringement

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

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.