UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 1230/2026

Apr 13, 2026·EP4201327 Unitary patent · FLUID DELIVERY DEVICE WITH TRANSCUTANEOUS ACCESS TOOL, INSERTION MECHANISM AND BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING FOR USE THEREWITH

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Generic
Category
Generic
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Milan CD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
English
First decided
Jun 12, 2026
EPO Opposition
  • EOFlow Co., Ltd.Withdrawn2025-03-18
  • KELLER SCHNEIDER PATENTANWALTS GMBHAdmissible2025-03-19
  • Inspicos P/SWithdrawn2025-03-19
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Milan CDLocked
Judge Andrea PostiglioneLocked
Judge Anna-Lena KleinLocked
Judge Uwe SchwengelbeckLocked

At the UPC: Insulet Corporation (25 cases)·EOFLOW Co., Ltd. (19 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 18 other proceedings

UPC CoA 34/2026·UPC CoA 930/2025·UPC CFI 1167/2025·UPC CFI 773/2025·UPC CFI 774/2025 and 13 more

3 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 793/2024·UPC CoA 769/2024·UPC CFI 400/2024

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Milan CD·2026

Decisions
  • 2026-06-12
    Public

    Summary: The Milan Central Division ordered EOFLOW Co. Ltd to pay INSULET Corporation EUR 14,000 as reasonable and proportionate legal costs covering proceedings related to EOFLOW's application for leave to appeal (EUR 4,000) and the appellate proceedings before the Court of Appeal regarding EOFLOW's appeal against a penalty order (EUR 10,000). The confidentiality requests under Rules 262A and 262.2 RoP were dismissed.

    Show the legal issues (6)
    • Timeliness of costs application under Rule 151.1 RoP
    • Scope of prior costs award of EUR 10,000 from 4 December 2025 order
    • Reasonableness and proportionality of legal costs under Rule 150 RoP
    • Confidentiality of cost narratives and invoices under Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP and Article 58 UPCA
    • Recoverability of costs for confidentiality applications
    • Applicable costs ceiling based on case value
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Publication2026-06-12Not public
Case closed2026-06-12Not public
Decision2026-06-12Not public
Final Order2026-06-12Public
Receipt2026-06-01Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-01Not public
Exhibit Defendant/Respondent2026-06-01Not public
Submission Defendant/Respondent2026-06-01Not public
Receipt2026-05-22Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-22Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-22Not public
Further pleadings2026-05-22Not public
Communication2026-05-11Not public
Receipt2026-05-11Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-11Not public
Application document Claimant2026-05-11Not public
Receipt2026-05-08Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-08Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-05-08Not public
Further pleadings2026-05-08Not public
Communication2026-04-24Not public
Receipt2026-04-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-13Not public
Application document Claimant2026-04-13Not public
Receipt2026-04-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-13Not public
Application document Claimant2026-04-13Not public
Receipt2026-04-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-13Not public
Exhibit2026-04-13Not public
Exhibit2026-04-13Not public
Application2026-04-13Not public
Exhibit2026-04-13Not public
Exhibit2026-04-13Not public
Application2026-04-13Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Cost application was filed on time under Rule 151.1 RoP

    ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 151.1 RoP

  • Costs claimed were not covered by the earlier EUR 10,000 award

    ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 150 et seq. RoP

  • INSULET as successful party is entitled to recover costs of defending the appeal and responding to the leave-to-appeal application

    ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 150 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Application was out of time under Rule 151.1 RoP because the appeal had already been rejected by the CoA in February 2026

    RespondentLegal basis: Rule 151.1 RoP

  • Costs relating to leave-to-appeal proceedings either belonged exclusively to the appellate phase or had already been absorbed by the earlier EUR 10,000 award

    RespondentLegal basis: Rule 150 RoP

  • Sums claimed were disproportionate and the case value for recoverable costs was overstated

    RespondentLegal basis: Rule 150 RoP

  • Cost narratives and invoices are entitled to confidentiality protection under Rules 262A and 262.2 RoP

    ClaimantLegal basis: Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP; Article 58 UPCA