UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 2046/2025

Dec 18, 2025·EP3691454 Unitary patent · METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SHAPING PIZZA DOUGH

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Other
Category
Other procedural
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Milan LD
Judges
Technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Other special machines
Language
Italian
First decided
Jun 8, 2026
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Milan LDLocked
Judge Pierluigi PerrottiLocked
Judge Alima ZanaLocked
Judge Samuel GranataLocked

At the UPC: Morello Forni Italia S.r.l. (2 cases)·Gastroteam Abbe AB (2 cases)

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

This dispute contains 1 other proceedings

UPC CFI 802/2024

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Milan LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-06-08
    Public

    Summary: Following an earlier infringement finding in UPC CFI n. 802/2024 (decision of 19 November 2025), the Milan Local Division determined the total recoverable costs at 62,359.32 EUR and ordered the respondents Gastroteam Abbe AB and Salvatore Marciuliano to pay that amount to the claimants within 30 days of notification. The court awarded 45,000 EUR for representation fees (below the maximum ceiling due to low case complexity), plus 8,500 EUR for expert fees, 2,257.32 EUR for translation costs, and 6,602 EUR for court fees.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Cost determination following infringement ruling (R. 150 et seq. RoP)
    • Service of decision on absent respondent (R. 276.1 RoP)
    • Proportionality of costs relative to case complexity and case value (Scale of ceilings)
    • Recovery of representation fees, expert fees, translation costs, and court fees (R. 151, 153, 155 RoP)
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Other Documents2026-08-25Not public
Other Documents2026-06-24Not public
Receipt2026-06-23Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-23Not public
Document Defendant2026-06-23Not public
Case closed2026-06-16Not public
Other Documents2026-06-16Not public
Receipt2026-06-11Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-11Not public
Document2026-06-11Not public
Other Documents2026-06-09Not public
Communication2026-06-09Not public
Other Documents2026-06-09Not public
Decision2026-06-08Not public
Decision2026-06-08Not public
Other Documents2026-05-20Not public
Receipt2026-04-02Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-02Not public
Application document Applicant2026-04-02Not public
Communication2026-03-11Not public
Other Documents2026-03-11Not public
Publication2026-02-26Not public
Other Documents2025-12-29Not public
Receipt2025-12-18Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-18Not public
Exhibit document Applicant2025-12-18Not public
Exhibit document Applicant2025-12-18Not public
Exhibit document Applicant2025-12-18Not public
Exhibit document Applicant2025-12-18Not public
Exhibit document Applicant2025-12-18Not public
Exhibit document Applicant2025-12-18Not public
Exhibit document Applicant2025-12-18Not public
Exhibit document Applicant2025-12-18Not public
Application document Applicant2025-12-18Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Service on Gastroteam was effective despite the postal package being returned unclaimed, as Gastroteam had actual notice of the judgment (evidenced by its letter of 2 January 2026 seeking a settlement)

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 276.1 RoP; EU Regulation n. 1784/2020

  • Expert fees of 8,500 EUR are reasonable given the accuracy and complexity of the technical analysis performed

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 153 RoP

  • Translation costs of 2,257.32 EUR are recoverable

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 155 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Full maximum representation fee ceiling should apply given the case involved two defendants and separate infringing conduct

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 152 RoP; Scale of ceilings