UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CFI 380/2024

Jul 3, 2024·EP4201327 Unitary patent · FLUID DELIVERY DEVICE WITH TRANSCUTANEOUS ACCESS TOOL, INSERTION MECHANISM AND BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING FOR USE THEREWITH

Case details
Status
Case ClosedSet aside on appeal, May 1, 2025
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Milan CD
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
English
First decided
Oct 1, 2024
Last decision
Nov 22, 2024
EPO Opposition
  • EOFlow Co., Ltd.Withdrawn2025-03-18
  • KELLER SCHNEIDER PATENTANWALTS GMBHAdmissible2025-03-19
  • Inspicos P/SWithdrawn2025-03-19
Appealed
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Preliminary injunction grantedMedian days to first decision
All UPC54% (38/70)124
Milan CDLockedLocked
Judge Andrea PostiglioneLockedLocked
Judge Anna-Lena KleinLockedLocked
Judge Uwe SchwengelbeckLockedLocked

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

This dispute contains 18 other proceedings

UPC CFI 1230/2026·UPC CoA 34/2026·UPC CoA 930/2025·UPC CFI 1167/2025·UPC CFI 773/2025 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·2024

Decisions
  • 2024-11-22
    Application for provisional measuresPublic

    Summary: The Milan Central Division rejected Insulet Corporation's application for a preliminary injunction against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of EP 4 201 327 (insulin pump). The Court held that the applicant had not established with sufficient certainty that the patent was valid (particularly claim 1 which appeared to lack novelty or inventive step over the prior art). The auxiliary request to amend the patent under R. 30.2 RoP was inadmissible in provisional measures proceedings given the requirement for expediency and the adversarial principle. Insulet was ordered to bear the costs; value in dispute EUR 2,500,000; cost ceiling EUR 400,000.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Provisional measures (R. 206 RoP; Art. 62 UPCA)
    • Validity of patent in provisional measures proceedings
    • Admissibility of patent amendment in provisional measures (R. 30.2 RoP)
    • Claim interpretation (R. 263.2 RoP)
  • 2024-10-01

    Summary: Milan Central Division procedural order in provisional measures proceedings by Insulet Corporation against EOFlow Co. Ltd. concerning EP 4 201 327 (insulin pump). A. Menarini Diagnostics (exclusive distributor of EOFlow) applied to intervene. The Court rejected the intervention request, reasoning that interim injunction proceedings should not be burdened with interventions that could slow down the accelerated procedure, and Menarini could pursue its interests in subsequent merits proceedings.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Intervention in provisional measures proceedings (R. 313 RoP)
    • Third-party intervention by distributor
    • Insulin pump / wearable medical device technology
Document titleDatePublic
Case Closure Formal Check2025-05-02Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-02-15Not public
ORDER 11 February 20252025-02-15Public
Receipt2025-01-31Not public
Rejoinder Cost Fixation Proceedings2025-01-31Not public
Rejoinder Cost Fixation Proceedings2025-01-31Not public
Exhibit PS C-62025-01-31Not public
ORDER2024-11-27Public
ORDER2024-11-27Public
ORDER2024-11-27Not public
Plain-English summary

Insulet Corporation (US), maker of OmniPod insulin pumps, applied for a preliminary injunction against EOFLOW Co. Ltd (South Korea) based on EP 4 201 327 (a patent for a fluid delivery device used in insulin pumps). The Milan Central Division denied the PI, finding that prior art US'994 disclosed all features of claim 1 with sufficient certainty to cast serious doubt on the patent's validity. Insulet's auxiliary request to amend the patent in PI proceedings was held inadmissible, and Insulet was ordered to bear costs.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.
  • Patent EP 4 201 327 claim 1 is likely not novel in view of prior art US'994

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC

    Note: Court found that US'994 discloses all features of claim 1 of the patent at issue (fluid delivery device with rotating nut/clutch mechanism), negating validity with sufficient certainty to deny the PI.

  • Auxiliary request to amend patent under R. 30.2 RoP is inadmissible in provisional measures proceedings

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 30.2 RoP; R. 263.2 RoP

    Note: Court held that the expedient nature of PI proceedings, combined with adversarial principle and right of defence, makes patent amendments under R. 30 inadmissible; 'amend its case' in R. 263.2 refers only to pleadings, not patent claims.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.
  • US'994 contains unworkable embodiments and should not be read to disclose all features of claim 1

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC; general principles of claim interpretation

    Reason: Court applied the principle that patent descriptions must be interpreted to make the invention workable; US'994 Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 disclose two distinct workable embodiments, and the keyhole feature does not render the device non-functional.

  • Court should permit patent amendment as auxiliary request to cure any validity defect

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 30.2 RoP; R. 263.2 RoP

    Reason: Patent amendment under R. 30.2 RoP is inadmissible in PI proceedings; R. 263.2 RoP's 'amend its case' refers only to pleadings amendments.

Prior art relied on
References cited and the role they played.
  • US'994 (US patent cited as prior art against EP 4 201 327 claim 1)Novelty-destroying
Claim construction notes

The court construed claim 1 of EP 4 201 327 as covering a fluid delivery device with a drive mechanism comprising a drive wheel, lead screw, plunger, threadable nut, and clutch configured to allow the nut to pass through when disengaged and grip the nut when engaged so the drive wheel rotates the nut to advance the plunger. The court found US'994 discloses two embodiments (Figs. 4 and 5) that between them cover all these features.