UPC CFI 400/2024

Jul 8, 2024·EP4201327 Unitary patent · FLUID DELIVERY DEVICE WITH TRANSCUTANEOUS ACCESS TOOL, INSERTION MECHANISM AND BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING FOR USE THEREWITH

Action number: ACT 40442/2024

Case details: Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties: Claimants
Insulet CorporationOperating co.
Representatives
Marc Grunwald-Peterreins Schley
Respondents
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.Operating co.
Representatives
Christopher Maierhöfer-Bird & Bird LLP
Division: Milan LD
Judges: Pierluigi Perrotti
Alima Zana
Anna-Lena Klein
Uwe Schwengelbeck
Technology: Instruments
Medical technology
Language: English
First decided: Sep 4, 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

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 granted	Median days to first decision
All UPC	54% (38/70)	124
Milan LD	Locked	Locked
Judge Pierluigi Perrotti	Locked	Locked
Judge Alima Zana	Locked	Locked
Judge Anna-Lena Klein	Locked	Locked
Judge Uwe Schwengelbeck	Locked	Locked

At the UPC: Insulet Corporation (25 cases)·A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (16 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in

Related cases

All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 5 other proceedings

UPC APP 67784/2024·UPC CFI 793/2024·UPC CoA 769/2024·UPC APP 58035/2024·UPC APP 40442/2024

11 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 1230/2026·UPC CoA 34/2026·UPC CoA 930/2025·UPC CFI 773/2025·UPC CoA 194/2025 and 6 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Milan LD·2024

Decisions

2024-11-22
Application for provisional measuresPublic
Summary: The Milan Local Division dismissed Insulet Corporation's application for provisional measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. concerning EP4201327 (insulin pump technology), finding the application inadmissible as the auxiliary requests to amend the patent are not permissible in provisional measures proceedings, and also dismissing Menarini's request for security for costs.
Show the legal issues (5)
- Provisional measures (R.206, R.209.1 RoP)
- Inadmissibility of patent amendment requests in PI proceedings (R.30.2 RoP)
- Amendment of case in PI proceedings (R.263.2-3 RoP)
- Requirements for provisional measures (R.211.2-3 RoP)
- Security for costs (Art. 69(4) UPCA, R.158 RoP)
2024-10-01
Application for provisional measuresPublic
Summary: The Milan Local Division denied EOFLOW CO LTD's application to intervene as a third party in Insulet's provisional measures proceedings against Menarini under R.313 RoP, holding that efficiency of the proceedings and other balancing considerations weighed against admitting the intervention.
Show the legal issues (2)
- intervention R.313 RoP
- legal interest of manufacturer/producer to intervene in distributor proceedings

Documents

Show all 206 documents

Document title	Date	Public
Order	2025-10-31	Public
Order	2025-10-31	Public
Order	2025-10-31	Public
Order	2025-10-31	Public
Receipt	2024-12-30	Not public
Receipt	2024-12-30	Not public
Application	2024-12-27	Not public
Application	2024-12-27	Not public
Exhibit BB 56	2024-12-27	Not public
Exhibit BB 52	2024-12-27	Not public

Plain-English summary

Insulet Corporation applied for provisional measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics before the Milan Local Division for alleged infringement of EP 4 201 327 (insulin pump technology). The court dismissed the application as inadmissible because Insulet sought to amend the patent via auxiliary requests, which are not permissible in provisional measures proceedings and can only be pursued in main proceedings; Menarini's request for EUR 200,000 security for costs was also rejected for lack of evidence of Insulet's insolvency risk.

Accepted arguments

What the court agreed with — by party.

Auxiliary requests to amend the patent under R. 30.2 RoP are inadmissible in provisional measures proceedings
RespondentLegal basis: R. 30.2 RoP; R. 50.2 RoP; R. 263.2 RoP
Note: Court agreed with Menarini that patent amendments under R. 30.2 RoP can only be lodged in main proceedings before the court with jurisdiction to issue a final validity decision.
Security for costs is not granted merely because the applicant is a US company, absent specific evidence of insolvency risk or insufficient assets
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69.4 UPCA; R. 158 RoP
Note: Court rejected Menarini's security-for-costs request, finding no substantiated allegation of alarming financial situation on Insulet's part.

Rejected arguments

What the court did not agree with — and why.

Application for provisional measures for infringement of EP 4 201 327 relating to insulin pump technology
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211.2 RoP; R. 211.3 RoP; R. 30.2 RoP
Reason: Application was dismissed as inadmissible because Insulet sought to rely on auxiliary requests to amend the patent, which are not permissible in provisional measures proceedings; absence of one required condition (valid main request scope) is sufficient for dismissal.
Security for costs in the amount of EUR 200,000 due to risk of inability to enforce cost judgment against a US company
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69.4 UPCA; R. 158 RoP
Reason: Menarini failed to allege or prove circumstances indicating alarming financial situation; security for costs is not primarily intended to protect against difficulties of enforcing abroad.

Key legal principles

Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.

Patent amendment auxiliary requests (R. 30.2 RoP) are inadmissible in provisional measures proceedings In provisional measures: cumulative requirements of standing, validity, infringement or imminent infringement, and balance of interests must all be met Rule 263.2 RoP 'amend its case' refers to modification of the case by new claim or substitution, not to patent amendment applications Security for costs requires substantiated evidence of insolvency risk or lack of sufficient assets — non-EU incorporation alone insufficient

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on

References cited and the role they played.

US 994Obviousness combination

Claim construction notes

The proceeding concerned EP 4 201 327 relating to a fluid delivery device with transcutaneous access tool (insulin pump). The court did not reach substantive claim construction because the application was dismissed on procedural grounds relating to the inadmissibility of patent amendment requests in provisional measures proceedings.