UPC CFI 472/2024
Aug 7, 2024·EP4072364 Unitary patent +1 more · PROTECTIVE DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MAKING SAID PROTECTIVE DEVICE
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (No infringement)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Dainese S.p.A.Operating co.
Representatives- Federico Caruso-SIB LEX
- Mario Pozzi
- Marta Manfrin
- Davide Rondano
- Division
- Milan LD
- Technology
- Mechanical engineeringTransport
- Other fieldsOther consumer goods
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Apr 21, 2026
- EPO Opposition
- Alpinestars S.p.A.Admissible2022-06-08
- Alpinestars S.p.A.Admissible2024-10-03
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Milan LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Pierluigi Perrotti | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Alima Zana | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Anna-Lena Klein | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Graham Ashley | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Dainese S.p.A. (17 cases)·Alpinestars S.p.A. (14 cases)
This dispute contains 13 other proceedings
UPC CoA 97/2026·UPC CFI 1781/2026·UPC CoA 931/2025·UPC CFI 182/2025·UPC APP 1176/2025 and 8 more
3 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
- 2026-04-21Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: The Milan Local Division dismissed the infringement claim by Dainese S.p.A. against Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., and Motocard Bike S.l., finding that the accused products (Tech Air 3 and Tech Air 10 systems) do not literally infringe claim 1 of EP4072364 as amended, because the 'second region' feature is not present in a non-negligible form in the defendants' products. The counterclaim for revocation of EP4072364 (in its amended form) was also dismissed, upholding the patent's validity; the infringement action concerning Spanish territory was separated and stayed pending the outcome of nullity proceedings before the Spanish court.
Show the legal issues (11)
- Jurisdiction over defendant domiciled in Spain (non-Contracting Member State) under Art. 8 Brussels I bis Regulation
- Forum connexitatis and risk of irreconcilable judgments (Art. 8 Reg. EU 1215/2012)
- Stay of proceedings regarding Spanish territory pending national nullity action (Art. 30 Brussels I bis / Art. 24 exclusive jurisdiction)
- Claim construction of 'second region' in EP4072364 claim 1 – minimum dimensions for ventilation
- Literal infringement of claim 1 (hand/comb shape, second region, plurality of housings)
- Admissibility of patent amendment under R.30 RoP (Main Request aligned with EPO Opposition Division outcome)
- Validity of EP4072364 (novelty and inventive step) in amended form
- Standing of holding company (Alpinestars Research S.p.A.) as defendant
- Costs allocation under Art. 69 UPCA where outcome is mixed
- Refund of duplicate court fees under Rule 370.7 RoP
- Security for costs under R.158 RoP
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Case closed | 2026-04-21 | Not public |
| Decision | 2026-04-21 | Public |
| Decision | 2026-04-21 | Not public |
| Decision | 2026-04-21 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-03-23 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-03-23 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-03-20 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-03-20 | Not public |
| Further pleadings | 2026-03-20 | Not public |
| Written procedure closed | 2026-03-18 | Not public |
UPC has jurisdiction over Motocard Bike S.l. (Spanish defendant) under Art. 8 Brussels I bis because the same factual situation (same infringing products, same supply chain), same legal situation (Spanish Patent Act harmonised with EU Enforcement Directive), predictability, and no abusive forum shopping are all established
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 8(1) Reg. (EU) 1215/2012; Art. 31 UPCA; Art. 71a Reg. (EU) 1215/2012The 'second region' in claim 1 must have non-negligible dimensions sufficient to allow ventilation; the 7.5% clearance in defendants' products is a mere manufacturing tolerance, not a functional second region
RespondentLegal basis: EP4072364 claim 1 (features h, i); patent specification paras [0004],[0005],[0016],[0061],[0062]EP4072364 as amended (Main Request) is novel and inventive over cited prior art (D1, D11, Bering vest, Spidi jacket)
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54, 56 EPC; UPCA Art. 65Proceedings concerning the Spanish territory should be stayed pending the irrevocable decision of the Spanish court on validity of the national Spanish portion of EP4072364, given the Spanish court's exclusive jurisdiction under Art. 24 Brussels I bis
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 24(4), Art. 30 Reg. (EU) 1215/2012; Art. 71c Reg. (EU) 542/2014; Rule 295 RoP
Preliminary objection: UPC lacks jurisdiction over the Spanish defendant Motocard Bike S.l. for infringement in Spain
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 34 UPCA; Art. 24(4), Art. 27 Reg. (EU) 1215/2012Proceedings should be suspended pending the CJEU referral on Art. 8(1) Brussels I bis interpretation (UPC-CoA 789/2025)
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 8(1) Reg. (EU) 1215/2012Alpinestars Research S.p.A. lacks standing as a pure holding company not involved in production or distribution
RespondentLegal basis: Company law principle of separation of liability; UPC_CoA_183/2024Tech Air 3 and Tech Air 10 products infringe claim 1 of EP4072364 (literal infringement), as any space not occupied by the deflated airbag qualifies as the required 'second region'
ClaimantLegal basis: EP4072364 claim 1; Art. 25 UPCAEP4072364 lacks inventive step starting from D1 combined with D11
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPCEP4072364 lacks inventive step starting from Bering vest combined with Spidi jacket
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPCDefendants nos. 1 and 6 are entitled to a refund of €40,000 in duplicate court fees paid for separate counterclaims for revocation under Rule 370.7 RoP
RespondentLegal basis: Rule 370.7 RoP