UPC CFI 486/2024

Applicant failed to demonstrate why a main action would be insufficient to provide adequate legal protection, making provisional measures unnecessary

Note: Court held that the substantive necessity of provisional measures requires a specific showing that the harm cannot be adequately compensated through a main action; mere invocation of urgency timeframes is insufficient.

Court may dismiss provisional measures application without oral hearing where applicant indicates no further oral discussion is needed if court maintains its preliminary view

Note: After the court signalled the application lacked merit, Bioletic indicated no further hearing was needed; the court exercised its discretion to dismiss without oral hearing.

Market saturation from infringing products and long-term customer lock-in create irreparable harm justifying provisional measures

Reason: Bioletic's evidence of market saturation (6–12 months) and customer lock-in was based on speculation and estimates of one distributor rather than concrete evidence; no specific harm was shown that could not be compensated monetarily in main proceedings.

Ongoing tenders in Italy creating long-term binding commitments justify urgent provisional measures

Reason: The reference to tenders was too generic and did not substantiate specific, concrete harm of the magnitude justifying provisional measures rather than a main action.