UPC CFI 597/2024
Oct 14, 2024·EP4201327 Unitary patent · FLUID DELIVERY DEVICE WITH TRANSCUTANEOUS ACCESS TOOL, INSERTION MECHANISM AND BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING FOR USE THEREWITH
Action number: ACT 56003/2024
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent upheld as granted)ActionRevocationCategoryMain revocation action
- Parties
- Division
- Milan CD
- Technology
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Apr 11, 2025
- Last decision
- Jul 22, 2025
- EPO Opposition
- EOFlow Co., Ltd.Withdrawn2025-03-18
- KELLER SCHNEIDER PATENTANWALTS GMBHAdmissible2025-03-19
- Inspicos P/SWithdrawn2025-03-19
| Patent revoked | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Milan CD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Andrea Postiglione | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Anna-Lena Klein | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Uwe Schwengelbeck | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: EOFLOW Co., Ltd. (19 cases)·Insulet Corporation (25 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
- 2025-04-11Revocation ActionPublic
Summary: Procedural order declining EOFLOW's request to file additional written submissions in the revocation action against Insulet's patent EP 4 201 327. The court noted the stage of proceedings and that the Court of Appeal's PI decision was already known to the court.
Show the legal issues (2)
- Request for additional written submissions (Rule 36 RoP)
- Revocation action procedure
- —infringement counterclaim
Summary: • The application for revocation of EP4201327 filed by EOFLOW is dismissed by default. • An interim award of damages in favour of INSULET has been set at EUR 230,000.00 under Rule 119 RoP. ... a) The Court orders EOFLOW to refrain from making, offering, placing on the market, using or possessing, for the purposes mentioned, as well as from importing or storing a fluid delivery device
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| ORDER | 2025-07-28 | Not public |
| Template-Order | 2025-07-28 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2025-07-25 | Not public |
| Notice of Intention to Enforce | 2025-07-24 | Not public |
| Exhibit PS E1 - Letter re Instructions for Enforcement | 2025-07-24 | Not public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-07-22 | Not public |
| DECISION | 2025-07-22 | Public |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-07-22 | Not public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-07-22 | Not public |
| DECISION | 2025-07-22 | Public |
Insulet Corporation obtained a default infringement judgment against EOFLOW Co. Ltd. (maker of the EOPatch insulin pump) at the Milan Central Division concerning EP 4 201 327, a wearable fluid delivery device patent. EOFLOW failed to defend the proceedings. The court confirmed infringement and granted an injunction, recall, information order, and damages from 19 June 2024. EOFLOW's own revocation action was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Default judgment warranted after verification of sufficient, precise and consistent evidence
ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 355.2 RoPNote: Milan Central Division confirmed it must verify adequacy of evidence before issuing a default decision; a procedural violation alone is insufficient basis for default judgment.
Patent terms must be interpreted according to their principal functional meaning without result-oriented avoidance of infringement
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPCNote: Court applied straightforward reading of claims and drawings in interpreting the wearable insulin delivery device patent, finding infringement by the EOPatch product.
Costs cap applies per court instance regardless of number of parties or patents
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 1(3) Administrative Committee decision of 24 March 2023Note: Where infringing manufacturer and distributor are in separate parallel proceedings concerning same patent and same act, a unitary approach to the costs cap is warranted to avoid violation of the cap.
No rejected arguments captured.
Browse other cases on this principle.
The Milan Central Division applied a 'patent lexicon' approach, holding that patent terms carry their own meaning derived from the patent itself. Claims are to be interpreted following a straightforward reading of claims and drawings without looking, in a result-oriented manner, for a way out of a possible infringement; terms must be interpreted according to their principal functional meaning.