UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 649/2024

Oct 31, 2024·EP3519207 · MOTORCYCLES TYRE

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
  • Federica Franchetti
  • Matteo Orsingher
  • Davide Graziano
Division
Milan LD
Judges
Technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Transport
Language
Italian
First decided
Nov 5, 2024
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 LDLockedLocked
Judge Pierluigi PerrottiLockedLocked

At the UPC: PIRELLI TYRE S.P.A. (9 cases)·Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. (6 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 5 other proceedings

UPC CFI 2297/2026·UPC CFI 2300/2026·UPC CFI 556/2025·UPC CFI 770/2024·UPC APP 26266/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Milan LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2024-11-05
    Application for provisional measuresPublic

    Summary: The Milan Local Division granted Pirelli an ex-parte order for seizure of motorcycle tyres allegedly infringing EP 3 519 207 B1 exhibited by Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co. and China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) at the EICMA 2024 trade fair in Milan.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • ex-parte provisional measures at trade fair Art. 62 UPCA
    • seizure of infringing goods R.275-276 RoP
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Order2025-10-31Public
Receipt2024-11-11Not public
nomina custode2024-11-11Not public
Notice of Provisional measures and instructions for access to proceedings2024-11-05Not public
Notice of Provisional measures and instructions for access to proceedings2024-11-05Not public
Measures_DecisionOutcome_Notification.pdf2024-11-05Not public
seizure inaudita altera parte2024-11-05Public
Nota integrativa Pirelli c. Helios2024-11-03Not public
rule 209.4 RoP2024-10-31Not public
Panel-Appointment2024-10-31Not public
Application-For-Measures-Receipt2024-10-31Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2024-10-31Not public
Application-For-Measures-Acknowledgement2024-10-31Not public
doc. 172024-10-31Not public
doc. 102024-10-31Not public
doc. 122024-10-31Not public
doc. 212024-10-31Not public
Ricorso Pirelli c. Helios e CCPIT2024-10-31Not public
doc. 202024-10-31Not public
doc. 62024-10-31Not public
doc. 72024-10-31Not public
doc. 12024-10-31Not public
doc. 152024-10-31Not public
doc. 82024-10-31Not public
doc. 162024-10-31Not public
doc. 92024-10-31Not public
doc. 112024-10-31Not public
All. A_Procura alle liti2024-10-31Not public
doc. 142024-10-31Not public
doc. 42024-10-31Not public
doc. 32024-10-31Not public
doc. 182024-10-31Not public
doc. 22024-10-31Not public
doc. 52024-10-31Not public
doc. 132024-10-31Not public
doc. 192024-10-31Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. obtained an ex parte seizure order from the Milan Local Division against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co. Ltd. and China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT), who were exhibiting motorcycle tyres (HA-51R and HA-51F) at EICMA 2024 in Milan that allegedly reproduced all features of claim 1 of Pirelli's EP 3 519 207 B1. The court ordered immediate seizure at the trade fair stand and required Pirelli to commence merits proceedings within 31 days.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Helios (Sichuan Yuanxing) tyres HA-51R and HA-51F reproduce all features of claim 1 of EP 3 519 207 B1

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA; R. 206 RoP; prima facie infringement

    Note: Milan Local Division accepted prima facie case for ex parte seizure based on Pirelli's submissions and comparison of tyre features against claim 1.

  • Urgency established by imminent EICMA 2024 trade fair and risk of products being removed after the event

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA; R. 206.3(a) RoP

    Note: The short window of the trade fair and risk of product dispersal justified ex parte procedure.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

No rejected arguments captured.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Ex parte seizure order at trade fair justified by time-critical urgencyPirelli's global market standing supports financial ability to compensate respondents if measures are wrongly granted (proportionality)Merits proceedings must be initiated within 31 calendar days or 20 working days of service or order lapses

Browse other cases on this principle.