UPC CFI 703/2025

At the UPC: Prinoth S.p.A. (3 cases)·Xelom s.r.l. (3 cases)

• 2026-07-29
  InfringementPublic

  Summary: The Milan Local Division judge-rapporteur, having heard the Panel, granted Prinoth's evidentiary requests in part: it ordered a physical inspection of the seized Xelom snow groomer and a judicial experiment measuring the load on each wheel, appointed Court Expert Antonio Di Bernardo and a second Court Expert (Alessandro Borra) to examine the control-unit software and source code under a confidentiality club, and ordered Xelom to produce the software functional specifications. All further evidentiary requests by Prinoth were rejected, the parties were directed to reduce auxiliary requests and validity attacks, and the Interim Conference (25 November 2026) and oral hearing (26 January 2027) were scheduled.

  Show the legal issues (6)

  • order for a judicial experiment under R. 170.2(g) and R. 201 RoP
  • physical inspection of seized evidence under R. 170.2(f) RoP
  • appointment and duties of a Court Expert under R. 185 and R. 186 RoP
  • order to produce software source code and technical documentation
  • confidentiality club protection under R. 262A RoP
  • case management power to limit auxiliary requests and validity attacks
• 2026-04-16
  Infringement ActionPublic

  Summary: The Judge Rapporteur granted Prinoth SpA's application under Rule 9.3(a) RoP for a 30-day extension of its procedural deadline, extending the filing date from 27 April 2026 to 27 May 2026. The extension was granted because Xelom's last submission introduced approximately 150 new validity attacks and multiple new documents, constituting exceptional circumstances justifying the extension to safeguard Prinoth's right of defence and fair trial.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Extension of procedural time limit under Rule 9.3(a) RoP
  • Right of defence and fair trial (equo processo / contraddittorio)
  • Front-loaded principle in UPC proceedings
  • Exceptional circumstances justifying time extension
  • Introduction of excessive new validity attacks by respondent