UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 771/2024

Dec 9, 2024·EP2519412 · MOTORCYCLE TYRE AND PAIR OF MOTORCYCLE TYRES

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Milan LD
Judges
Technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Transport
Language
Italian
First decided
May 26, 2026
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.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Milan LDLockedLocked
Judge Pierluigi PerrottiLockedLocked
Judge Alima ZanaLockedLocked
Judge Marije KnijffLockedLocked

At the UPC: PIRELLI TYRE S.P.A. (9 cases)·TIANJIN KINGTYRE GROUP CO., LTD. (3 cases)

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

This dispute contains 2 other proceedings

UPC CFI 650/2024·UPC APP 24226/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Milan LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2026-05-26
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Milan Local Division found Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. liable for literal infringement of EP 2519412 (motorcycle tyres) by offering and promoting tyre models K902 and GRADE W at the EICMA fair and on its website. A default judgment (decisione by default) was issued because the defendant failed to appear after proper service of process. An injunction was granted prohibiting further infringement in all UPCA Contracting Member States where the patent is in force, with periodic penalties; requests for product withdrawal/destruction and disclosure of distribution information were denied as disproportionate given no proven actual sales.

    Show the legal issues (9)
    • Default judgment (decisione by default) under R. 355 RoP when defendant fails to appear after proper service
    • Validity of service of process to defendant in China via Hague Convention and ILCC portal
    • Literal infringement of independent product claim 3 (motorcycle tyre) and method claim 1
    • Application of Art. 55(2) UPCA presumption of infringement for method claim
    • Proportionality of remedies (withdrawal and destruction denied as disproportionate absent proof of actual sales)
    • Penalty clauses under Art. 83.4 UPCA and R. 354.3 RoP
    • Publication of decision under Art. 80 UPCA
    • Denial of interim award of damages (R. 119 RoP) for lack of proven damage
    • Case value and recoverable costs ceiling under R. 152.2 RoP
Documents
Show all 112 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Communication2026-10-12Not public
Service Receipt/Service Document2026-10-12Not public
Receipt2026-07-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-13Not public
Document Claimant2026-07-13Not public
Document Claimant2026-07-13Not public
Document Claimant2026-07-13Not public
Application document Claimant2026-07-13Not public
Receipt2026-07-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-13Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Service of process on Chinese defendant was validly effected via the Hague Convention of 15.11.1965 and the ILCC portal on 2 July 2025, satisfying R. 277 RoP

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 5(a) Hague Convention; R. 277 RoP

  • Defendant's failure to file a defence within three months of service justifies a default judgment

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 355.1(a) and 355.3 RoP; Art. 37 UPCA

  • Tyre models K902 and GRADE W literally reproduce all features of independent product claim 3 of EP 2519412

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25.1(a) UPCA; Art. 64.2(a) UPCA

  • K902 and GRADE W also infringe method claim 1 because they embody the same structural features 1A and 1B, and the Art. 55(2) UPCA presumption applies given defendant's failure to appear

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 55(2) UPCA

  • An injunction covering all UPCA member states where EP 2519412 is in force is proportionate given the severity of infringement (internet promotion and presentation at EICMA international trade fair)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Arts. 25, 63 UPCA; R. 355.4 RoP

  • Publication of the decision on defendant's website is warranted given the severity of the infringement

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 80 UPCA
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Order for withdrawal of infringing products from commercial channels and their destruction

    ClaimantLegal basis: Arts. 64.2 UPCA; R. 355 RoP — denied as disproportionate given no proof of actual sales

  • Order for disclosure of information on distribution channels, quantities, prices, and identity of third parties

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 67 UPCA; R. 191 RoP — denied as disproportionate

  • Interim award of damages of at least EUR 100,000 under R. 119 RoP

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 119 RoP — denied for lack of sufficient evidence of actual damage at this stage