UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CoA 584/2024

Oct 4, 2024·EP4201327 Unitary patent · FLUID DELIVERY DEVICE WITH TRANSCUTANEOUS ACCESS TOOL, INSERTION MECHANISM AND BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING FOR USE THEREWITH

Case details
Status
Case Closed (Claim dismissed)
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
—
First decided
Oct 9, 2024
Last decision
Jan 10, 2025
EPO Opposition
  • EOFlow Co., Ltd.Withdrawn2025-03-18
  • KELLER SCHNEIDER PATENTANWALTS GMBHAdmissible2025-03-19
  • Inspicos P/SWithdrawn2025-03-19
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Rian KaldenLocked
Judge Patricia RombachLocked
Judge Ingeborg SimonssonLocked

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

UPC CFI 793/2024·UPC CoA 769/2024·UPC CFI 400/2024

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Court of Appeal·2024

Decisions
  • 2025-01-10
    Appeal RoP220.2Public

    Summary: The Court of Appeal addressed whether the appeal had become devoid of purpose following the conclusion of related provisional measure proceedings before the Local Division Milan. The appeal was declared moot as the main proceedings at first instance had ended.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Need to adjudicate (R.360 RoP)
    • Appeal devoid of purpose
    • Cost decision after mootness
  • 2024-10-09

    Summary: The Court of Appeal rejected EOFlow's request for expedition of the appeal (in an appeal concerning refusal to join two provisional measures cases against different defendants). The court found that EOFlow had failed to act with sufficient urgency and by filing its appeal and expedition request at an unnecessarily late stage had insufficiently taken into account the interests of Insulet, making it impossible to expedite the appeal without prejudicing Insulet's response time.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Request for expedition of appeal under Rule 225(e) and Rule 9.3(b) RoP
    • Balance of interests and urgency in provisional measures appeals
    • Joinder of related proceedings from different divisions
Document titleDatePublic
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-02-19Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-02-19Not public
DecisionOutcome2025-02-18Not public
R. 360 RoP order 9 January 20252025-01-10Public
Hearing Reference2025-01-10Not public
Hearing Reference2025-01-10Not public
Interim-Procedure-Closure2025-01-10Not public
Summon-Oral-Hearing2025-01-10Not public
Document for Workflow2025-01-10Public
Interim-Conference-Decision2025-01-10Not public