UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CoA 886/2025

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

Case details
Status
—
Action
Procedural application
Category
File-access requests (R. 262.1(b))
Parties
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
—
First decided
Dec 22, 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 Patricia RombachLocked

At the UPC: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP (0 cases)·Insulet Corporation (25 cases)

This dispute contains 1 other proceedings

UPC CFI 941/2025

14 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 1230/2026·UPC CoA 34/2026·UPC CoA 930/2025·UPC CFI 773/2025·UPC CoA 194/2025 and 9 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Court of Appeal·2025

Decisions
  • 2025-12-22
    Application RoP262.1 (b)Public

    Summary: The Court of Appeal granted Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP's application for access to written pleadings (Statement of Appeal and Statement of Response) filed in UPC_CoA_768/2024 (Insulet v. EOFlow), to the extent that redacted versions were available. The Court affirmed that a law firm qualifies as a member of the public under R. 262.1(b) RoP and does not need a bona fide third party behind the application. Commercial interest in understanding UPC decisions does not preclude access.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Public access to register (R. 262.1(b) RoP)
    • Standing of law firms as members of the public
    • Redacted access to pleadings
Documents
  • Final%20decision%20Herbert%20Smith%20Freehills%20v%20Insulet%20and%20EOFLOW.pdf2025-12-22EN