UPC CoA 930/2025

At the UPC: EOFLOW Co., Ltd. (19 cases)·Insulet Corporation (25 cases)

• 2026-03-18
  Appeal RoP220.2Public

  Summary: The Court of Appeal dismissed EOFlow's appeal against the Milan Central Division's order denying EOFlow's request under R. 262.2 RoP to keep certain information confidential. The Court held that information disclosed to the opposing party without an order under R. 262A RoP or other restriction loses its character as a trade secret. A R. 262.2 RoP request does not automatically protect information from disclosure by the other party. Information relating to a settlement agreement was also no longer confidential because its substance had already been stated in the published court order.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Trade secret protection (R. 262.2 RoP)
  • R. 262A RoP confidentiality orders
  • Disclosure to opposing party without restriction
• 2026-01-29
  Application RoP262-2Public

  Summary: The Court of Appeal ruled on EOFlow's confidentiality request (R.262.2 RoP) concerning information communicated pursuant to a Court order under Art. 67 UPCA and R.191 RoP (relating to EOFlow's business agreements with Menarini). The Court held that there is no implicit limitation on the use of information received under a court order to communicate information; a confidentiality request must be expressly filed. R.262A RoP applies at least mutatis mutandis. This appeal arises from the Milan Central Division's order of 4 December 2025 (UPC_CFI_1167/2025) imposing penalty payments of EUR 150,000 against EOFlow for non-compliance with the provisional measures order of 30 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_768/2024).

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Confidentiality request under R.262.2 RoP
  • Use of information communicated under court order (Art.67 UPCA, R.191 RoP)
  • Application of R.262A RoP mutatis mutandis
  • Penalty payments for non-compliance with provisional measures