UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics4Cases4Decisions9Judges8Parties2Firms

Decisions

Categoryprovisional_measuresClear all
DateCaseDivisionActionMotionOutcomeSummary
2024-11-22ACT_40442/2024Milan LDApplication for provisional measuresPreliminary injunctionPI deniedThe Milan Local Division dismissed Insulet Corporation's application for provisional measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. concerning EP4201327 (insulin pump technology), finding the application inadmissible as the auxiliary requests to amend the patent are not permissible in provisional measures proceedings, and also dismissing Menarini's request for security for costs.
2024-11-22UPC_CFI_380/2024Milan CDApplication for provisional measures—PI deniedThe Milan Central Division rejected Insulet Corporation's application for a preliminary injunction against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of EP 4 201 327 (insulin pump). The Court held that the applicant had not established with sufficient certainty that the patent was valid (particularly claim 1 which appeared to lack novelty or inventive step over the prior art). The auxiliary request to amend the patent under R. 30.2 RoP was inadmissible in provisional measures proceedings given the requirement for expediency and the adversarial principle. Insulet was ordered to bear the costs; value in dispute EUR 2,500,000; cost ceiling EUR 400,000.
2024-10-01UPC_CFI_400/2024Milan LDApplication for provisional measuresProceduralProcedural onlyThe Milan Local Division denied EOFLOW CO LTD's application to intervene as a third party in Insulet's provisional measures proceedings against Menarini under R.313 RoP, holding that efficiency of the proceedings and other balancing considerations weighed against admitting the intervention.
2023-12-20UPC_CFI_292/2023Munich LDApplication for provisional measuresPreliminary injunctionPI deniedThe Munich Local Division dismissed SES-imagotag's application for provisional measures against Hanshow Technology and related entities concerning electronic shelf label technology, finding that infringement of EP3883277 had not been established with sufficient certainty. The court also ordered SES-imagotag to bear the costs including those of the protective letter filed by the respondents.