UPClytics
English
Sign inSign up
Analytics2,692Cases1,785Decisions257Judges1,851Parties459Firms

Cases

Workhorse listing across all UPC cases. Filters apply across tabs.

CasesDecisionsJudgesPartiesFirmsAnalytics
DateCaseDivisionActionMotionOutcomeSummary
2026-03-13UPC_CFI_927/2025Milan CDRevocation ActionProceduralProcedural onlyThe Milan Central Division (full panel: Postiglione, Klein, Alt) ordered La Siddhi Consultancy Ltd. to provide security for legal costs of EUR 112,000 in favour of the defendants (Athena Pharmaceutiques and Substipharm) in the revocation action concerning EP 3 592 333. The Court found that La Siddhi's financial situation (thin equity margin of approximately GBP 27,000) gave rise to a legitimate concern that any costs order would not be recoverable. La Siddhi's claim to SME status was found unsubstantiated. Security may be provided by bank deposit or EU-licensed bank guarantee within six weeks.
2026-03-13UPC_CFI_722/2025Milan CDRevocation ActionRevocation meritsoutcomeName.otherThe Milan Central Division ordered disposal of Neurocrine Biosciences' revocation action (R. 360 RoP) against EP 3 784 233 because the patent had been definitively and entirely revoked by the EPO Opposition Division, rendering the revocation action devoid of purpose. Neurocrine's conditional request (disposal only if Spruce undertook not to enforce divisional patents) was held outside R. 360 RoP. Spruce (claimant/respondent) was ordered to pay 80% of maximum recoverable costs (EUR 488,000) to Neurocrine; Neurocrine was reimbursed 60% of court fees (EUR 12,000).
2026-01-15UPC_CFI_480/2025Milan CDRevocation ActionProceduralProcedural onlyThe Milan Central Division (full panel: Postiglione, Klein, Roselinger) rejected Fisher & Paykel's request to introduce auxiliary requests 2A to 13A as subsequent amendments to the patent (EP 4 185 356) in the revocation proceedings. The Court held that under R. 50.2 and R. 30.2 RoP, subsequent amendments are only allowed on an exceptional basis; the preclusive nature of the front-loaded system means that amendments must be made in full at the earliest stage. The efficiency of proceedings is not a sufficient reason to allow subsequent piecemeal amendments.
2026-01-15UPC_CFI_480/2025Milan CDRevocation ActionProceduralProcedural onlyDuplicate/version of the above order (same date and case) from the Milan Central Division rejecting Fisher & Paykel's request to introduce subsequent auxiliary requests 2A–13A for patent EP 4 185 356 in the revocation action brought by Fisher & Paykel against Flexicare. The reasoning and outcome are identical to the companion order.
2025-11-27UPC_CFI_613/2024Milan CDRevocation ActionRevocation meritsPatent maintainedThe Milan Central Division dismissed Pari Pharma's revocation action against Philips' nebulizer patent EP 3 397 329 (unitary effect), upholding the patent after finding the prior art combinations relied upon by the claimant do not render the invention obvious to the skilled person.
2025-11-27UPC_CFI_613/2024Milan CDRevocation ActionProceduralProcedural onlyThe Milan Central Division (full panel: Postiglione, Klein, Callewaert) rectified an obvious slip in its final decision of 27 November 2025 in the revocation action brought by Pari Pharma GmbH against Koninklijke Philips N.V. concerning EP 3 397 329. The decision had incorrectly stated that the patent is registered with unitary effect; this sentence was deleted. The parties did not object.
2025-10-23UPC_CFI_497/2024Milan CDRevocation ActionRevocation meritsPatent amendedThe Central Division Milan rejected the revocation action by bioMérieux against Labrador Diagnostics' EP 3 756 767 B1 (diagnostic test patent), maintaining the patent in amended form pursuant to Auxiliary Request 3; bioMérieux was ordered to pay EUR 400,000 in legal costs to Labrador.
2025-08-06UPC_APP_32529/2025Milan CDAction against the decision of the EPO (RoP97)motionName.appeal_epoDismissedOrder of Central Division Milan Section (duty judge, in French) dismissing Bodycap, CNRS and Université de Rennes' appeal (under R. 97 RoP) against the EPO's rejection of their unitary effect request for EP 3 691 518. The EPO had correctly applied R. 6.2 and R. 7.3 of the Implementing Regulations for Unitary Protection (RPU): after the university reorganisation (Université de Rennes I dissolved and replaced by Université de Rennes), the new address had not been provided in the unitary effect application within the one-month non-extendable deadline under R. 7.3 RPU. Each party bears its own costs.
2025-07-22CC_65201/2024Milan CDCounterclaim for infringementInfringement meritsInfringedThe Milan Central Division issued a landmark decision finding infringement of EP 4 201 327 (Insulet Corporation) by EOFLOW Co., Ltd. by default on the counterclaim for infringement, following EOFLOW's failure to defend. The court also decided by default on the revocation action (finding insufficient grounds for revocation) and resolved costs of the preliminary injunction proceedings. The court ordered EOFLOW to cease and desist from infringing activities across all UPC contracting member states, recall products from the market, remove products from channels of commerce, destroy infringing products, and provide full information on the extent of infringement. The court applied a unitary approach to cost caps where two parallel proceedings concerned the same patent and infringement acts.
2025-07-22ACT_56003/2024Milan CDRevocation ActionRevocation meritsInfringedMilan Central Division decision by default on EOFLOW's revocation action (dismissed) and on Insulet's counterclaim for infringement of a patent for wearable insulin delivery devices (patch pump). EOFLOW failed to defend and the Court verified sufficiency of evidence before issuing the default decision. The Court upheld Insulet's infringement claim and granted an injunction ordering EOFLOW to cease infringing acts, provide information/accounts, recall infringing products, and pay compensation for damages since 19 June 2024. The revocation action by EOFLOW was dismissed for lack of prosecution. Costs borne by EOFLOW. Patent terms interpreted according to principal functional meaning. The cost cap applies per instance regardless of number of parties or patents (Administrative Committee decision of 24 March 2023).
2025-07-18CC_54050/2024Milan CDCounterclaim for revocationProceduralProcedural onlyThe Milan Central Division issued a procedural order following an interim conference in this counterclaim for revocation, setting the schedule and framework for the oral hearing and managing witness declarations.
2025-07-18ACT_48305/2024Milan CDRevocation ActionProceduralProcedural onlyProcedural order issued after the interim conference of 14 July 2025 in a revocation/counterclaim for revocation action concerning EP 3 756 767. The order sets out case management decisions including the oral hearing schedule, treatment of declarants, submission deadlines, and requests parties to agree on the value of the action.
2025-04-22UPC_CFI_476/2024Milan CDApplication Rop 265—WithdrawnMilan Central Division allowed Pfizer's withdrawal of the revocation action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning GlaxoSmithKline's EP 4 183 412 (RSV vaccine patent), allowing GSK to withdraw its corresponding patent amendment application. Proceedings were declared closed. Each party bears its own costs. The request for 60% court fee reimbursement was allowed.
2025-04-11UPC_CFI_597/2024Milan CDRevocation Action—Procedural onlyProcedural order declining EOFLOW's request to file additional written submissions in the revocation action against Insulet's patent EP 4 201 327. The court noted the stage of proceedings and that the Court of Appeal's PI decision was already known to the court.
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.