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

Decisions

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.
2025-12-04UPC_CFI_1167/2025Milan CDApplication RoP262AProceduralProcedural onlyMilan Central Division addressed Insulet's application for penalty payments against EOFlow for alleged non-compliance with injunctions from both the Court of Appeal's preliminary injunction order (30 April 2025) and the Central Division Milan's decision on the merits (22 July 2025) concerning EP 4 201 327. The order also addresses confidentiality of certain information under R. 262 and R. 262A RoP.
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.
2025-10-16UPC_CFI_941/2025Milan CDApplication RoP262.1 (b)ProceduralProcedural onlyThe Central Division Milan, acting under R. 262.1(b) RoP, issued a final order on a third party's (Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP) application for access to redacted documents from the closed Insulet v. EOFLOW proceedings, balancing transparency principles with confidentiality.
2025-10-15UPC_CFI_774/2025Milan CDApplication For CostsCostsCosts onlyThe Central Division Milan decided a cost application in the Insulet v. EOFLOW proceedings, ruling that costs incurred after publication of the merits decision and enforcement costs fall outside the scope of R. 151 RoP and are not recoverable in the cost decision.
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.
2025-07-31UPC_CFI_382/2025Milan CDApplication For Costs—Costs onlyDecision on costs from the Milan Central Division dated 31 July 2025 in proceedings where Novartis AG sought reimbursement of costs from Zentiva K.S. and Zentiva Portugal Lda following the dismissal of Zentiva's revocation action against EP 2 501 384. The court dismissed Novartis' costs application because Novartis failed to comply with the court's request under R. 156.1 RoP to provide substantiated evidence of costs (itemised hourly rates and hours), instead providing only a sworn general statement. The court held that: (1) once a R. 156.1 request is issued, costs can no longer be assessed equitably but only on proof; (2) confidentiality cannot be invoked to withhold cost information from the court; (3) costs for legal representation are not per se confidential under R. 262A RoP.
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.
2025-06-25ORD_17811/2025Milan CDDecision By DefaultDefault judgmentPermanent injunctionThe Milan Central Division issued a decision by default against Spiridonakis Bros GP (Greece) in favour of Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. (Italy) concerning EP 1 998 604 (agricultural reversible subsoiler tools). The defendant failed to enter proceedings. The Court found that the 'Bellota tool' sold by Spiridonakis constituted infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the patent. The Court issued a permanent injunction against further infringement in Italy, Germany, France, Romania and Bulgaria with a EUR 500 per-set penalty, ordered disclosure of distribution chain information (EUR 100/day penalty for non-compliance), and awarded EUR 25,000 for legal costs plus reimbursement of court fees. The Court applied the 'double territoriality' requirement of Art. 26 UPCA, finding that an offer and the act of putting into effect need not occur in the same Contracting Member State for bundle patents.
2025-06-05UPC_CFI_477/2025Milan CDApplication RoP262A—Procedural onlyProcedural order on Insulet Corporation's application for confidentiality (Rule 262A RoP) covering attorneys' fees and expenses in the costs proceedings relating to the preliminary injunction against EOFLOW. The court held that costs of litigation and patent protection may in principle be subject to confidentiality if they reveal the importance a company attaches to its patents and its litigation risk appetite. The order directed proper filing of exhibits in both redacted and unredacted versions.
2025-05-28ORD_22456/2025Milan CDDecision By DefaultDefault judgmentInfringedDecision by Milan Central Division (UPC_CFI_597/2024, 22 July 2025) on EOFLOW's revocation action and Insulet's counterclaim for infringement of EP 4 201 327 (wearable insulin pump / patch pump). The court rejected EOFLOW's revocation action (patent upheld as valid) and found EOFLOW's EOPatch product infringed the patent. The court ordered an injunction across 16 UPC member states, product recall, removal from distribution channels, destruction, and full information obligations. The decision also addressed the decision-by-default procedure, patent lexicon interpretation, and the cap on recoverable costs in parallel proceedings.
2025-04-22UPC_APP_17607/2025Milan CDApplication Rop 265ProceduralWithdrawnThe Milan Central Division allowed Pfizer's withdrawal of both the revocation action (ACT_45928/2024) and the counterclaim for revocation (CC_60908/2024) against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA concerning EP 4 183 412 (RSV vaccine patent), with GSK's consent and without a cost decision; 60% of court fees were reimbursed to Pfizer.
2025-04-22UPC_APP_16366/2025Milan CDApplication Rop 265ProceduralWithdrawnMilan Central Division procedural order granting Pfizer's application to withdraw a revocation action against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA concerning EP 4 183 412 (RSV F protein vaccine patent), and a separately filed counterclaim for revocation in parallel Düsseldorf infringement proceedings (which had been referred to the Central Division). Pfizer and Glaxo had each filed applications to amend the patent; both revocation actions were withdrawn by Pfizer prior to closure of the written procedure. The court also ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees and confirmed each party bears its own costs.
2025-04-22UPC_APP_17784/2025Milan CDApplication Rop 265ProceduralWithdrawnOrder by Milan Central Division (UPC_CFI_687/2024, 22 April 2025) permitting Pfizer's withdrawal of the revocation action and counterclaim for revocation against GlaxoSmithKline's EP 4 183 412 (RSV F protein vaccine), and permitting GlaxoSmithKline to withdraw its patent amendment application. 60% court fee reimbursement was granted; each party bears its own costs.
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.
2025-04-10UPC_APP_10151/2025Milan CDApplication RoP262.1 (b)ProceduralProcedural onlyThe Milan Central Division granted ALIUD PHARMA's application for access to pleadings filed in closed proceedings between Accord Healthcare and Novartis (EP 2 501 384) under R. 262.1(b) RoP, after Novartis withdrew its objection following settlement of the main proceedings.
2025-02-27UPC_APP_5729/2025Milan CDApplication Rop 265ProceduralWithdrawnCentral Division Milan closed revocation proceedings UPC 57037/2024 filed by SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. against Dyson Technology Limited's EP 2 043 492. The parties had agreed to settle litigation and signed a term sheet. SharkNinja requested withdrawal of the revocation action with Dyson's consent. No cost decision was needed. SharkNinja was entitled to a 60% refund of court fees (EUR 12,000) under R. 370.9(b)(i) as the withdrawal occurred before closure of the written procedure. Value of the case set at EUR 500,000.
2025-02-27UPC_CFI_57/2024Milan CDGeneric application—SettledOrder from the Milan Central Division dated 27 February 2025 permitting SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. to withdraw its revocation action against Dyson Technology Limited (EP 2 043 492) following a settlement agreement. Claimant had filed a stay request on 3 January 2025 on grounds of a settlement term sheet, subsequently requested withdrawal on 3–4 February 2025, and Dyson consented. The proceedings were declared closed. A 60% reimbursement of court fees (EUR 12,000) was granted as the action was withdrawn before closure of the written procedure (R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP). No cost decision was required.
2025-02-15UPC_APP_5366/2025Milan CDGeneric applicationCostsCosts onlyProcedural order from the Milan section of the Central Division (UPC_CFI_380/2024) on costs in preliminary injunction proceedings. EOFLOW applied for reimbursement of its costs incurred defending against Insulet's rejected preliminary injunction application. The Court ruled that costs of a preliminary phase must be settled at the time of the final merits decision, not parcelled out by procedural stage, and therefore deferred the costs question.
2025-02-15UPC_APP_65673/2024Milan CDGeneric applicationCostsCosts onlyProcedural order by Milan Central Division (UPC_CFI_380/2024, 15 February 2025) on EOFLOW's application for costs following the rejection of Insulet's preliminary injunction. The court held that costs of PI proceedings must be settled with the final decision on the merits and cannot be parcelled out according to the outcome of individual stages while merits proceedings are ongoing or to follow.
2025-02-03UPC_APP_68658/2024Milan CDApplication RoP262.1 (b)ProceduralDismissedApplication by STADAPHARM GmbH for public access to case documents under R.262.1(b) RoP (separate application number for the same underlying proceedings UPC_CFI_698/2024, Milan Central Division). Outcome identical to companion order: STADAPHARM's request to access documents was dismissed; NOVARTIS's request for legal cost compensation was dismissed. This appears to be the same decision issued under a different application reference number.
2025-02-03UPC_CFI_698/2024Milan CDApplication RoP262.1 (b)ProceduralDismissedApplication by STADAPHARM GmbH for public access to case documents under R.262.1(b) RoP in the proceedings before the Milan Central Division was dismissed. The court found that STADAPHARM's primary purpose was to expose Novartis's defence strategy in order to facilitate a parallel national (Munich OLG) proceeding rather than to exercise legitimate public oversight. Access was denied as it would create undue pressure on Novartis and undermine the integrity of the proceedings. NOVARTIS's request for costs was also dismissed.
2024-12-23UPC_APP_58027/2024Milan CDGeneric applicationCostsCosts onlyMilan Central Division costs order in Insulet Corporation v. MENARINI DIAGNOSTICS s.r.l. arising from intervention proceedings (Insulet's application for provisional measures against EOFLOW, EP 4 201 327). The court held: (1) an intervener in sub-proceedings must show a legally qualified interest; (2) intervention under R. 313 RoP is governed by adversarial principle and both intervener applicant and respondent are parties for cost purposes; (3) the successful party preventing or obtaining intervention may claim costs under Art. 69 UPCA; (4) an invoice is not required if the amounts and activities are clear. MENARINI ordered to pay Insulet EUR 1,764 in costs within 15 days.
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.
2024-10-01ORD_52068/2024Milan CDGeneric OrderProceduralProcedural onlyMilan Central Division procedural order in provisional measures proceedings by Insulet Corporation against EOFlow Co. Ltd. concerning EP 4 201 327 (insulin pump). A. Menarini Diagnostics (exclusive distributor of EOFlow) applied to intervene. The Court rejected the intervention request, reasoning that interim injunction proceedings should not be burdened with interventions that could slow down the accelerated procedure, and Menarini could pursue its interests in subsequent merits proceedings.
2024-09-24UPC_APP_50666/2024Milan CDApplication Rop 333ProceduralProcedural onlyMilan Central Division (24 September 2024) – R. 333 review panel approved the judge-rapporteur's order of 4 September 2024, which declined to order joinder with the parallel Milan Local Division proceedings and retained the case in the Central Division. The panel confirmed the JR's competence to act in the absence of an assigned full panel.