| 2026-02-19 | UPC_CFI_26/2025 | Vienna LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Not infringed | The Vienna Local Division dismissed both Messerle GmbH's infringement action and Sabert Corporation Europe's counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 705 415 B1 (a packaging-related patent). The infringement action was dismissed because the accused 'Tray2Go' product did not directly or equivalently infringe the patent claims — the Court found no technical-functional equivalence of the substitute means used in the accused product. The counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed, so the patent was maintained as granted. Each party bears its own costs (maximum EUR 600,000 total, split evenly between action and counterclaim). |
| 2026-01-28 | UPC_CFI_727/2024 | Milan LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in Agathon AG v. Intercom s.r.l. and KNARR Vertriebs GmbH, setting out rulings on admissibility of technical drawings filed by the claimant and the handling of conditional auxiliary requests per R. 30.1 RoP. |
| 2026-01-15 | UPC_CFI_480/2025 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The 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. |
| 2026-01-15 | UPC_CFI_480/2025 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | Duplicate/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. |
| 2025-11-27 | UPC_CFI_613/2024 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent maintained | The 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. |
| 2025-11-27 | UPC_CFI_613/2024 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The 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. |
| 2025-10-15 | UPC_CFI_774/2025 | Milan CD | Application For Costs | Costs | Costs only | The 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. |
| 2025-07-22 | CC_65201/2024 | Milan CD | Counterclaim for infringement | Infringement merits | Infringed | The 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. |
| 2025-07-22 | ACT_56003/2024 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Infringed | Milan 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). |
| 2025-06-25 | ORD_17811/2025 | Milan CD | Decision By Default | Default judgment | Permanent injunction | The 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. |
| 2025-06-05 | UPC_CFI_477/2025 | Milan CD | Application RoP262A | — | Procedural only | Procedural 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. |
| 2025-05-28 | ORD_22456/2025 | Milan CD | Decision By Default | Default judgment | Infringed | Decision 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. |
| 2025-04-22 | UPC_APP_17607/2025 | Milan CD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The 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. |
| 2025-04-22 | UPC_APP_16366/2025 | Milan CD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Milan 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. |
| 2025-04-22 | UPC_APP_17784/2025 | Milan CD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | Order 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. |
| 2025-04-22 | UPC_CFI_476/2024 | Milan CD | Application Rop 265 | — | Withdrawn | Milan 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. |
| 2025-04-11 | UPC_CFI_597/2024 | Milan CD | Revocation Action | — | Procedural only | Procedural 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. |
| 2025-04-07 | UPC_APP_8545/2025 | Milan LD | Amend Document | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division allowed Dainese's application under Rule 263 RoP to limit its claim by withdrawing all arguments related to EP 3 498 117 (following an EPO Board of Appeal limitation), while dismissing defendants' request for a costs order under Rule 265 RoP. |
| 2025-04-07 | UPC_APP_67917/2024 | Milan LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division granted Dainese S.p.A. leave under R.263.3 RoP to limit its claims by excluding all arguments and requests relating to EP 3 498 117 (EP'117), following the EPO Board of Appeal limiting the scope of that patent shortly before the oral proceedings. The action continues in respect of EP 4 072 364 (EP'364) only. The Court rejected Dainese's request for partial reimbursement of court fees (EUR 12,000) as insufficiently reasoned. The defendants' request for a costs decision under R.265(2) RoP was deferred to the final decision. Key headnotes: R.263.3 RoP applies both to limitation of relief (petitum) and limitation of the cause of action (causa petendi); costs are not addressed immediately under R.263 as proceedings continue. |
| 2025-02-15 | UPC_APP_65673/2024 | Milan CD | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | Procedural 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. |
| 2025-02-07 | UPC_APP_5885/2025 | Milan LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division granted Dainese S.p.A.'s application under R. 9 RoP to extend the deadline for filing its defence to counterclaims for revocation and reply to statements of defence, in light of a concurrent EPO oral hearing on 13 February 2025 for the parallel opposition proceedings, and invited the parties to submit a joint request for alignment of future procedural deadlines. |
| 2025-01-24 | UPC_APP_63772/2024 | Milan LD | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division issued a procedural order on Dainese's application under Rule 262A RoP for confidential protection of information contained in its partial withdrawal application, granting limited access to the confidential exhibit. |
| 2025-01-24 | UPC_APP_63878/2024 | Milan LD | Application RoP262A | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Milan Local Division (UPC_CFI_472/2024) on Dainese's application for protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP relating to a partial withdrawal submission. The Court ordered creation of a confidential club including at least one natural person from each party and their legal representatives, balancing confidentiality against the right to an effective defence. Access by Alpinestars/Motocard to unredacted documents was restricted to designated individuals. |
| 2025-01-15 | UPC_APP_1176/2025 | Milan LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Milan Local Division granted Alpinestars S.p.A.'s request to extend the deadline for filing its Statement of Defence and counterclaim for revocation from 20 January 2025 to 20 February 2025, to allow the outcome of EPO appeal proceedings concerning EP 3 498 117 (oral hearing on 13 February 2025) to be incorporated. The court held that extending time limits, rather than staying proceedings, best balances procedural efficiency and the right to be heard in light of concurrent EPO appeal proceedings. |
| 2024-12-30 | UPC_APP_58035/2024 | Milan LD | Generic application | Costs | Dismissed | Milan Local Division dismissed Insulet Corporation's application for a cost decision following the rejection of EOFLOW Co. Ltd.'s intervention request in PI proceedings (EP 4 201 327). The court found the application inadmissible: a cost decision under R. 150 RoP requires a prior decision on costs in principle under R. 118.5 RoP. The order rejecting the intervention (1 October 2024) contained no such costs-in-principle decision, so the cost-determination application lacked the prerequisite under R. 156(e) RoP. Insulet was invited to resubmit once a costs award decision was obtained. |
| 2024-12-23 | UPC_APP_58027/2024 | Milan CD | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | Milan 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. |
| 2024-11-22 | ACT_40442/2024 | Milan LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI denied | The 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. |
| 2024-11-22 | UPC_CFI_380/2024 | Milan CD | Application for provisional measures | — | PI denied | The 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. |
| 2024-10-01 | UPC_APP_40442/2024 | Milan LD | Procedural Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The 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. |
| 2024-10-01 | ORD_52068/2024 | Milan CD | Generic Order | Procedural | Procedural only | Milan 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. |
| 2024-10-01 | UPC_CFI_400/2024 | Milan LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The 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. |
| 2024-09-24 | UPC_APP_50666/2024 | Milan CD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | Milan 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. |
| 2024-09-04 | UPC_APP_40442/2024 | Milan LD | Procedural Order | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division issued a confidentiality order determining the composition of the confidentiality club in Insulet's provisional measures proceedings against Menarini, granting access to a US attorney from Goodwin Procter to allow coordination of parallel litigation strategies across jurisdictions. |