Milan (IT) Central Division- Section
40 cases · page 1 of 2
Showing 1–29La Siddhi Consultancy Ltd. v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS; Substipharm
In this UPC CFI decision concerning a revocation action, the court addressed the defendants' request for security for costs against the claimant. Despite the claimant asserting SME status and arguing that such an order would restrict access to justice, the Court found the defendant's arguments regarding the claimant's financial vulnerability credible. Consequently, the court ordered the claimant to provide €75,000 in security within six weeks, setting a specific amount while rejecting the defendants' demands for higher sums or faster deadlines.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
In this UPC cost decision concerning EP 3 784 233, the Court confirmed that once a patent has been definitively revoked by the EPO's Opposition Division, any parallel revocation action before the UPC becomes redundant. The panel ordered the disposal of the proceedings and ruled on costs, awarding Neurocrine substantial compensation for its legal efforts. This case underscores the importance of monitoring opposition proceedings when pursuing invalidity claims in the UPC.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a defendant's attempt to introduce late-filed auxiliary amendments (requests 2A to 13A) into an ongoing revocation action. The claimant argued these requests violated Rule 30.2 RoP by being introduced without proper procedure. The Court ultimately rejected the request, emphasizing that while proportionality is considered, the preclusive nature of the rules against 'little steps' amendments must be respected.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
This procedural order addressed a request by the defendant to introduce subsequent, limiting auxiliary claims into a revocation action concerning a medical device patent (EP4185356). The Court emphasized its commitment to maintaining the integrity and efficiency of UPC proceedings. Despite arguing that the new amendments were merely responsive to the claimant's objections, the Court rejected them, reinforcing the strict procedural requirements for amending patents during litigation.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation successfully sought enforcement measures against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. regarding violations of prior injunctions concerning the supply of infringing fluid delivery devices. The UPC Court of First Instance ruled that EOFLOW was in breach of its obligations, leading to a significant penalty payment being imposed. This decision underscores the strict nature of compliance with interim and final injunctive relief within the Unified Patent Court system.
Pari Pharma GmbH v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
In this UPC revocation action concerning a nebulizer head patent, the Court found that the original claim lacked novelty. However, the case demonstrated the critical importance of amendment strategies in UPC litigation. By successfully amending the claims to overcome prior art objections, the defendant managed to save the patent, illustrating how strategic adjustments can preserve IP rights even when facing significant validity challenges.
bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
In a significant decision concerning point-of-care diagnostics, the UPC Central Division rejected the revocation action brought by bioMérieux against EP 3 756 767 B1. The Court found that the patent remained valid when amended by Auxiliary Request 3 (AR 3). This ruling reinforces the importance of auxiliary requests in preserving patent rights and sets a precedent regarding the proportionality of validity challenges before the UPC.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP v.Insulet Corporation; EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a request for file inspection by legal counsel (HSF Kramer LLP). The Court analyzed the need for HSF to access redacted documents from related proceedings, balancing transparency against party interests. While denying broad access to exhibits due to concerns over scoping and proportionality, the Judge Rapporteur granted limited access to key pleadings, affirming that the reasoned decision itself provides sufficient insight into the case.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC Cost Decision addressed Insulet Corporation's request for cost compensation against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. The Court found that while the applicant was entitled to recovery of reasonable and proportionate costs related to the merits proceedings, the requested amount needed significant reduction. Key factors influencing this decision included the lack of clarity in submitted invoices, the overlap between arguments presented before the UPC and the Court of Appeal, and the exclusion of costs relating to the enforcement phase. The final award granted Insulet an additional EUR 113,773.40.
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.Academy of Military Medical Sciences
This procedural order addressed the validity of service in a revocation action concerning Remdesivir (EP3854403). The claimant sought a default judgment after alleging improper service on the defendant. The UPC ruled that service was validly completed upon receipt by the patent representative, clarifying that foreign headquarters do not invalidate internal CMS service procedures. Consequently, the request for a default judgment was dismissed, and the case remains active.
Bodycap, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - CNRS, Université de Rennes v.EPO
This UPC decision addressed an appeal challenging the EPO's rejection of a unitary effect application for EP3691518. The claimants, including Bodycap and CNRS, sought to overturn the administrative rejection based on minor procedural errors regarding their address details. However, the UPC upheld the EPO's decision, emphasizing strict adherence to deadlines and legal certainty in the context of unitary patent procedures. This case serves as a strong reminder that procedural compliance is mandatory when applying for unitary effect.
Novartis AG v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA; ZENTIVA K.S.
This UPC decision on costs addressed the compensation sought by Novartis following a dismissed application to intervene in a related main proceeding. The court emphasized that while legal costs must be proportionate under Art. 69 UPCA, the applicant bears the burden of proof for detailed cost substantiation. By failing to provide sufficient evidence justifying the extensive legal fees incurred across multiple firms, Novartis' claim was significantly reduced.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This UPC decision involves a complex interplay between patent revocation and infringement claims concerning advanced medical device technology (insulin pumps). EOFLOW challenged Insulet's European Patent EP4201327, while Insulet counterclaimed for infringement. The court provided important procedural guidance regarding the issuance of default judgments and mandated a unitary approach to cost calculations in parallel proceedings. This case highlights the UPC's focus on substantive fairness alongside strict adherence to procedural rules.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a complex interplay between patent revocation and infringement claims concerning an insulin pump. The court provided important procedural guidance regarding the issuance of decisions by default, stressing the need for robust evidence rather than relying solely on procedural failures. Additionally, it reinforced the principle of unitary cost application when multiple parties (manufacturer and distributor) are involved in parallel litigation over the same patented technology.
bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
In this UPC revocation case, bioMérieux initiated proceedings against Labrador Diagnostics concerning patent EP 3 756 767 B1. Following an interim conference, the Court recognized that the sheer volume of invalidity attacks presented by bioMérieux was unsustainable for a focused oral hearing. The panel mandated that bioMérieux streamline its strategy, selecting only the most promising and logically consistent set of attacks to ensure procedural efficiency.
bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda. v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
In this complex UPC case involving bioMérieux and Labrador Diagnostics, the Court issued a critical procedural order following an interim conference. Recognizing that the patent EP 3 756 767 B1 faced an overwhelming number of invalidity attacks, the Panel mandated that the challenging party (bioMérieux) significantly narrow its focus. This ruling emphasizes the need for legal rigor and strategic clarity in complex revocation proceedings, ensuring the oral hearing remains focused on the most promising grounds of attack.
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v.Spiridonakis Bros GP
In a significant decision by default, the UPC granted Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. an infringement declaration against Spiridonakis Bros GP regarding its reversible agricultural tool patent (EP 1998604). The court upheld the permanent injunction and established recurring penalties for continued infringement across several member states. This case highlights the strict evidentiary requirements placed on claimants pursuing default judgments in UPC proceedings, while also clarifying the scope of territoriality under Art. 26 UPCA.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addressed a request for confidentiality regarding legal fees incurred during preliminary injunction proceedings. Insulet sought to protect its attorney's fees under privilege, but the UPC emphasized the balance between protecting confidential information and ensuring the respondent's right to be heard. The Court ultimately rejected the attempt to limit access solely to law firms, affirming that at least one natural person from each party must have access for a fair trial.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addressed a request for confidentiality regarding legal fees incurred by Insulet Corporation during litigation. The UPC Court balanced the need to protect sensitive commercial information against the fundamental right of EOFLOW Co., Ltd. to a fair trial. While acknowledging the sensitivity of attorney's fees, the court upheld the requirement that at least one natural person from each party must have access to confidential materials, thereby limiting Insulet's ability to restrict disclosure solely to its legal representatives.
INSULET CORPORATION v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a complex dispute between medical device manufacturers EOFLOW and INSULET concerning the insulin pump patent EP4201327. The case involved parallel revocation and infringement actions, alongside preliminary injunction proceedings. The court provided important procedural guidance regarding default judgments and cost caps in multi-party litigation. Practitioners should note the emphasis on literal claim interpretation and the necessity of a unitary approach when dealing with related infringers.
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v.Spiridonakis Bros GP
In this procedural order, the UPC addressed the logistical challenges of inspecting large agricultural machinery central to an infringement claim. The Court ruled that Article 53(f) UPCA provides a broad scope for evidence gathering, allowing dynamic experiments on-site rather than strictly limited inspections in the courtroom. This ruling is significant as it facilitates complex technical evaluations involving bulky industrial equipment.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda., bioMérieux Benelux BV
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed the complex interplay between an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 756 767 B1. Following the parties' agreement and considering efficiency, the court opted to refer the revocation counterclaim to the Milan Central Division while allowing the infringement proceedings to continue locally. The panel also determined that a stay of the infringement case was not warranted at this preliminary stage, setting the path for parallel litigation tracks.
Pfizer Inc. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In this procedural order, the Unified Patent Court allowed Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA to withdraw a revocation action concerning EP4183412. The case involved complex cross-referencing between an infringement proceeding in Düsseldorf and the revocation action in Milan. Since both parties agreed on the withdrawal and subsequent closure of the proceedings, the court granted the request while also ordering the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the withdrawing parties.
Pfizer Inc. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In a procedural order, the UPC Central Division allowed Pfizer (the claimants/counterclaimants) to withdraw its revocation action against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA concerning EP4183412. This decision was reached following mutual agreement between both parties. The Court also ordered the reimbursement of 60% of court fees paid by the withdrawing parties. This case highlights how procedural agreements and party consent can lead to the swift closure of complex patent litigation.
Pfizer Inc. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In a procedural order concerning EP4183412, the UPC Central Division allowed Pfizer (the claimants) and GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (the defendant) to withdraw their respective revocation action and counterclaim. The parties reached an agreement that rendered the patent amendment applications moot. This case highlights how mutual consent can lead to the swift closure of complex litigation in the UPC, even when significant value is at stake.
Pfizer Inc. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In a procedural order concerning the revocation of EP4183412, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA mutually agreed to withdraw the action and counterclaim. The UPC Central Division granted this request, effectively closing the proceedings. This case highlights how mutual consent can lead to the swift dismissal of complex patent litigation, even when significant value is at stake.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This procedural order in the EOFLOW v. Insulet UPC case marks a significant step toward trial preparation. The Court closed the written phase and scheduled an Interim Conference to focus on claim construction, particularly regarding the term 'pass through'. Furthermore, the Court strictly enforced rules of evidence by deeming US patent '159 inadmissible, emphasizing the need for parties to consolidate their arguments early in UPC proceedings.
Aliud Pharma GmbH v.Novartis AG
In a procedural matter concerning document access, the UPC granted Aliud Pharma GmbH's request to view confidential documents from ACCORD Healthcare and Novartis AG. The Court provided clear guidance on GDPR compliance in digital proceedings, specifically addressing the scope of protection for digital signatures and company email addresses. This decision clarifies how parties must redact personal data when sharing evidence within the UPC framework.
Accord Healthcare Group (Accord) v.Novartis AG
This procedural order addressed an application by ZENTIVA K.S. and ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA to intervene in a main infringement proceeding between Accord Healthcare and Novartis regarding the drug nilotinib (EP2501384). The court dismissed ZENTIVA's request, establishing a strict requirement for direct legal interest when seeking intervention under Rule 313 RoP. This decision reinforces that parallel interests based on similar factual situations are insufficient grounds to join proceedings.
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. initiated a revocation action against Dyson Technology Limited concerning European Patent EP 2043492 before the UPC Central Division Milan. However, both parties subsequently reached an agreement and signed a term sheet to settle the litigation. The Court formally allowed the withdrawal of the revocation action upon mutual consent, declaring the proceedings closed. This case highlights how procedural flexibility within the UPC allows for the amicable termination of complex patent disputes when settlement is reached.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.