Milan (IT) Central Division- Section
40 cases · page 2 of 2
Showing 31–39SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. initiated a revocation action against European Patent EP 2043492 held by Dyson Technology Limited before the UPC Central Division Milan. The parties subsequently reached an agreement and signed a term sheet to settle the dispute. Following this settlement, SharkNinja requested withdrawal of its action, which the court allowed. This decision highlights how amicable settlements can lead to the early closure of complex patent litigation within the UPC framework.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.INSULET Corporation
This procedural order addressed a claim for cost reimbursement filed by EOFLOW Co., Ltd. following the rejection of its preliminary injunction application against Insulet Corporation. The Court ruled that because the underlying patent litigation was proceeding to the merits, costs related to the initial PI phase could not be settled separately. The ruling reinforces the principle that cost assessment must align with the final outcome of the entire case, preventing fragmented financial assessments in complex IP disputes.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.INSULET Corporation
This UPC procedural order addressed a claim for cost reimbursement filed by EOFLOW following the rejection of its preliminary injunction application against INSULET. The Court ruled that since the underlying infringement case on the merits was still pending, costs could not be awarded based solely on the PI outcome. The ruling reinforces the principle that in complex patent litigation, particularly when an interim measure is followed by a full trial, cost assessment must wait until the final judgment.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.Novartis AG, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare Limited
This preliminary order addressed a request by STADAPHARM GmbH, an applicant in a non-infringement action, seeking access to the main proceedings documents. The Court clarified the scope of document inspection under Rule 262.1 b), stating that such requests are limited to existing filings and cannot preemptively cover all future submissions. The ruling underscored the importance of maintaining procedural integrity and protecting parties' rights to independent legal defense when balancing public transparency.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.Novartis AG, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare Limited
This preliminary order addressed a request by STADAPHARM GmbH, an applicant in a non-infringement action, seeking access to the main proceedings documents. The Court clarified the scope of Rule 262.1 b), stating that such requests are limited to existing filings and cannot preemptively cover all future submissions. The ruling underscored the importance of maintaining procedural integrity over general public visibility when interests conflict, a key principle for transparency in UPC litigation.
Insulet Corporation v.MENARINI DIAGNOSTICS s.r.l.
This UPC decision addresses a complex costs dispute arising from an intervention request in parallel provisional measures proceedings. Insulet Corporation sought reimbursement for legal costs incurred while defending against Menarini Diagnostics' attempt to intervene in the main infringement case. The Court upheld Insulet's claim, establishing that even parties not formally named can be subject to cost awards if they are deemed 'successful.' This ruling clarifies the scope of recoverable costs related to intervention proceedings under the UPC Rules of Procedure.
Pfizer Inc v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In a procedural order, the UPC Central Division rejected GlaxoSmithKline's preliminary objection challenging its competence to hear the revocation action against Pfizer regarding EP4183412. Glaxo argued that a parallel infringement suit before the Düsseldorf Local Division conflicted with procedural economy principles. The Court ruled in favor of Pfizer, affirming the Milan Central Division's jurisdiction and allowing the revocation proceedings to continue. This decision clarifies the scope of competence under the UPC when multiple actions concerning the same patent are pending across different divisions.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation sought a preliminary injunction against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. regarding the alleged infringement of its fluid dispensing device patent (EP4201327), which covers advanced insulin pumps. However, the UPC Court of First Instance denied the application for provisional measures. The court determined that significant doubts existed concerning the novelty and validity of Insulet's patent in light of prior art disclosures, thereby preventing the immediate granting of an injunction.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC procedural order addressed a request for intervention filed by Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. in an interim injunction case between Insulet Corporation and EOFLOW Co., Ltd. The Court ultimately rejected the intervention, ruling that Menarini's interest was merely hypothetical and could be sufficiently defended in parallel proceedings before the Local Division Milan. This decision reinforces the strict procedural requirements for third-party intervention in fast-moving provisional measures cases.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural review concerning the connection joinder of two parallel infringement proceedings involving Insulet Corporation and EOFLOW Co., Ltd. The core dispute centered on whether consolidating the cases would violate principles of proportionality or lead to contradictory rulings. The panel ultimately approved the initial order, finding that the risk of divergent decisions was minimal due to shared judicial oversight across both divisions. This ruling reinforces the UPC's flexibility in case management while maintaining strict adherence to procedural fairness.
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.