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. filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2043492 owned by Dyson Technology Limited before the Central Division Milan. After the parties reached a settlement agreement and signed a term sheet, the claimant requested withdrawal of the revocation action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 12,000).
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation (Cost Compensation Proceedings)
This procedural order from the Central Division (Milan section) of the Unified Patent Court addressed EOFLOW's application for cost reimbursement following the rejection of Insulet's request for a preliminary injunction (PI) based on alleged infringement of EP 4201327. The Court dismissed EOFLOW's cost application without examining the substance, holding that when a preliminary injunction is followed by proceedings on the merits, cost compensation must be assessed at the conclusion of the overall merits proceedings rather than at the PI stage.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.INSULET Corporation (Cost Compensation Proceedings)
This procedural order concerns EOFLOW's application for reimbursement of costs incurred in defending against INSULET's request for a provisional injunction (PI) based on alleged infringement of EP 4201327, which the Court had rejected on 22 November 2024. Since the PI proceedings were followed by separate revocation and infringement proceedings on the merits, the Court held that cost compensation must be assessed at the conclusion of the merits proceedings as a whole, rather than parceled out by stage. EOFLOW's application for costs was therefore dismissed without examination of the substance.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare Limited, Novartis AG
STADAPHARM GmbH applied under Rule 262.1.b RoP to access the written pleadings and evidence filed in main proceedings (UPC_CFI_698/2024) between Accord Healthcare companies and Novartis AG concerning a declaration of non-infringement action related to EP2501384 (nilotinib). The Milan Central Division dismissed STADAPHARM's application, finding that its interest in using the documents in parallel German preliminary injunction proceedings was outweighed by the need to safeguard the integrity of the UPC proceedings, and also dismissed STADAPHARM's objection regarding the digital signature on Novartis's written pleadings.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare Limited, Novartis AG
STADAPHARM GmbH applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP to access written pleadings and evidence filed in main proceedings (UPC_CFI_698/2024) between Accord Healthcare companies and Novartis AG concerning a Declaration of Non-Infringement action regarding EP2501384 (nilotinib). The Milan Central Division dismissed STADAPHARM's request, holding that the general interest of justice and integrity of the proceedings outweighed STADAPHARM's interest in accessing the documents, particularly given that Novartis had not yet filed any submissions and that granting access could interfere with Novartis's free legal defense in parallel German preliminary injunction proceedings.
Insulet Corporation v.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (UPC_CFI_380/2024)
This procedural order concerns an application for costs filed by Insulet Corporation against Menarini Diagnostics following the rejection of Menarini's intervention request in provisional measures proceedings. The Central Division Milan ruled that Insulet, as the successful party opposing the intervention, was entitled to recover its legal costs from Menarini, ordering Menarini to pay €1,764 by 8 January 2025.
Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A, Pfizer Inc, Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Pfizer S.A, Pfizer Ltd, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Service Company S.R.L., Pfizer B.V. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A.
Procedural Order
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation, owner of European Patent EP4201327 concerning a fluid delivery device (insulin pump), sought a preliminary injunction against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. alleging that EOFLOW's 'EOPatch' insulin pump infringed its patent. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Milan Central Division) denied the application for provisional measures, finding significant doubts regarding the validity of the patent in light of prior art (US'994), which appeared to disclose all features of claim 1. The applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co. Ltd (Request for Intervention by A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.)
This procedural order from the Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. to intervene in provisional measures proceedings brought by Insulet Corporation against EOFLOW Co. Ltd regarding European Patent EP4201327. The Court first overruled Insulet's preliminary objection that the intervention application was inadmissible because it was filed in hard copy rather than electronically, finding that the CMS lacked a workflow for third-party interventions. On the merits, the Court rejected the intervention request, holding that intervention in interim injunction proceedings is only available in exceptional cases and that Menarini could adequately protect its interests in parallel proceedings before the Local Division Milan.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Ex Parte
Procedural Order
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.