Denied
at Milan (IT) Central Division- Section
11 denied decisions from Milan (IT) Central Division- Section.
Denied Decisions
11 cases | Page 1 of 1
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.