Litigation
at Milan (IT) Central Division- Section
40 litigation decisions from Milan (IT) Central Division- Section.
Litigation Decisions
40 cases | Page 1 of 2
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS & Substipharm
This order concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent No. 3 592 333 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Milan Seat). The defendants applied for security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP, arguing the claimant's financial position posed a serious risk of non-recovery. The Court partially granted the request, ordering the claimant to provide security of €75,000 within six weeks, reduced from the requested €112,000, while rejecting the claimant's argument that its SME status should preclude or further reduce the security.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
This case concerned a revocation action filed by Neurocrine Biosciences against Spruce Biosciences's European patent EP 3 784 233, relating to methods for treating testicular and ovarian adrenal rest tumors. During the proceedings, the European Patent Office Opposition Division revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty, and Spruce chose not to appeal. The Court disposed of the revocation action as devoid of purpose under R. 360 RoP, awarded Neurocrine 80% of the maximum recoverable costs (EUR 488,000), and ordered partial reimbursement of court fees.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
This procedural order concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent EP4185356 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division Milan. The defendant (patent proprietor) sought to introduce auxiliary requests 2A to 13A into the proceedings in response to clarity objections raised by the claimant. The Court held that while the application was admissible, it was not allowable, rejecting the request because subsequent amendments are only permitted on an exceptional basis and the defendant should have foreseen the clarity objections.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
This procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) concerns a revocation action regarding EP 4185356. The defendant (patent proprietor) sought to introduce new auxiliary requests 2A to 13A into the proceedings in response to clarity objections raised by the claimant. The Court held that while the application was admissible, it was not allowable, rejecting the request because subsequent amendments are only permitted in exceptional circumstances and the defendant should have foreseen the clarity objections.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation applied to the Central Division Milan for the determination of penalty payments against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. for alleged non-compliance with a Court of Appeal Preliminary Injunction (30 April 2025) and a Decision on the Merits (22 July 2025) concerning patent EP4201327 relating to fluid delivery devices such as insulin pumps. EOFLOW argued that the infringing products were supplied by Menarini Diagnostics under a settlement agreement with Insulet, and that the shipments occurred before the Decision on the Merits. The Court ordered EOFLOW to pay EUR 150,000 as a penalty payment and EUR 10,000 in costs.
Pari Pharma GmbH v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Pari Pharma GmbH brought a revocation action against Koninklijke Philips N.V. concerning European Patent No. EP 3 397 329, titled 'Air-flow in a nebulizer head,' which was registered with unitary effect in Germany and France. The Court found that claim 1 of the patent as granted lacked novelty over prior art document WO 2017/102308 A1 (D1), but held that the amended claim 1 of Auxiliary Request 2 was inventive and valid. The revocation action was rejected insofar as the patent was maintained as amended by Auxiliary Request 2, with each party bearing their own costs.
bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
The Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court consolidated a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation brought by bioMérieux group companies against European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 (owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC), concerning modular point-of-care devices. The Court rejected the revocation action and maintained the patent as amended according to Auxiliary Request 3, finding that the Main Request and Auxiliary Requests 1 and 2 contained added subject-matter. Costs were apportioned equitably, with bioMérieux ordered to pay two-thirds of Labrador's legal costs (EUR 400,000), and Labrador's request for confidentiality of the agreed costs amount was dismissed.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP v.Insulet Corporation and EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to redacted versions of documents filed in the main proceedings between Insulet Corporation and EOFLOW Co., Ltd. concerning EP4201327. The Judge Rapporteur partially granted the request, ordering the parties to provide only the redacted application and objection submissions, but denying access to the exhibits attached to those submissions.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This is a cost decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Milan) concerning cost compensation following a prior decision on the merits dated 22 July 2025 in revocation and infringement proceedings regarding EP4201327. Insulet Corporation, as the prevailing party, sought an additional EUR 197,587.50 in costs beyond the provisional EUR 200,000 already awarded. The court partially granted the request, excluding redacted costs, personal scheduling costs, enforcement-phase costs, and an Italian law expert opinion, and applying a 30% reduction to costs incurred after 2 May 2025 due to reduced case complexity following the Court of Appeal's PI decision.
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.Academy of Military Medical Sciences
Gilead Sciences, Inc. filed a revocation action against European Patent EP3854403, owned by the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (China), relating to the use of Remdesivir in treating MERS and SARS-COV-1 infections. The dispute centered on whether service of the statement of revocation on the patent's European representative (Lavoix) was valid and whether Gilead's request for default judgment was admissible. The Judge Rapporteur held that service was validly completed on 7 July 2025 when received by the patent representative in the CMS, declared the default judgment request inadmissible, and set 8 September 2025 as the deadline for the defendant to file a statement of defense.
Bodycap, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and Université de Rennes v.EPO
The patent proprietors of European patent EP3691518 appealed the EPO's rejection of their request for unitary effect. The rejection stemmed from an incorrect address for one of the three proprietors in the unitary effect request and a four-day delay in remedying the irregularity. The court rejected the appeal, holding that the deadline under Rule 7.3 of the Rules on Unitary Patent Protection is strict and non-extendable, and that interlocutory revision under Rule 91 RoP does not apply to Rule 97(1) proceedings.
Novartis AG v.Zentiva K.S. and Zentiva Portugal, LDA
This is a decision on costs before the Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court concerning Novartis AG's claim for legal cost compensation following the dismissal of Zentiva's application to intervene in related proceedings. Novartis claimed €38,000 in costs but failed to adequately substantiate the proportionality and reasonableness of hiring five law firms to defend against a single intervention application. The court awarded only €3,000, the amount undisputed by Zentiva, finding that Novartis had not met its burden of proof under Rule 156.1 RoP.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This case before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned a revocation action filed by EOFLOW against Insulet's European patent EP4201327 (relating to a fluid delivery device for insulin pumps), along with Insulet's counterclaim for infringement against EOFLOW's EOPatch/GlucoMen Day Pump. The court addressed issues including the requirements for issuing a decision by default, the interpretation of patent claim language, and the application of cost caps under Article 1(3) of the Administrative Committee's decision. The court ultimately found infringement of claim 1 of EP4201327, issued injunctive relief, ordered information provision, product recall, and damages, with EOFLOW bearing the costs.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This case before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned European patent EP4201327 (relating to fluid delivery devices for insulin pumps). EOFLOW sought revocation of the patent, while Insulet filed a counterclaim for infringement based on EOFLOW's EOPatch insulin pump. The Court issued a decision by default against EOFLOW on the revocation action, upheld the patent, found infringement by EOFLOW, and ordered injunctive relief, information disclosure, product recall, and damages with penalty payments for non-compliance.
bioMérieux UK Limited, bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal Lda., bioMérieux Benelux BV v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) on 18 July 2025, following an interim conference in two related revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. The order addresses procedural matters including the narrowing of invalidity attacks, structuring of the oral hearing, and setting deadlines for further submissions by the parties.
bioMérieux UK Limited and bioMérieux SA et al. v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) in revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. Following an interim conference, the court directed bioMérieux to narrow down its approximately 50 invalidity attacks and 16 prior art citations to a manageable number, particularly focusing on Auxiliary Requests 1, 2, and 3, and ordered both parties to provide specific submissions and cost estimates by set deadlines.
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v.Spiridonakis Bros GP
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A., an Italian agricultural equipment manufacturer and proprietor of European Patent EP 1 998 604 concerning a reversible tool for agricultural subsoilers, brought an infringement action against the Greek company Spiridonakis Bros GP for allegedly offering, distributing, and advertising a counterfeit product called the 'Bellota tool.' The defendant failed to enter proceedings after being served in absentia, prompting the Central Division Milan to issue a decision by default. The Court granted a permanent injunction, information orders, and cost awards against the defendant.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
Insulet Corporation filed an application for confidentiality under Rule 262A RoP regarding attorney's fees and expenses incurred in proceedings for a preliminary injunction against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. relating to European Patent EP4201327. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Milan Central Division) partially granted the application, holding that invoices from Insulet's law firm could be protected as confidential but the internal breakdown of costs and billable hours could not, and that the confidentiality club must include at least one natural person from each party.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This procedural order concerns Insulet Corporation's application under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality over attorney fees and expenses incurred in proceedings against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. relating to a preliminary injunction concerning European Patent EP4201327. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Milan Central Division) partially granted the confidentiality request, holding that while litigation costs are not inherently confidential, invoices showing a patent owner's interest in defending its patent can be protected. The Court rejected Insulet's attempt to exclude EOFLOW's natural person from the confidentiality club, ordering that the unredacted exhibits be accessible to EOFLOW's legal representatives and its CEO Jesse Kim.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This case before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned parallel revocation and infringement proceedings regarding European patent EP4201327 (unitary effect EP4201327C0) owned by Insulet Corporation, relating to fluid delivery devices for insulin pumps. EOFLOW sought revocation of the patent for lack of novelty and inventive step, while Insulet counterclaimed for infringement based on EOFLOW's EOPatch/GlucoMen Day Pump product. The Court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty and inventive step, and issued a decision by default against EOFLOW on the infringement counterclaim due to its failure to file a Reply, ordering injunctive relief, information disclosure, product recall, and damages with penalty payments.
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v.Spiridonakis Bros GP
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Milan) in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP1998604, owned by Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. against Spiridonakis Bros GP (who did not appear). The court ordered an on-site inspection of the patented device and the allegedly infringing Bellota tool at the claimant's facility in Cremona, as transporting the approximately 2-ton agricultural machine to the courtroom was impractical. The court clarified that Article 53(f) UPCA provides a broad basis for the court to perceive the functionality of embodiments, encompassing inspections, experiments, and comparative tests.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal Lda., and bioMérieux Benelux BV
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1. The court exercised its discretion under Article 33(3)(b) UPCA to refer the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division, where a revocation action was already pending, while proceeding with the infringement action. The Claimant requested the referral and the Defendants did not object, leading the Panel to treat the matter as a unanimous request.
Pfizer Inc. and others v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
This procedural order concerns revocation proceedings before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP 4 183 412 (RSV F protein compositions). Following the parties' joint request, the court allowed the withdrawal of the revocation action and counterclaim for revocation filed by Pfizer against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the claimants/counterclaimants.
Pfizer Inc. and others v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
This procedural order from the Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court concerns the withdrawal of a revocation action and counterclaim for revocation filed by various Pfizer entities against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA regarding EP 4 183 412 (RSV F protein compositions). Both parties jointly requested the withdrawal, which the court allowed, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the Claimants/Counterclaimants, with no cost decision required.
Pfizer Inc. and others v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
This procedural order concerns a revocation action filed by multiple Pfizer entities against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA regarding EP 4 183 412 (RSV F protein compositions). Prior to closure of the written procedure, Pfizer requested withdrawal of both the revocation action and its counterclaim for revocation, with Glaxo's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered no cost decision, and directed reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to Pfizer.
Pfizer Inc. and others v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
This procedural order concerns a revocation action filed by multiple Pfizer entities against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA regarding European Patent EP 4 183 412 (RSV F protein compositions). Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Pfizer requested withdrawal of the revocation action and counterclaim for revocation, with reimbursement of 60% of court fees, and Glaxo consented. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered reimbursement of 60% of court fees, and set the value in dispute at more than EUR 50,000,000.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Milan concerning a revocation action filed by EOFLOW Co., Ltd. against Insulet Corporation's European Patent EP4201327, which relates to fluid delivery devices for insulin management. The court dismissed EOFLOW's request for further written submissions, declared US patent 6656159 (Flaherty) inadmissible as late-filed prior art, and ordered EOFLOW to provide EUR 500,000 as security for costs within three weeks.
ALIUD PHARMA GmbH v.Accord Healthcare Group & Novartis AG (Application for Access to Documents under Rule 262 RoP)
ALIUD PHARMA GmbH applied for access to documents filed in a Declaration of Non-Infringement action between the Accord Healthcare group and Novartis AG concerning EP2501384. After the main proceedings were settled and closed, Novartis withdrew its opposition to the access request, subject to redaction of personal data. The Court granted the application and instructed the Registry to produce redacted copies of the requested documents within 15 days.
Zentiva K.S. and Zentiva Portugal, LDA - Application to Intervene in Accord Healthcare v.Novartis AG (EP 2501384)
Zentiva K.S. and Zentiva Portugal, LDA applied to intervene under Rule 313 RoP in a Declaration of Non-Infringement action brought by Accord Healthcare entities against Novartis AG concerning EP 2501384 (nilotinib for chronic myeloid leukemia). The Central Division (Milan) dismissed the application, holding that parallel commercial interests and factual similarity do not establish a legal interest to intervene, and that Zentiva's remedies would be contradictory to those of Accord. Zentiva was ordered to bear the costs of the sub-proceedings, with a cost ceiling of 38,000 euros.
SharkNinja 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 of the Unified Patent Court. After the parties reached a settlement agreement and signed a term sheet, the proceedings were stayed and subsequently 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) to the Claimant.
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.