Partially Granted
at Milan (IT) Central Division- Section
9 partially granted decisions from Milan (IT) Central Division- Section.
Partially Granted Decisions
9 cases | Page 1 of 1
La 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.