Pending
at Milan (IT) Central Division- Section
10 pending decisions from Milan (IT) Central Division- Section.
Pending Decisions
10 cases | Page 1 of 1
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.Academy of Military Medical Sciences
This procedural order addressed the validity of service in a revocation action concerning Remdesivir (EP3854403). The claimant sought a default judgment after alleging improper service on the defendant. The UPC ruled that service was validly completed upon receipt by the patent representative, clarifying that foreign headquarters do not invalidate internal CMS service procedures. Consequently, the request for a default judgment was dismissed, and the case remains active.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This UPC decision involves a complex interplay between patent revocation and infringement claims concerning advanced medical device technology (insulin pumps). EOFLOW challenged Insulet's European Patent EP4201327, while Insulet counterclaimed for infringement. The court provided important procedural guidance regarding the issuance of default judgments and mandated a unitary approach to cost calculations in parallel proceedings. This case highlights the UPC's focus on substantive fairness alongside strict adherence to procedural rules.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a complex interplay between patent revocation and infringement claims concerning an insulin pump. The court provided important procedural guidance regarding the issuance of decisions by default, stressing the need for robust evidence rather than relying solely on procedural failures. Additionally, it reinforced the principle of unitary cost application when multiple parties (manufacturer and distributor) are involved in parallel litigation over the same patented technology.
bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
In this UPC revocation case, bioMérieux initiated proceedings against Labrador Diagnostics concerning patent EP 3 756 767 B1. Following an interim conference, the Court recognized that the sheer volume of invalidity attacks presented by bioMérieux was unsustainable for a focused oral hearing. The panel mandated that bioMérieux streamline its strategy, selecting only the most promising and logically consistent set of attacks to ensure procedural efficiency.
bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda. v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
In this complex UPC case involving bioMérieux and Labrador Diagnostics, the Court issued a critical procedural order following an interim conference. Recognizing that the patent EP 3 756 767 B1 faced an overwhelming number of invalidity attacks, the Panel mandated that the challenging party (bioMérieux) significantly narrow its focus. This ruling emphasizes the need for legal rigor and strategic clarity in complex revocation proceedings, ensuring the oral hearing remains focused on the most promising grounds of attack.
INSULET CORPORATION v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a complex dispute between medical device manufacturers EOFLOW and INSULET concerning the insulin pump patent EP4201327. The case involved parallel revocation and infringement actions, alongside preliminary injunction proceedings. The court provided important procedural guidance regarding default judgments and cost caps in multi-party litigation. Practitioners should note the emphasis on literal claim interpretation and the necessity of a unitary approach when dealing with related infringers.
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v.Spiridonakis Bros GP
In this procedural order, the UPC addressed the logistical challenges of inspecting large agricultural machinery central to an infringement claim. The Court ruled that Article 53(f) UPCA provides a broad scope for evidence gathering, allowing dynamic experiments on-site rather than strictly limited inspections in the courtroom. This ruling is significant as it facilitates complex technical evaluations involving bulky industrial equipment.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda., bioMérieux Benelux BV
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed the complex interplay between an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 756 767 B1. Following the parties' agreement and considering efficiency, the court opted to refer the revocation counterclaim to the Milan Central Division while allowing the infringement proceedings to continue locally. The panel also determined that a stay of the infringement case was not warranted at this preliminary stage, setting the path for parallel litigation tracks.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This procedural order in the EOFLOW v. Insulet UPC case marks a significant step toward trial preparation. The Court closed the written phase and scheduled an Interim Conference to focus on claim construction, particularly regarding the term 'pass through'. Furthermore, the Court strictly enforced rules of evidence by deeming US patent '159 inadmissible, emphasizing the need for parties to consolidate their arguments early in UPC proceedings.
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.
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.