75 cases · page 1 of 3
Showing 1–29Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd.and Resosport Limited
Cardo Systems, proprietor of EP 4 240 194 B1 relating to fastening devices for head-protective gear, obtained an ex parte injunction and seizure order against Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology and Resosport Limited on 5 November 2025 during the EICMA motorcycle trade fair in Milan. The respondents applied for review of the order, challenging validity, infringement, and the balance of interests. The Milan Local Division revoked the provisional measures in their entirety, finding no infringement, no urgency, and that Cardo had breached its duty of candour, while ordering Cardo to pay EUR 28,000 in interim costs and partially releasing the security deposit.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC.and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures (injunction) against ASUSTeK and Arvato in the Milan Local Division, related to ongoing main proceedings concerning EP 3 076 673 B1 (a video coding/HEVC patent). The application was filed after the main proceedings on the merits had commenced, with Ericsson citing delays in the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and the launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new, different, and supervening factual circumstances that would justify interim relief when the main proceedings were already in their final stages.
Morello Forni Italia srl e Morello Forni Sas di Morello Marco & C v.Gastroteam Abbe AB e Marciuliano Attrezzature di Salvatore Marciuliano
This is a cost decision by the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Milan, following a prior judgment (UPC CFI n. 802/2024) finding that Gastroteam Abbe AB and Salvatore Marciuliano infringed patent EP3691454. The claimants sought reimbursement of €62,719.20 in litigation costs. The court determined that the cost application was timely filed and properly notified to both defendants, and awarded a total of €62,359.32, reducing the representatives' fees from €45,359.88 to €45,000 based on the proportionality principle and the limited complexity of the case.
PIRELLI TYRE S.P.A. v.TIANJIN KINGTYRE GROUP CO., LTD
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. brought a patent infringement action against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd before the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2519412 for motorcycle tires. After Tianjin Kingtyre failed to enter an appearance within the three-month deadline following service of the statement of claim, Pirelli sought a default decision under Rule 355 RoP. The court granted the default decision, finding literal infringement of the patent and ordering injunctive relief, penalties, publication, and cost reimbursement.
PIRELLI TYRE S.P.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. brought a patent infringement action before the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. (SYR) concerning European Patent EP 3 519 207 B1, titled "motorcycles tyre," relating to a motorcycle tyre offering high road and off-road performance. Pirelli alleged that SYR's Helios HA-51R and HA-51F tyre models infringed claim 1 of the patent. The court found SYR had infringed the patent by offering and placing the infringing tyres on the market in several Contracting Member States, and ordered injunctive relief, publication, penalties, and damages in favor of Pirelli.
AGATHON AG v.INTERCOM S.R.L. And KNARR VERTRIEBS GMBH
Agathon AG, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 363 263 B1 relating to a centring device for a forming tool, brought an infringement action against Intercom S.r.l. and Knarr Vertriebs GmbH concerning centring devices marketed under specific article numbers. The defendants denied infringement and Intercom filed a counterclaim for revocation alleging lack of novelty and inventive step. The case was heard by the Court of First Instance, Milan Local Division, with a decision delivered on 5 May 2026.
GUALA PACK S.p.A. v.LD Packaging (Foshan) Co. LTD
Guala Pack S.p.A. filed an infringement action against Chinese company LD Packaging (Foshan) Co., Ltd before the Milan Local Division. While the statement of claim was being served via the Hague Convention at the defendant's registered office in China, Guala Pack sought an alternative order for service at LD Packaging's stand at the Interpack trade fair in Düsseldorf. The court granted the application, holding that operating a trade fair stand constitutes a temporary place of business under Rule 271.5(a) RoP, and ordered service by a German bailiff under German national law pursuant to Rule 271.4(b) RoP.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., LTD and Resosport Limited
Cardo Systems, Ltd. filed an application under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure before the Milan Local Division seeking alternative methods of service on two defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The court dismissed the application, finding that standard service attempts through the Hague Service Convention were still underway and it could not yet be determined that service could not be effected as required by Rule 275.1 RoP.
3V Sigma S.p.A. and 3V Chimica Porto Marghera S.r.l. v.A.C.E.F. S.r.l., A.G.A. SRL, MFCI Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in case UPC CFI n. 2052/2025, concerning a joint request by all parties to suspend proceedings. Defendant MFCI Co., Ltd. filed the request citing ongoing settlement negotiations, and all other parties consented. The court granted the suspension under Rule 295.1(d) RoP, holding that the proceedings would be stayed until four weeks after any party files a request to resume.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.a., Motorcard Bike S.I.
Dainese S.p.A., an Italian manufacturer of protective motorcycle equipment including the DAir® airbag system, brought an infringement action against Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., and Motocard Bike S.l. (a Spanish company) concerning European Patent EP 4 072 364, alleging that the defendants' Tech Air 3 System and Tech Air 10 Race System products infringed the patent. The decision addresses jurisdictional issues under Article 8 of EU Regulation No. 1215/2012, examining whether there is a risk of irreconcilable judgments when one defendant is domiciled in Spain and is sued for infringement of the Spanish portion of the same patent.
PRNOTH SPA v.XELOM s.r.l.
Prinoth S.p.A., plaintiff in a patent infringement action before the UPC Local Division Milan concerning EP2507436 and EP1995159, sought a 30-day extension under Rule 9.3(a) RoP to file its reply, originally due April 27, 2026. Xelom s.r.l. opposed the request. The Judge Rapporteur granted the extension to May 27, 2026, finding the request timely, well-motivated, and supported by evidence, given that Xelom had introduced numerous new documents, approximately 150 new validity attacks, and a 360-p
KeyMed (Medical & Industrial Equipment) Limited v.PR Medical s.r.l
KeyMed brought a patent infringement action against Italian company PR Medical s.r.l. before the Milan Local Division, alleging infringement of EP 2575590 B2 through the marketing of an accessory called 'Detecto.' PR Medical raised a preliminary objection seeking to change the language of proceedings from English to Italian under Rule 14(2)(b) RoP and Article 33(1)(a) of the UPCA Agreement. The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the two conditions under Rule 14.2(b) RoP are cumulative and must be interpreted restrictively as an exception.
Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., ltd.
1 di 4 Milan Local Division UPC CFI n. 770/2024, n. 556/2025 ordinanza depositata il 13.2.2026 ATTORE Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. (‘Pirelli’) CONVENUTO Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., ltd. (‘SYR’) ORGANO DECIDENTE presiding judge e judge-rapporteur Pierluigi Perrotti LINGUA DEL PROCEDI
SCHNELL S.P.A., A.W.M. S.R.L v.Progress Maschinen & Automation AG
This order concerns an application for a cost decision filed by AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a. regarding the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation in UPC CFI no. 178/2024 and no. 432/2024. The respondent Progress Maschinen & Automation AG argued that its appeal against the first instance decision, filed on 11.12.2025, had automatic suspensive effect under Article 74(2) UPCA, rendering the cost application untimely. The applicants countered that R. 150 RoP does not require finality and that the suspensive effect should be limited to the revocation portion of the decision. The Court rejected the applicants' restrictive interpretation, holding that the automatic suspensive effect applies to the decision in its entirety.
Agathon AG v.Intercom s.r.l.,KNARR Vertriebs GmbH
This order was issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division following an online interim conference held on 27 January 2026 in consolidated proceedings UPC CFI no. 727/2024 and no. 493/2025. The order addresses procedural matters including the exploration of settlement, clarification of the Claimant's conditional auxiliary requests filed under R. 30.1 RoP, the admissibility of late-filed technical drawings (Annexes 27/28–33/34), and the parties' agreement on the use of a specific equivalence criterion from a prior UPC decision. The Court deemed the late-filed annexes admissible while reserving judgment on their relevance, and confirmed that the auxiliary requests would only be assessed if the counterclaim for revocation is upheld.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. S.p.A.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH filed an application under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an order requiring Danieli & C. S.p.A. to produce documents and technical information relating to a plant built by Danieli for Hoa Phat Group in Vietnam, allegedly infringing EP 2 624 977. The Milan Local Division rejected the application as inadmissible and unfounded, finding that Primetals had likely known of the plant since at least July 2024 due to its long-standing commercial relationship with Hoa Phat, and that the photographs and technical analysis provided were insufficient to substantiate the infringement allegation.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited
Cardo Systems, Ltd. filed an infringement action on December 16, 2024 against two defendants concerning European Patent EP 4 240 194, alleging that products Z1-ASMAX and F1-ASMAX (and their Plus, Pro, and Pro Max variants) infringed the patent. While service was successfully completed against the Hong Kong defendant on May 29, 2025, service against the Shenzhen defendant failed twice because the Chinese central authority rejected the documents due to the naming convention used for Hong Kong. The Milan Local Division addressed whether Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention applies in the UPC system, concluding that it is entirely applicable regardless of any additional requirements for service within each Member State.
3V Sigma S.p.A v.A.G.A. S.r.l. and ACEF Srl
This case concerns a review of an ex parte order (inaudita altera parte) for the preservation of evidence issued by the Local Division of Milan. 3V Sigma S.p.A., the holder of two European patents relating to triazine photostabilizing compounds and UV filter cosmetic compositions, had sought evidence preservation measures against A.G.A. S.r.l. and A.C.E.F. S.r.l. The defendants challenged the ex parte order, alleging breach of the duty of disclosure under Rule 192.3 RoP and insufficiency of the evidence presented under Article 60.1 UPCA. The Court rejected these objections, clarifying the ex ante standard for assessing disclosure obligations and the threshold for 'reasonably available evidence' required to support a patent infringement claim.
Morello Forni Italia S.r.l. and Morello Forni di Morello Marco & C. S.A.S. v.Gastroteam Abbe AB and Marciuliano Attrezzature di Marciuliano Salvatore
This is a default judgment decision concerning European Patent EP 3691454 B1, titled 'Method and apparatus for shaping pizza,' brought by Morello Forni Italia S.r.l. and Morello Forni S.A.S. di Morello Marco & C. against Gastroteam Abbe AB (Sweden) and Salvatore Marciuliano, proprietor of Marciuliano Attrezzature (Italy). The defendants failed to appear in the proceedings, prompting the court to examine the requirements for issuing a default decision under Article 37 UPCS and Rules 277 and 355 RoP. The court analyzed the validity of service of the summons, the principle of non-contestation of specific facts under Rule 171.2 RoP, and the standard of proof required for default judgments.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom s.r.l.
1 di 18 TRIBUNALE UNIFICATO DEI BREVETTI TRIBUNALE DI PRIMO GRADO DIVISIONE LOCALE DI MILANO UPC CFI n. 127/2025 ORDINANZA SULLA RICHIESTA DI RIESAME DELL’ORDINE DI PROTEZIONE DELLA PROVA, DI ISPEZIONE E DI SEQUESTRO depositata in data 27 ottobre 2025 NOTE 1. Ai fini della conce
PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG v.AWM s.r.l.,Schnell s.p.a.
This case concerns an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2726230 B1, which protects a method and apparatus for continuously producing a lattice girder. Progress Maschinen & Automation AG, the patent proprietor, alleged that the Girderflex/Girderflex VSX machinery produced by AWM s.r.l. (a member of the Schnell Group since 2022) infringed its patent. The defendants contested validity through a counterclaim for revocation, raising issues of novelty, inventive step, and added matter. The Milan Local Division of the Court of First Instance addressed these substantive patent law questions alongside procedural matters concerning evidence preservation and requests to amend the patent.
Hypertherm Inc. v.Tec.Mo. s.r.l.
1 di 3 Divisione Locale di Milano UPC CFI n. 226/2025 ordinanza ex rule 360 RoP depositata il 7.10.2025 ATTORE Hypertherm Inc. CONVENUTO Tec.Mo. s.r.l. ORGANO DECIDENTE Su indicazione del judge-rapporteur (v. rule 363 RoP), la presente ordinanza è adottata dal Panel nella segu
3VSigma v.AGA-ACEF
1 di 7 Divisione Locale di Milano UPC CFI n. 342/2025 Ordinanza depositata il 23.9.2025 RICORRENTE 3V Sigma s.p.a. RESISTENTI ACEF s.r.l. AGA s.r.l. (già ACEF s.p.a.) ORGANO DECIDENTE presiding judge e judge rapporteur Pierluigi Perrotti LINGUA DEL PROCEDIMENTO Italiano
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Respondent
Divisione Locale di Milano DECISIONE del Tribunale Unificato dei Brevetti Tribunale di primo grado relativa al brevetto EP EP2145848 Attore in contraffazione e convenuto in nullità Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG Leverkuser Strasse 65 - 42897 - Remscheid – DE Rappresentato dag
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an application for provisional measures before the Milan Local Division based on EP 3 646 825 B1 against Sintec S.r.l. and Value Med S.r.l. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement on 23 June 2025 and jointly requested the Court to confirm it. The Court confirmed the settlement but dismissed Edwards's request for reimbursement of 60% of the court fees, holding that Rule 370.9(c)(i) RoP does not apply to provisional measures proceedings.
ULRICH HERPICH E.K, HORIZON MOTO 95 - MAXXESS CERGY , MOTOCARD BIKE, S.L., Alpinestars S.p.A., ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p.A, OMNIA RETAIL S.R.L. v.Dainese S.p.A.
This case concerns an application by Dainese S.p.A. for the protection of confidential information in proceedings related to security for costs requested by the defendants. Dainese sought to restrict access to certain financial information and exhibits, while the defendants agreed with the confidentiality designation but requested broader access for their representatives and key personnel. The Court addressed the balance between protecting confidential business information and ensuring the defendants' right to a fair trial.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Respondent
DIVISIONE LOCALE DI MILANO UPC_CFI_761/2024 ACT 63992/2024 ACT .24515/2025 Ordinanza Del Tribunale unificato dei Brevetti di primo grado adottata in data 29.7. 2025 KEYWORDS Rule 150 – Separato procedimento per i costi della decisione ROP; Rule 353 – Rettifica delle decisioni e d
PIRELLI TYRE S.P.A. v.Respondent
Divisione Locale di Milano ORDINANZA del Tribunale Unificato dei Brevetti Tribunale di primo grado Divisione Locale di Milano depositata il 15.7.2025 RICORRENTE PIRELLI TYRE s.p.a. RESISTENTI 1. KINGTYRE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH 2. TIANJIN KINGTYRE GROUP CO., LTD. Brevetto In
SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER CO., LTD. v.Respondent
1 di 5 Divisione Locale di Milano UPC CFI n. 770/2024 Act. n. 64425/2024 App. n. 26266/2025 ordinanza n. 26742/2025 depositata il 14.7.2025 ATTORE Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. CONVENUTI 1) Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber co. Ltd. 2) China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Automot
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.Respondent
This order concerns the determination of the value of the case for the purpose of applying the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs in proceedings between Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (Claimant) and AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a. (Defendants). The Claimant valued the infringement case at EUR 2,000,000, while the Defendants disputed the sales volume, machine prices, and royalty rate. The judge-rapporteur set the value of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation at EUR 2,000,000 each, subject to possible reconsideration by the Panel at the conclusion of the oral hearing.
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.