72 cases · page 2 of 3
Showing 31–59Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This case concerns a patent infringement action filed by Ericsson against ASUS entities regarding patent EP3076673, along with a counterclaim for revocation. The core dispute involved the confidentiality regime to be applied to certain documents, with Ericsson requesting an 'external eyes only' regime while the defendants sought access for at least one natural person from each party. The Court rejected Ericsson's request for an 'external eyes only' regime and established a confidentiality club comprising external UPC representatives, licensing expert witnesses, and one natural person from each party.
Alpinestars Research S.p.A v.Dainese S.p.A.
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Alpinestars Research S.p.A. (Defendant No. 2) in an infringement action brought by Dainese S.p.A. regarding European patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the UPC Milan Local Division, particularly with respect to alleged infringement in Spain (a non-UPC country). The court dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that the UPC Milan Local Division has universal jurisdiction over defendants domiciled in Italy, including over alleged infringement of European patents validated in non-UPC countries such as Spain.
Alpinestars S.p.A. v.Dainese S.p.A.
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Alpinestars S.p.A. (defendant in the main infringement proceedings) challenging the jurisdiction of the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in an infringement action brought by Dainese S.p.A. regarding European patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. Alpinestars argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction, including over alleged infringement in Spain (a non-UPC country). The court dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that the UPC Milan Local Division has universal jurisdiction over defendants domiciled in Italy, including for European patents validated in non-UPC countries such as Spain.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others
Dainese S.p.A., the claimant in a patent infringement action concerning EP'117 and EP'364, applied for leave to limit its claims under Rule 263.3 RoP after the EPO Board of Appeal issued a negative opinion on EP'117, seeking to discontinue claims related to EP'117 while maintaining those regarding EP'364. The defendants argued the application should be treated as a partial withdrawal under Rule 265 RoP, entitling them to cost reimbursement. The Milan Local Division held that Rule 263.3 RoP governs the limitation of claims, granted Dainese leave to limit its claims, rejected the request for partial reimbursement of court fees, and postponed the costs decision to the main proceedings.
Dainese S.p.A. v.S.L. Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l.
Dainese S.p.A., the claimant in a patent infringement action concerning two European patents (EP'364 and EP'117), filed an application under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its claims by withdrawing all arguments related to EP'117 following an adverse EPO Board of Appeal opinion, while maintaining claims regarding EP'364. The defendants opposed, arguing the application should be treated as a partial withdrawal under Rule 265 RoP and sought cost decisions. The Milan Local Division granted leave to limit the claims under Rule 263.3 RoP, rejected the request for partial reimbursement of court fees, and postponed the costs decision to the main proceedings.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom S.r.l.
Prinoth S.p.A., a leading Italian manufacturer of snow groomers and tracked vehicles, filed an application before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Milan seeking an order for preservation of evidence, inspection, and seizure against Xelom S.r.l., an innovative startup developing an electric snow groomer (Snow Cat). Prinoth suspected that Xelom's vehicle reproduced the teachings of its European patents EP1995159 and EP2507436. The Court granted the order inaudita altera parte, authorizing inspection of Xelom's and its parent company Technoalpin's premises, seizure of a sample vehicle, and forensic copying of digital evidence, subject to a security deposit of €75,000.
Bhagat Textile Engineers - Application for Access to Case File (Rule 262.1(b) RoP) v.Ex Parte
Bhagat Textile Engineers, a member of the public, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to the case file of a counterclaim for revocation filed by Himson Engineering in an infringement action brought by Oerlikon Textile regarding patent EP2145848. Bhagat sought access to support its pending appeal and suspension request in a parallel proceeding where it had been found liable for infringement. The Milan Local Division rejected the application, holding that the information sought could be obtained through published court decisions or would be available with the final decision, and that the integrity of the proceedings outweighed Bhagat's interest in using the documents for defense in another forum.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division concerning an infringement action brought by Dainese S.p.A. against multiple defendants including Alpinestars S.p.A. regarding European patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. Dainese applied to extend the deadline for filing its Defence to Counterclaims for revocation and Reply to statements of defence filed by Defendants 2 and 6 until February 27, 2025, to coordinate with pending EPO opposition proceedings. The Judge-Rapporteur granted the application, finding that the extension promoted procedural efficiency while preserving the adversarial rights of all parties, and invited the parties to submit a joint request for alignment of future procedural deadlines.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning Dainese S.p.A.'s application under Rule 262A RoP for protection of confidential information in connection with a partial withdrawal of its infringement action. The dispute centered on Exhibit 70, a settlement agreement between Dainese and Defendant 4 (Horizon Moto 95 - Maxxess Cergy), which Dainese sought to keep confidential from other defendants and third parties. The Court granted confidentiality protection, restricted access to specific named individuals from Defendants 1 and 6, and ordered Dainese to file English translations of the documents.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division concerning Dainese S.p.A.'s application under Rule 262A RoP for protection of confidential information in an infringement action involving European Patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. Dainese sought complete refusal of access to unredacted versions of its written submissions, while Defendants 1 (Alpinestars S.p.A.) and 6 (Motocard Bike, S.L.) opposed this and requested access. The Court established a 'confidential club' limiting access to specified lawyers/representatives and natural persons from each party, ordered production of English translations, and granted leave to appeal.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action brought by Dainese S.p.A. against Alpinestars S.p.A. and other defendants regarding European patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. Defendant Alpinestars S.p.A. requested an extension of the deadline for filing its Statement of Defence and counterclaim for revocation to await the outcome of parallel EPO appeal proceedings. The court granted the extension to 27 February 2025, balancing procedural efficiency with the adversarial principle.
Insulet Corporation v.Eoflow Co Ltd
The Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Insulet Corporation's application for a cost decision against Eoflow Co Ltd, which had unsuccessfully attempted to intervene in provisional measures proceedings concerning patent EP4201327. The Court held that the rules on costs (Rules 150 et seq. RoP) require a prior existing decision on costs in principle, and since the order refusing Eoflow's intervention contained no such cost decision, the application was procedurally deficient.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
Procedural Order
Himson Engineering Private Limited v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG
Procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rescheduling an Interim Conference in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2145848. The defendant Himson Engineering Private Limited declared unavailability due to prior professional commitments, and the court rescheduled the conference to the afternoon of the same day and converted it to a video-conference format with the agreement of all parties.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP2145848, owned by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG against Himson Engineering Private Limited. The order sets out the agenda for the upcoming Interim Conference and Oral Hearing, addressing issues including settlement possibilities, translation errors in the Italian patent validation, Himson's counterclaim for revocation, Oerlikon's auxiliary requests, the infringement claim, and ancillary measures. The Interim Conference was postponed from 29 November 2024 to 6 December 2024 due to a general strike in Italy.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Insulet Corporation sought provisional measures from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against A. Menarini Diagnostics, alleging infringement of European patent EP 4 201 327 through the sale of the EOPatch/GlucoMen Day Pump insulin patch pump. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Insulet failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the patent was valid and infringed, and that the balance of interests did not favor granting the injunction. Insulet was ordered to pay EUR 117,465.00 as interim costs.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd and Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. filed an application for provisional measures before the Local Division in Milan of the Unified Patent Court against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd and Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH, seeking to prevent the alleged infringement of its European Patent EP 2519412 concerning motorcycle tyres. The defendants were scheduled to exhibit allegedly infringing products at the EICMA International Cycle and Motorcycle Exhibition in Rho-Fiera, Milan, from 5-10 November 2024. The court granted the limited request for seizure and delivery of the contested products and related promotional materials, along with authorization for alternative service at the defendants' exhibition stand.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. and China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Automotive Sub-council
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. sought provisional measures from the Local Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co. Ltd. and CCPIT, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 519 207 (titled 'motorcycles tyre') by tires marketed as HA-51R and HA-51F. The court found the requirements for provisional measures satisfied, including urgency due to the imminent EICMA 2024 trade fair in Milan, and authorized the seizure of the allegedly infringing tires and related promotional materials at the respondents' exhibition stand.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited
Cardo Systems, Ltd. filed an application for provisional measures without hearing the other party before the Local Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court, seeking a preliminary injunction against Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited based on European Patent No. EP 4 240 194, which relates to a fastening device for communication units. The Court granted the provisional measures, including an injunction, an order for delivery up of infringing products at EICMA 2024, and penalty payments, subject to the Applicant providing security of €100,000.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 145 848 B1 ('false twist texturing machine') with unitary effect in Italy and Germany, sued Bhagat Textile Engineers for infringement after Bhagat exhibited an allegedly infringing machine at the ITMA trade fair in Milan in June 2023. Bhagat did not contest the validity of the patent or the infringement, but denied damages and sought suspension pending a parallel revocation action. The Milan Local Division found infringement, granted a permanent injunction with a penalty, awarded provisional damages, and ordered Bhagat to bear 80% of the costs.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Insulet Corporation
This procedural order concerns an application by EOFLOW Co Ltd to intervene under Rule 313 RoP in provisional measures proceedings brought by Insulet Corporation against A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. concerning alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4201327 relating to a patch-insulin pump. The Milan Local Division dismissed the application to intervene, holding that the balance of interests favored a speedy decision in the interim proceedings, that Eoflow's arguments were already being addressed in parallel proceedings before the Milan Central Division, and that the provisional measures would only affect Eoflow indirectly.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (Eoflow Co Ltd Intervention)
Eoflow Co Ltd applied to intervene in provisional measures proceedings brought by Insulet Corporation against A. Menarini Diagnostics concerning alleged infringement of EP 4201327 (a patch-insulin pump patent). The Milan Local Division dismissed the application to intervene, holding that the efficiency of the interim proceedings and the applicant's interest in a speedy decision outweighed Eoflow's interest in intervening, particularly since Eoflow was already a defendant in parallel infringement proceedings before the Milan Central Division.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order concerns Oerlikon's application under Rule 30.2 of the Rules of Procedure to file an eighth auxiliary request (AR8) to amend European Patent EP 2 145 848 B1 in infringement proceedings against Himson Engineering. The court refused the application, finding that AR8 was not an effective response to the new prior art attack based on US '795, could have been introduced earlier with respect to DE '042, was not capable of influencing the outcome, and violated Articles 84 and 123(2) EPC.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. S.p.A. and Danieli Automation S.p.A.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH (PTA), proprietor of European Patent EP 2624977 relating to a driver for a steel strip coiling installation, filed an ex parte application before the Local Division in Milan of the Unified Patent Court seeking an order to preserve evidence and inspect the premises of Danieli & C. S.p.A. and Danieli Automation S.p.A. PTA alleged that a driver manufactured by the Danieli group and installed at Nucor Steel Gallatin in Kentucky, US, infringed claims of EP977. The Court granted the order, authorizing inspection of the defendants' premises, seizure of relevant documentation, and appointment of an expert, subject to a security deposit of 25,000 Euros.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Insulet Corporation
This procedural order from the Milan Local Division concerns A. Menarini Diagnostics' request to classify certain portions of its Objection to an Application for provisional measures as confidential information. The Court granted confidentiality protection to both the technical descriptions of the Attacked Embodiment and Menarini's business figures, while establishing a restricted confidentiality club for access. The Court deferred the enforceability of the order to allow time for appeal.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality protection of certain documents filed by Oerlikon in an infringement action regarding EP2145848. The court addressed the treatment of two documents: Document 37 (a Settlement Agreement with a Chinese operator) was withdrawn from evidence entirely, while Document 38 (commercial data) was granted confidential status with restricted access to a defined 'club' of individuals.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application under Rule 262A RoP for the protection of confidential information filed by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG in an infringement action against Himson Engineering Private Limited regarding patent EP2145848. Oerlikon sought confidentiality protection for two documents (a Settlement Agreement with a Chinese third party and commercial data), requesting access be restricted to Himson's lawyers only. The Court excluded Document 37 from the evidentiary record entirely after Oerlikon withdrew it, and granted restricted 'club' access to Document 38 for Himson's lawyer, one technical consultant, and one natural person representing Himson.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Milan in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2145848. The order addresses various procedural matters following the Interim Conference, including the claimant's access to the expert's report from the prior evidence preservation order, deadlines for further submissions, the value of the case, and confirmation of the oral hearing date.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance, Milan Local Division, in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP2145848 owned by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG against Bhagat Textile Engineers. The order addresses preparations for an interim conference scheduled for 27 May 2024, balancing the principle of public transparency with the protection of confidential information, particularly regarding litigation costs.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request under Rule 262A RoP for a confidentiality order. The applicant Oerlikon sought to protect financial information (document no. 19) filed in preparation for the Interim Conference regarding costs documentation, requesting that access be limited to a 'club' of only Bhagat's lawyers, excluding the party itself. The respondent Bhagat did not oppose the request, and the court granted the confidentiality order, finding the information qualified as confidential under Article 58 UPCA.
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.