Milan (IT) Local Division
61 cases · page 2 of 3
Showing 31–59Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
This Milan Local Division decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning the protection of confidential information during patent litigation. Ericsson, the Claimant, sought an 'external eyes only' regime to ensure its proprietary data remained protected while maintaining full adversarial access. The Court granted this specialized confidentiality club, allowing restricted access to unredacted documents for authorized parties and experts from both sides. This ruling provides a clear procedural pathway for managing highly sensitive trade secrets within the UPC framework.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars Research S.p.A.
This UPC preliminary order addressed a jurisdictional challenge raised by Alpinestars Research S.p.A. against Dainese S.p.A.'s infringement claim. The Court ruled that, as the defendant was domiciled in an EU Member State participating in the UPCA, the Milan Local Division possessed universal jurisdiction. Crucially, the court affirmed its competence to hear claims concerning patents validated outside the UPC system, specifically in Spain. This decision reinforces the broad territorial reach of the UPC when dealing with defendants within the Union.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A.
This UPC decision addresses a critical jurisdictional challenge raised by Alpinestars S.p.A. against Dainese S.p.A.'s infringement claim. The Milan Local Division affirmed its universal jurisdiction, confirming that as the court of domicile for the defendant, the UPC can adjudicate on infringements related to European patents validated outside the UPCA territory (specifically Spain). This ruling solidifies the expansive territorial reach of the UPC in relation to defendants domiciled within participating Member States.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l.
This UPC CFI decision addressed an application by Dainese S.p.A. to limit its claims in an infringement action, specifically dropping one patent (EP'117) while maintaining another (EP'364). The court ruled that since the limitation was unconditional and only involved reducing the scope of the claim rather than withdrawing the entire case, Rule 263(3) RoP applied. This confirms that patentees can unilaterally limit their claims without penalty under this rule, ensuring procedural flexibility while deferring cost allocation until the main proceedings.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A.; Alpinestars Research S.p.A.; Motocard Bike S.l.
Dainese S.p.A. sought leave to limit its infringement claims from two patents (EP4072364 and EP3498117) after an adverse EPO decision restricted the scope of one patent. The UPC Milan Local Division granted this request unconditionally, confirming that a limitation of claim is a valid form of case amendment under Rule 263(3) RoP. This ruling clarifies that when a claimant limits its claims rather than withdrawing the entire action, the proceedings continue against the defendant regarding the remaining patents, and cost allocation is deferred until the final judgment.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom S.R.L.
Prinoth S.p.A., a global leader in snow grooming vehicles, successfully obtained an urgent provisional measures order from the UPC CFI against Xelom S.R.L. The court authorized inspection of premises and seizure of the disputed electric snow groomer ('Snow Cat'). This decision is significant as it allows patent holders to secure evidence early in litigation when infringement is suspected but not yet proven.
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG, Himson Engineering Private Limited
This UPC decision addressed a public access application filed by Bhagat Textile Engineers seeking access to documents in an infringement and revocation action. The court ultimately denied the access request, emphasizing that while transparency is important, it must be balanced against the integrity of the judicial process and the procedural rights of the parties involved. The ruling highlights the high bar for 'public interest' when a party seeks information primarily to support its own litigation strategy.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Omnia Retail S.r.l., Horizon Moto 95 - Maxxess Cergy, Zund.Stoff Augsburg/Ulrich Herpich E.K., Motocard Bike S.l.
In this procedural order, Dainese S.p.A. successfully requested an extension of deadlines related to its infringement action against several defendants. The UPC Court recognized the need for coordination between the ongoing litigation and parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO concerning EP3498117. By granting the extension, the court prioritized procedural fairness and efficiency over simply staying the case, ensuring all parties have adequate time to examine the EPO's decisions.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars Research S.p.A., ULRICH HERPICH E.K, Alpinestars S.p.A., OMNIA RETAIL S.R.L. , HORIZON MOTO 95 - MAXXESS CERGY, MOTOCARD BIKE, S.L.
This procedural order in a UPC case addressed the claimant's request for protection of confidential information. The Court found that the submitted documents met the criteria for confidentiality, recognizing their economic value and non-public nature. Crucially, the ruling balanced the fundamental right to be heard against the need to protect trade secrets by strictly limiting access to specific individuals from the involved defendants.
Dainese S.p.A. v.ALPINESTARS S.p.A., ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p.A., OMNIA RETAIL S.R.L., HORIZON MOTO 95 - MAXXESS CERGY, ZUND.STOFF AUGSBURG, MOTOCARD BIKE, S.L.
This procedural order addresses a request by Dainese S.p.A. to protect confidential information related to a settlement agreement reached with one of the defendants (Defendant No. 4). The UPC Local Division affirmed that this document, which details the waiver of claims in the main infringement proceeding, qualifies as protected confidential information under Article 58 UPCA and relevant rules. Consequently, access to the unredacted version was severely restricted, highlighting the court's commitment to balancing transparency with the protection of sensitive commercial dealings.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance granted a request by Alpinestars S.p.A. to extend its deadline for filing defenses and revocation counterclaims. The court emphasized that coordinating UPC proceedings with parallel EPO appeals can be achieved through flexible procedural measures, such as extensions, rather than resorting to a stay. This ruling reinforces the balance between judicial efficiency and ensuring all parties have full rights of defense in complex patent litigation.
Insulet Corporation v.Eoflow Co Ltd
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application for costs following the dismissal of an intervention request. Insulet Corporation attempted to recover legal costs from Eoflow Co Ltd after its intervention was rejected in a parallel provisional measures proceeding concerning the patch-insulin pump EP4201327. The Court dismissed the cost claim, ruling that the initial order refusing intervention did not constitute a principle decision on costs and that Eoflow could not be treated as an 'unsuccessful party' at that stage.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order in the UPC case Oerlikon v Himson addresses key strategic issues in a complex infringement and revocation action concerning textile machinery. The Court confirmed that both parties' claims are narrowly focused on Claim 1, reinforcing the 'front loaded' principle of the UPC system. Furthermore, the court managed evidentiary disputes, allowing for video evidence while restricting late-stage document submissions to maintain procedural efficiency. This decision sets a clear path forward toward an oral hearing in mid-2025.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH &CO KK v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order in the UPC case UPC_CFI_240/2023 involves Oerlikon Textile GmbH &CO KK (Claimant) against Himson Engineering Private Limited (Respondent) regarding patent EP2145848. The court addressed a scheduling conflict raised by the defendant and subsequently issued an order to postpone the Interim Conference. This highlights the UPC's procedural flexibility in managing complex litigation schedules.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
In this procedural order (UPC_CFI_240/2023), Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG addressed its infringement claim against Himson Engineering Private Limited regarding patent EP2145848. The court focused heavily on case management, defining the scope of evidence and arguments for the upcoming oral hearing. Key issues included Himson's counterclaim for revocation, Oerlikon's auxiliary requests, and the admissibility of video and testimonial evidence. Due to a general strike in Italy, the interim conference was postponed.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Insulet Corporation sought provisional measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics regarding the infringement of its insulin patch pump patent (EP 4201327). The Court dismissed Insulet's application, finding that the necessary cumulative evidence—including a sufficient degree of certainty regarding validity and imminent infringement—was not met. This decision underscores the high procedural bar required to obtain interim relief in UPC proceedings, particularly when faced with multiple validity challenges.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. and Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH
In a critical case concerning motorcycle tires, Pirelli Tyre successfully obtained provisional measures from the UPC Local Division in Milan against Tianjin Kingtyre and Kingtyre Deutschland. Facing an imminent trade fair where infringing products were set to be displayed, Pirelli secured an order for the seizure and delivery of contested goods. This ruling underscores the UPC's ability to provide rapid interim relief in complex infringement cases while maintaining procedural safeguards.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
Pirelli Tyre sought provisional measures against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. and CCPIT ahead of a major trade show, alleging that the respondent was selling infringing motorcycle tyres. The UPC Court of First Instance granted seizure and delivery of the contested products and promotional material to prevent further commercialization during the event. This decision allows Pirelli to secure evidence while reserving the final determination of infringement for the merits phase.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. And Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co. Limited
Cardo Systems successfully obtained a provisional injunction against Shenzhen Asmax and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co. Limited regarding the patented fastening device EP 4 240 194. The Court granted the preliminary measure without hearing the defendants, immediately halting their ability to market or use the infringing product across UPC member states. This decision highlights the speed and effectiveness of provisional measures within the Unified Patent Court system for protecting IP rights.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Oerlikon Textile successfully sued Bhagat Textile Engineers for infringing its patent covering a false twist texturing machine. The Milan Local Division found infringement and issued an injunction prohibiting the sale and promotion of the infringing machine in Italy and Germany. Furthermore, the court imposed a penalty of 12,000 Euro per violation episode and awarded Oerlikon interim damages of 15,000 Euro.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
This procedural order addressed an application by Eoflow Co Ltd to intervene in a provisional measures case brought by Insulet Corporation against A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. The Court ultimately dismissed the intervention request. The ruling emphasized the UPC's commitment to efficiency and speedy decision-making, particularly in urgent interim injunction proceedings, even when procedural rules allow for third-party participation.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
In this procedural order concerning provisional measures, the UPC dismissed an application by Eoflow Co Ltd to intervene in a dispute between Insulet Corporation and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. The intervener, who manufactured the disputed product, sought to support the defendant against the injunction request. The Court determined that allowing the intervention would excessively slow down the urgent provisional measures proceeding, especially since the intervener was already involved in parallel litigation before the Central Division.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
In this procedural order concerning the revocation of EP2145848, Oerlikon sought to introduce an eighth auxiliary request (AR8) based on new prior art. The UPC Court ruled against Oerlikon, emphasizing that Rule 30.2 ROP is a restrictive measure designed to prevent endless amendments and maintain procedural efficiency. This decision reinforces the strict requirements for introducing subsequent amendments in patent litigation.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. s.p.a.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH successfully obtained a provisional measure from the UPC Local Division in Milan, securing an order to preserve evidence and inspect premises of Danieli Group companies. The applicant sought this ex-parte order based on strong suspicion that the defendants' products infringed EP 2624977, which covers drivers for steel strip coiling installations. This decision is significant as it demonstrates the UPC's willingness to grant early investigative measures when a clear prima facie case of infringement and patent validity exists.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Insulet Corporation
In a procedural order concerning provisional measures, the UPC addressed a request for confidentiality protection. The Court granted access restrictions on specific technical and business information submitted by A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., classifying it as confidential. While rejecting the defendant's motion that all highlighted portions were secret, the ruling established strict rules governing who could view this sensitive data. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to balancing urgent proceedings with robust protection of proprietary information.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order addressed a request for confidentiality regarding sensitive documents submitted during an infringement action. The UPC ruled that certain redacted commercial data was protected as confidential information, granting access only to specific parties of the respondent's team. Conversely, a settlement agreement document was excluded from evidence entirely. This decision highlights the court's nuanced approach to balancing trade secret protection with procedural fairness in complex patent litigation.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
In this procedural order within an infringement action, Oerlikon Textile sought protection for confidential information contained in documents submitted during litigation. The UPC Court addressed two key documents: a settlement agreement (Doc n. 37) and commercial data (Doc n. 38). The court ultimately excluded the highly sensitive settlement agreement from evidence while granting Himson Engineering limited, controlled access to the redacted commercial data under strict confidentiality rules.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG initiated infringement proceedings against Bhagat Textile Engineers concerning a textile machinery patent (EP2145848). The case is currently in the procedural phase, with the court addressing key evidentiary issues such as whether the defendant commercialized the infringing machines. The judge issued a detailed order setting strict deadlines for both parties to submit documents related to expert reports, royalties, and settlement proposals. This ruling highlights the UPC's rigorous approach to evidence management before proceeding to trial.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This procedural order from the UPC Court of First Instance addresses the balance between public transparency and the protection of confidential business information during an infringement case. The court confirmed that while proceedings are generally public, it retains the power to limit access during the interim conference if sensitive data is discussed. This decision provides clear guidance on how parties can manage their proprietary information within the UPC framework.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division granted a motion for confidentiality concerning sensitive financial and commercial information provided during cost documentation. The Court found that because the respondent did not object, it was permissible to limit access to these 'redacted' documents exclusively to the respondent's legal counsel. This decision reinforces the flexibility of the Unified Patent Court system to protect trade secrets while maintaining procedural fairness.
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.