87 cases · page 2 of 3
Showing 31–59Morello 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.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Respondent
This case concerns Ericsson's application for panel review of a decision by the Judge Rapporteur rejecting its request for an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime to protect sensitive licensing information submitted in connection with a patent infringement action involving EP 2727242. The Milan Local Division Panel dismissed the application, finding that Ericsson failed to provide concrete factual evidence demonstrating an actual risk of antitrust violations from disclosure to a single Asustek employee. However, the Panel granted Ericsson leave to appeal in order to allow the Court of Appeal to set a standard on this issue.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.SCHNELL S.p.A., AWM s.r.l.
This is a procedural order issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division following an online interim conference held on 5 June 2025 in proceedings between Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (claimant) and AWM s.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A. (defendants). The order addresses several procedural matters, including the admissibility of a new version of auxiliary request AR4, which was referred to the Panel for assessment at the oral hearing. The parties were also granted a fifteen-day period to negotiate the value of the infringement action, the value of the counterclaim for revocation, and the amount of recoverable costs.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Respondent
This order concerns a joint request by all parties to stay proceedings under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure in relation to one of two patents at issue. Dainese S.p.A. had filed an infringement action against Alpinestars and other defendants concerning EP '117 and EP '364, with counterclaims for revocation filed against both patents. Following an EPO Board of Appeal decision maintaining EP '117 in amended form, Dainese withdrew its infringement claims regarding EP '117, leaving only the revocation counterclaim pending. The Court held that when all parties jointly request a stay under Rule 295(d), the Court has no discretion and must order the stay, and granted the stay solely in respect of EP '117 while allowing proceedings concerning EP '364 to continue.
3VSigma v.AGA-ACEF
Act. no. 18051/2025 UPC CFI no. 342/2025 1 di 20 ACT. NO. 18051/2025 UPC CFI NO. 342/2025 ORDER NO. 21737/2025 TRIBUNALE UNIFICATO DEI BREVETTI TRIBUNALE DI PRIMO GRADO DIVISIONE LOCALE DI MILANO ORDINE DI PROTEZIONE DELLE PROVE depositato il 19.5.2025 RICHIEDENTE 3
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
1. Nel procedimento disciplinato dalle rule 150 e segg RoP, il tetto massimo dei costi di difesa rimborsabili a favore della parte a cui tale diritto è stato riconosciuto da una decisione di merito, in ossequio al principio di proporzionalità, può essere raggiunto solo in situazioni limitate, ad esempio per la complessità delle questioni trattate, per il numero di brevetti esaminati, per le parti coinvolte o per l’uso di più lingue. 2. Nel procedimento disciplinato dalle rule 150 e segg Ro
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Respondent
This case before the Milan Local Division concerned the withdrawal of infringement and revocation proceedings involving patent EP3076673 against Digital River Ireland Ltd. following Digital River's insolvency and winding-up order by the High Court of Ireland. Both Ericsson and Digital River agreed to mutual withdrawal of the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, but disagreed on costs. The Court allowed the withdrawals, ordered the main proceedings to continue against the remaining defendants (Asustek and Arvato), and held that both Ericsson and Digital River should bear their own costs.
ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
This order concerns an application by the Defendants (Asustek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.) under Rules 262A and 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure to restrict access to certain confidential documents (referred to as 'Asustek Confidential Documents') in proceedings involving alleged infringement of European patent EP3076673. The Defendants sought to limit access to the unredacted versions of these documents to a defined circle of individuals, including the Claimant's authorized representatives, one private licensing/valuation expert, and one named natural person from the Claimant. The Claimant filed a response to the application, and the judge-rapporteur issued a preliminary order granting the Claimant time to file comments.
ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p.A v.Dainese S.p.A.
1. The UPC “shall be deemed to be a court of a Member State” pursuant the Article 71a of the Regulation (EU) n. 1215/2012 (recast) as amended by Regulation (EU) 542/2014. Its interpretation provided for by the Court of Justice of the European Union apply to the UPC as it were a national court. 2. In light of Court of Justice decision in case C-339/2022, 25 February 2025, UPC Milan Local Division has universal jurisdiction to adjudicate on infringement issues related to European patents ove
Alpinestars S.p.A. v.Dainese S.p.A.
1. The UPC “shall be deemed to be a court of a Member State” pursuant the Article 71a of the Regulation (EU) n. 1215/2012 (recast) as amended by Regulation (EU) 542/2014. Its interpretation provided for by the Court of Justice of the European Union apply to the UPC as it were a national court. 2. In light of Court of Justice decision in case C-339/2022, 25 February 2025, UPC Milan Local Division has universal jurisdiction to adjudicate on infringement issues related to European patents ove
Dainese S.p.A. v.Respondent
Dainese S.p.A., the claimant in infringement proceedings concerning European patents EP4072364 and EP3498117, filed an application under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its claims by withdrawing all arguments related to EP'117 following an adverse Board of Appeal decision at the EPO, while maintaining its claims regarding EP'364. The defendants contended that the application constituted a partial withdrawal governed by Rule 265 RoP, requiring the claimant to bear the defendants' costs. The Milan Local Division held that Rule 263.3 RoP applies both to limitations of the relief sought (petitum) and to limitations of the cause of action (causa petendi), and that unlike Rule 265 RoP, Rule 263 RoP does not regulate proceeding costs because the proceedings continue against the defendants in relation to the remaining claims.
PRINOTH S.P.A. v.XELOM S.R.L.
Prinoth S.p.A., a world leader in the production of snow groomers and tracked vehicles, sought an ex parte order for preservation of evidence, inspection, and seizure against Xelom S.r.l., an innovative start-up belonging to the Technoalpin group. Prinoth alleged that Xelom's newly developed electric snow groomer (Snow Cat), which had been deployed at several ski resorts in Austria, South Tyrol, Trento, Stockholm, and Bolzano, infringed its European patents EP1995159 and EP2507436 relating to snow groomers and their control methods. The Presiding Judge determined that the conditions for extreme urgency were not met and appointed a Judge Rapporteur to convene the applicant for further clarifications regarding documents and search keywords.
Bhagat Textile Engineers (Bhagat) v.Respondent
Bhagat Textile Engineers applied for access to documents and written submissions in a revocation counterclaim filed by Himson Engineering Private Limited against Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG concerning European Patent EP214548. Bhagat sought the documents to substantiate a renewed request for suspension of its appeal in a parallel infringement action. The Milan Local Division denied the application, finding that the information was obtainable through other channels and that granting access would compromise the integrity of the proceedings.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Respondent
This preliminary procedural order was issued by the Court of First Instance, Milan Local Division, on February 7, 2025, in proceedings brought by Dainese S.p.A. against multiple defendants including Alpinestars entities and retailers. Dainese sought an extension of its deadline for filing its Defence to Counterclaims for revocation and its Reply to the statements of defence filed by Defendants 2 and 6, from February 13, 2025 to February 27, 2025, citing coordination with an EPO oral hearing scheduled for February 13, 2025. The Court granted the extension, finding that the same coordination reasons previously accepted for Defendant 1 applied equally to the Claimant, and emphasized the principle of parity between attacking and defending parties.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Respondent
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_472/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 24/01/2025 Order no. ORD_68843/2024 DAINESE S.p.A. - Plaintiff - against ALPINESTARS S.p.A. - Defendant 1 - and against ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p
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. v.Dainese S.p.A.
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_472/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 24/01/2025 Order no. ORD_68844/2024 DAINESE S.p.A. - Plaintiff - against ALPINESTARS S.p.A. - Defendant 1 - and against ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p
Alpinestars S.p.A. v.Respondent
1. The coordination between the appeals proceedings before the EPO and the proceedings be- fore UPC may be achieved in the most efficient way, taking into account the position of all
Insulet Corporation v.Respondent
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_400/2024 FINAL ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 30/12/2024 Order no. ORD_60558/2024 Head notes 1. In proceedings for costs decision under rules 150 RoP et seq. an already existing decision on costs in pr
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement dispute between Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG and Himson Engineering Private Limited regarding European Patent EP2145848. The proceedings originated from an ex parte evidence preservation order obtained by Oerlikon in June 2023 in connection with the ITMA trade fair held in Rho, Milan. Himson filed a counterclaim for revocation challenging the patent's validity on grounds of added matter, novelty, and inventive step, while Oerlikon introduced seven auxiliary requests. The order addresses procedural matters discussed at the interim conference, including settlement prospects, translation corrections, and the scope of the validity attack.
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.