Denied
15 denied decisions from Milan (IT) Local Division.
Denied Decisions
15 cases | Page 1 of 1
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. S.p.A.
In this procedural case, Primetals Technologies sought an order compelling Danieli & C. S.p.A. to produce extensive technical and commercial documentation related to a plant in Vietnam that Primetals alleged infringed EP 2 624 977. The court ultimately rejected the request, finding that Primetals had not provided sufficient or plausible evidence to substantiate its claims of infringement. This decision underscores the high evidentiary threshold required when seeking discovery orders under UPC rules.
3V Sigma S.p.A v.A.G.A. S.r.l.
This UPC decision concerns a request for provisional measures aimed at protecting evidence related to alleged patent infringement in the cosmetic industry. 3V Sigma sought an order to secure technical and commercial documentation regarding a competing UV filter, MFSorb 513. Although the initial protective measure was granted against ACEF Srl, the subsequent appeal/request for review by AGA and ACEF was fully dismissed by the Milan Local Division. The ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements for applicants seeking ex parte evidence protection.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom s.r.l.
This UPC decision concerns a motion to review an urgent order for evidence preservation, inspection, and seizure granted by Prinoth S.p.A. against Xelom s.r.l. The dispute centers on alleged infringement of patents related to snow groomers (battipista). The Tribunal upheld the original protective measure, emphasizing that preliminary injunctions based on urgency require only a statistical likelihood of evidence destruction, not concrete proof. This ruling provides important guidance on the scope and quantification of damages in urgent IP proceedings.
PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG v.AWM s.r.l.
In a significant decision, the UPC Court of First Instance revoked patent EP 2726230 B1 after finding that prior art disclosures by AWM s.r.l., through the marketing of older JIT machines, invalidated the claims. The infringement action brought by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG was subsequently dismissed. This case underscores the critical importance of thorough prior art searches and the impact of pre-filing commercial activity on patent validity in UPC proceedings.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This UPC Local Division case concerned a procedural application by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG seeking to correct an alleged material error in a prior cost award decision. Oerlikon argued that the initial ruling undervalued their recoverable costs, specifically citing a phrase suggesting an additional €20,000 for the main action. The Court ultimately rejected this request, finding that the entire motivational reasoning of the original judgment consistently supported the final awarded sum of €80,000. This decision reinforces the principle that the full context and motivation of a court order must be considered when assessing clerical errors under ROP 353.
Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber co. Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a request for re-establishment of rights filed by Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber co. Ltd., following an initial seizure order issued by Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. The core dispute centered on whether procedural notification failures constituted a cause outside the respondent's control, thereby allowing them to reset missed deadlines. The Court ultimately rejected the application, holding that the refusal of the recipient to accept the documents fulfilled the legal requirements for service under Italian law. This ruling reinforces the strict adherence required to UPC procedural timelines.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM S.R.L.
This UPC CFI decision addressed a procedural application by the patent proprietor seeking access to expert reports gathered during provisional measures. The Court ruled against Progress Maschinen & Automation AG, finding that the applicant failed to initiate substantive proceedings within the mandatory timeframe established by the initial order. Consequently, the provisional measures were revoked and the request for report disclosure was dismissed. This case underscores the strict procedural requirements governing evidence preservation in UPC actions.
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.