Litigation
72 litigation decisions from Milan (IT) Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
72 cases | Page 1 of 3
KeyMed (Medical & Industrial Equipment) Limited v.PR Medical s.r.l.
The defendant, PR Medical s.r.l., an Italian company, raised a preliminary objection requesting that the language of proceedings be changed from English to Italian, arguing that Rule 14(2)(b) RoP and Article 33(1)(a) UPCA required Italian as the language since it is based in Italy and the alleged infringement occurred there. The Milan Local Division rejected the objection, holding that the two cumulative conditions of Rule 14.2(b) RoP were not both satisfied because the claimant had alleged and shown infringement in other Contracting Member States (notably Germany and Spain), meaning the action could have been brought before other local divisions.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
This is an order issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division following an interim conference held on 11 February 2026 in a patent infringement action brought by Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. The order addresses procedural matters including the late filing of SYR's comments, the withdrawal of SYR's preliminary objection regarding notification, the admissibility of Pirelli's photographic evidence, and arrangements for the contradictory examination of seized tire samples. The court scheduled the oral hearing for 14 April 2026 and set the value of the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation at 500,000 Euro each.
AWM S.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A. v.Progress Maschinen & Automation AG
This case concerns an application by AWM S.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A. for a cost decision under R. 150 RoP following their successful infringement action and counterclaim for revocation against Progress Maschinen & Automation AG. Progress opposed the application, arguing that its appeal against the first instance decision triggered an automatic suspensive effect under Article 74(2) UPCA. The Court of First Instance, Milan Local Division, stayed the cost proceedings pending the outcome of Progress's appeal before the Court of Appeal.
Agathon AG v.Intercom s.r.l. and KNARR Vertriebs GmbH
This is an interim conference order issued by the Milan Local Division in proceedings UPC CFI no. 727/2024 and no. 493/2025, concerning a patent infringement action by Agathon AG against Intercom s.r.l. and KNARR Vertriebs GmbH, along with a counterclaim for revocation. The order addresses procedural matters including the conditional nature of auxiliary requests, admissibility of certain annexes, the framework for arguments on infringement by equivalence, the value of the actions, and the preparation of the oral hearing scheduled for 24 March 2026.
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
This order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed the issue of service of process on Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd., a defendant domiciled in China, in a patent infringement action concerning EP 4 240 194. Service attempts via the Hague Service Convention were rejected twice by the Chinese central authority on the formal ground that the documents did not use the full name 'Hong Kong, China' when referring to Hong Kong. The court held that Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention is fully applicable in the UPC system and declared the steps already taken to constitute valid service, ordering publication of the order on the court's website.
3V Sigma S.p.A v.A.G.A. S.r.l. and ACEF Srl
Unified Patent Court decision.
Morello Forni Italia S.r.l. and Morello Forni S.A.S. di Morello Marco & C. v.Gastroteam Abbe AB and Salvatore Marciuliano (Marciuliano Attrezzature)
The Unified Patent Court (Court of First Instance, Milan Local Division) issued a default judgment finding that Gastroteam Abbe AB and Salvatore Marciuliano infringed European Patent EP 3691454 B1, which protects a method and apparatus for shaping pizza dough. The defendants, who had been served but failed to appear or file any defense, were ordered to cease manufacturing and distributing the infringing 'Pizza Former' machine, with additional remedies including destruction of infringing products, publication of the decision, and provisional damages.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom s.r.l.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG, proprietor of European Patent EP 2726230 B1 concerning a method and apparatus for continuously producing lattice girders, brought an infringement action against AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a. regarding their Girderflex and Girderflex VSX machines. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, arguing that AWM had publicly disclosed the same technical solution through prior JIT machines before the patent's priority date. The Milan Local Division revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty and inventive step, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Progress to bear the costs.
Hypertherm Inc. v.Tec.Mo. s.r.l.
Hypertherm Inc. filed a patent infringement assessment action against Tec.Mo. s.r.l. before the Local Division of Milan. After the proceedings were suspended to allow settlement negotiations, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and jointly requested termination of the proceedings under rule 360 RoP, along with a 60% reimbursement of court fees under rule 370.9(c)(i) RoP. The court granted both requests, ordering the archiving of the case and the reimbursement of 6,600 Euro to Hypertherm Inc.
3V Sigma S.p.A. v.ACEF S.r.l. and AGA S.r.l.
This order concerns a request by the defendants (ACEF and AGA) for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP regarding documents obtained during the execution of an evidence preservation order in proceedings involving the MFSorb 513 filter. The parties agreed on absolute prohibition of access to certain documents and unrestricted access to others, with the only disputed issue being the composition of the confidentiality club for documents nos. 3 to 18. The Court ruled in favor of a balanced confidentiality regime allowing access to the claimant's representatives, their legal team, one technical consultant, and one natural person from 3V Sigma.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This case before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Milan concerned European Patent EP2145848 held by Oerlikon Textile GmbH. After Oerlikon filed an infringement action against Himson Engineering Private Limited and Himson filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent, both parties reached a settlement and jointly filed a withdrawal of their respective claims. The court admitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered full compensation of costs between the parties, and declined to refund court fees.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Sintec S.r.l. and Value Med S.r.l.
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.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., and Motocard Bike, S.L.
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division concerning an application under Rule 262A RoP for the protection of confidential information in proceedings related to security for costs. Dainese S.p.A. sought to restrict access to certain exhibits and information containing its financial data, while the defendants (Alpinestars entities and Motocard Bike) agreed to confidentiality but requested access for at least one natural person from their side. The Court established a confidentiality club including the defendants' UPC representatives and Ms. Caterina Buccimazza (General Counsel of Defendant 1), granted leave to appeal, and ordered a suspensive effect for the additional person's access.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Following a merits decision in favor of Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG against Bhagat Textile Engineers concerning patent EP2145848, Oerlikon sought rectification under Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure of a costs decision that had awarded €80,000.00 in reimbursable costs. Oerlikon argued that an additional €20,000.00 for the merits phase should have been added to reach a total of €100,000.00. The Court rejected the application, finding that the €80,000.00 figure was consistent throughout both the operative part and the reasoning of the costs decision, and that the contested phrase was merely a typographical error that did not affect the overall calculation.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH and Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. filed an infringement action before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Milan) against Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH and Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. concerning European Patent EP2519412. During the proceedings, Pirelli and Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH entered into a settlement agreement, and Pirelli requested the Court to confirm the settlement, maintain confidentiality over certain financial details, and continue the action against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. The Court confirmed the settlement, ordered confidentiality of the unredacted terms, and granted Pirelli a reimbursement of 30% of the total Court Fees.
SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER CO., LTD. v.Ex Parte
Unified Patent Court decision.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a.
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 before the Milan Local Division. The Claimant, Progress Maschinen & Automation AG, valued the infringement case at EUR 2,000,000, while the Defendants disputed the underlying figures. 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 merits stage.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
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.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an application for panel review under Rule 333 RoP filed by Ericsson regarding the confidentiality regime for its licensing documents in patent infringement proceedings involving EP3076673. Ericsson sought an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime to prevent Asustek's employees from accessing sensitive licensing data involving Asustek's competitors. The Milan Local Division Panel dismissed the application, finding Ericsson failed to provide concrete factual evidence of an actual risk of antitrust violations, but granted leave to appeal to allow the Court of Appeal to set a standard on this issue.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A.
This is a procedural order issued by the Milan Local Division following an interim conference 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 auxiliary request amendment (AR4), withdrawn requests for evidence production and translation, and the scheduling of the oral hearing. The parties were granted a fifteen-day period to negotiate agreement on the value of the actions and legal costs.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A.
This is an interim conference order from the Milan Local Division in proceedings concerning an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. The order addresses several procedural matters including the admissibility of a new auxiliary request (AR4) amendment, withdrawn requests for evidence production and translation, and the scheduling of the oral hearing. The judge-rapporteur referred the admissibility of the AR4 amendment to the Panel for assessment at the oral hearing and granted the parties a fifteen-day period to negotiate agreement on the value of the actions and costs.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., and Motocard Bike S.l.
This order concerns a joint request by all parties to stay proceedings under Rule 295(d) RoP in an infringement and revocation action involving two European patents (EP '117 and EP '364). The Milan Local Division granted a partial stay of proceedings solely with respect to EP '117, holding that where all parties jointly request a stay, the Court has no discretion and must order it. The proceedings regarding EP '364 were allowed to continue as scheduled.
3VSigma v.AGA-ACEF
Order
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Unified Patent Court decision.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.
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.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This case concerns the withdrawal of infringement and revocation proceedings involving EP 2727342 at the Milan Local Division. Following Digital River Ireland Ltd.'s insolvency and winding-up order by the High Court of Ireland, both Ericsson and Digital River sought to withdraw their respective claims against each other. The Court allowed both withdrawals, with the main infringement action continuing against Asustek and Arvato, and ordered both parties to bear their own costs based on principles of fairness and equity.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This case concerns a patent infringement action filed by Ericsson against ASUSTek and related entities regarding patent EP3076673, along with a counterclaim for revocation. The core dispute centered on the confidentiality regime to be applied to certain documents designated as confidential by the Defendants. The Court rejected Ericsson's request for an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime and established a confidentiality club allowing access to specific external representatives, expert witnesses, and one natural person from each party.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This order concerns a confidentiality dispute in patent infringement proceedings before the Milan Local Division. Ericsson filed an infringement action against ASUSTek and related entities regarding patent EP3076673, and the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation along with applications under rules 262A and 262.2 RoP to establish a confidentiality regime for certain documents. The court rejected Ericsson's request for an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime and established a confidentiality club comprising external UPC representatives, licensing expert witnesses, and one natural person from each party.
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.